Brent is lucky to have a number of waterways including the Grand Union Canal, the canal feeder, River Brent, Wealdstone Brook and Wembley Brook plus a number of others that are now mostly underground but reappear  above ground after torrential rain.

New developments often boast of the amenity value of the waterways but as the situation in Alperton demonstrates the amenity value is rapidly devalued if the area is not regularly cleaned and properly maintained.

In a guest blog a resident of the Hyde Housing Estate in Stonebridge describes their experience:

Residents of Hyde Housing estate in Stonebridge Park, NW10, are facing an issue with a canal feeder that runs along the Orchid Mews, NW10, and is inside Hyde Housing Association’s estate and next to benches and gardens where residents are supposed to enjoy the sun.  

 

The canal is not maintained or cleaned at all, and a large amount of litter and animal carcases is what we face daily. The canal’s banks are also full of rubbish. If you chose to enjoy the sun with your family using the provided benches, or if you want to open your window for fresh air, you will need to put up with the canal’s disgusting view.

 

We contacted the Canal and River Trust who confirmed that the responsibility falls with the Hyde Housing Association who took on the responsibility for 125 years (I assume under current land lease). Nevertheless, Hyde Housing have been unable to accept responsibility and maintain the canal. As a result, rubbish and dead animals is the everyday reality for us:

 

From London South East Canal and River Trust

We use three metal grates to prevent rubbish from entering the canal culverts.

However, after talking to colleagues in the area, I can confirm that the Canal and River Trust doesn't own the feeder. The feeder belongs to the Hyde Housing Association.

 

Hyde have never responded to our requests for comments or help and no any action have been taken. They are acting irresponsibly and in breach of their service agreement with the residents, who are paying service charges for cleaning. I assume they are in breach of their lease with the Canal Trust or the Brent Council as the leaseholders of the land the canal is in.  

The London Borough of Brent has also been unable to help. We have been is several discussions with Cllr Promise Knight and other councillors from Stonebridge Ward who has been unable to help. We only hear promises but there has never been a single action from them.

Why  cannot Hyde Housing Association accept responsibility and maintain the canal, keeping it in an acceptable condition? Why are residents paying service charges for cleaning but still they have to face this disgusting canal?      

 

 

Cllr Kieron Gill (Labour - Brondesbury Park)

Reliable sources confirmed tonight that Cllr Kieron Gill who represented Brondesbury Park  ward for Labour has resigned. As yet no reason has been given for the resignation.

Cllr Gill was one of the new cohort of councillors elected in May 2018. Labour made a clean sweep of the ward that previously had Conservative representation.

Cllr Gill made a number of interventions beginning in 2018 moving a motion in Council condemning the deaths of 130 unarmed Gazans at the hands of the Israeli forces. LINK

In 2019 Gill seconded the motion declaring a Climate Emergency in Brent which continues to make an impact on council policy. LINK

In 2020 Cllr Gill hit the headlines when he resigned from the Labour Group's Task Force on Democracy  and went public with his criticism of the Chair of the Task Force, Cllr Thomas Stephens (now in the Cabinet) for producing a 'soft report' and urging his fellow councillors to reject the 'weak offer.'LINK

Finally in February of this year Cllr Gill abstained on the Labour budget. LINK

It appears that another councillor with a streak of independence has gone.

It is likely that the by-election caused by the resignation will be held on May 6th which is the polling day for the GLA and Mayoral election.

The contest is likely to be close as it was in Barnhill and Alperton. 

 From Kensal and Kilburn Better 2021

Thursday 25 March 2021 7.30pm to 8.30pm

19:30 – 20:30 GMT

LRB contributor James Meek, QAAnon's Annie Kelly, psychologist Alexandra Stein & former QAnon believer Jitarth Jadeja talk to Tom Lennard

When QAnon shaman Jake Angeli became the face of the storming of Congress on January 6th this year, the wider world was exposed to this worryingly influential conspiratorial sect. For many, QAnon seemed to appear from out of nowhere. Not so. Conspiracy theories have proliferated in recent decades, aided and abetted by digital technologies and social media platforms.

How worried should we be about conspiracy theories, and are they a threat to democratic norms and digital freedoms? Who benefits from these theories, and how do we help to stem their proliferation and draw people away from such destructive beliefs? How can we distinguish between "conspiracy fact", such as Watergate or MKUltra, and "conspiracy fiction", such as chemtrails and vaccine-microchipping?

Joining the discussion will be Jitarth Jadeja, a former QAnon believer-turned-spokesperson for those re-emerging from conspiracy-led beliefs, Booker Prize long-listed James Meek, author of the recent LRB essay Red Pill, Blue Pill that looks at the power of conspiracy theories in the UK, educator and social psychologist Alexandra Stein, author of Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachments in Cults and Totalitarian Systems, and QAnon Anonymous Podcast's UK correspondent and researcher Annie Kelly, writer of the article Mothers for QAnon.

TICKETS

 From the Brent Council website LINK

A by-election for a vacant council position in the electoral ward of Brondesbury Park in the London Borough of Brent will be held on Thursday 6 May 2021.

This follows the resignation of former Councillor Kieron Gill who informed Carolyn Downs, Returning Officer and Chief Executive of Brent Council, of his decision to step down earlier this week.

The by-election will take place on the same day as the Mayor of London and London Assembly Elections on 6 May, meaning eligible voters in Brondesbury Park ward will be voting in four elections on the same day.

Apply early if you want to vote by post

Voters have a range of options for casting their ballot – in person, by post or by appointing someone they trust to vote in their place, known as a proxy vote.

As with the London elections, Brondesbury Park residents are encouraged to apply early if they want to vote by post, which is the easiest and safest way to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To apply to vote by post, residents must download an application form, complete and sign it and then return it by email to Electoral.Services@brent.gov.uk or by post to Electoral Services, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ.

All applications to vote by post must be received by the council by 5pm on Tuesday 20 April.

Paper application forms can also be requested by emailing Electoral.Services@brent.gov.uk or by calling 020 8937 1372.

Find out more about voting by post.

Register to vote

In order to register to vote by post, residents must first be on the electoral register. The deadline to register to vote in time for the May elections is midnight on Monday 19 April.

It takes just five minutes to apply online.

This is particularly important for anyone who has recently turned 18 or moved address.

You can vote in local elections if you are:

• A British citizen - excluding overseas electors;
• A qualifying Commonwealth citizen (including Cyprus and Malta);
• From Ireland;
• A European Union citizen.

Nominations to stand in by-election

The deadline for nominations to stand in this by-election is 4pm on Thursday 8 April. View election notices.

From Preston Community Library

We are delighted to welcome local author Shrabani Basu, whose new book, 'The Secret of the Parsee Lawyer' is making waves worldwide, and who also wrote 'Victoria and Abdul', since made into a film.

She comes to tell us the incredible story of Noor Inayat Khan: a descendent of the legendary Tipu Sultan, the 18th century ruler of Mysore.

Noor was brought up in London and Paris, and was recruited into the Special Operations Executive during WW2.  She was parachuted behind enemy lines as the first woman radio operative - average life expectancy, six weeks.  Betrayed, captured and incarcerated in Germany, she was tortured, but revealed nothing.  Finally taken to Dachau Concentration Camp, she was shot.  Her final word was 'Liberté'.  

HOW IT WORKS:

Book via Eventbrite on the link below.  This event will livestream on Preston Community Library's Facebook page, and ticket holders will be given a link to join within their emailed ticket.  You don't need a Facebook account to watch it, everyone has access to join, with a chance to leave questions for a Q&A at the end.

More details about are on the poster below:

To book a ticket please click on this link: 

https://spyprincess.eventbrite.co.uk .   Your Free Ticket from Eventbrite will contain a link to join the event on 31st March. Just click on the link on the day. 

 Banner at one of the entrances to Fryent Country Park last week

From the BBC website LINK

Masterplan for the site

Current View

The massive scheme for the Northwick Park partnership scheme comes back to Brent Planning Committee on Monday. for outline permission.  The partners are Brent Council, University of Westminster, NW London NHS and Network Housing:

 20/0700 | Outline planning permission (with all matters reserved apart from the means of access) for demolition of existing buildings on site and provision of up to 1,600 homes and up to 51,749 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within a series of buildings, with the maximum quantum as follows: -(Use Class C3) Residential: up to 1,600 homes; -up to 50,150m2 floor space (GIA) of new student facilities including Student Accommodation, Teaching facilities, Sports facilities, and ancillary retail and commercial (Use Class A1, A2, A3) -up to 412sqm floorspace (GIA) of a replacement nursery (Use Class D1) -up to 1187sqm (GIA) of flexible new retail space (Use Class A1, A2, A3) Together with energy centre, hard and soft landscaping, open space and associated highways improvements and infrastructure works This application is subject to an Environmental Statement | Land adjacent to Northwick Park Hospital, Nightingale Avenue, London, HA1 

 Readers will be familiar with the university buildings on the right as you leave Northwick Park station with a Costa cafe at the entrance and the wildflower meadow on the right as you walk down the alley to the hospital.  The university gave up maintaining the meadow on the basis that it was 'too expensive' to maintain a few years ago - from the illustration above it appears it will be built on.

The ecological impact of the whole scheme has been raised by Sudbury Court Residents Association. Officers respond in a Supplementary Report:

Ecological impact: loss of 387 trees with no details for replacement tree planting. Officer response: It is not always possible to avoid the loss of some trees in bringing new developments forward, however Brent's policies allow for these to be compensated for by replacement tree planting of an appropriate scale and nature. The loss of 130 trees on the Hospital ring road has been accepted in the extant consent to construct the new spine road (reference 20/0677) whilst the loss of 44 trees has been accepted in Planning Committee's resolution to grant permission for the detailed application (reference20/0701), however this is subject to the planting of 208 replacement trees secured by condition, resulting in a net uplift in the number of trees. The remaining 213 trees that would be lost as a result of the later phases of the outline development would also be replaced. Further details of tree planting would be submitted and approved as part of the landscaping scheme required under Condition 33, which requires at least 387replacement trees to be planted across the outline site. The impact on trees is discussed in paragraphs 184to 193 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: removal of trees during bird nesting season and period of bat movement out of hibernation Officer response: The applicant's Ecology Report recommends a number of precautionary measures to avoid or minimise impacts on protected species and other wildlife in the construction period. These include bat inspections prior to felling of any mature trees, measures to be taken if bats or other protected species are observed, vegetation and building removal to take place outside the bird nesting season or in the presence of an ecologist, and protection of active bird nests. These measures would be secured through a Construction Environmental Management Plan required under Condition 28, and the developer would also be subject to the requirements of protected species legislation. See paragraph 206.

 

 Ecological impact: loss of bird and bat populations and other ecological benefits of trees (shelter, food and breeding opportunities for wildlife, clean air) due to loss of trees. Officer response: Although birds were observed on or close to the site, the site overall is very low in suitability for protected and rare bird species or other protected and priority species. No evidence of bat activity or bat roosts was found, and very low numbers of foraging and commuting bats were observed and detected in the area. The tree line along the boundary with Northwick Park would be retained and reinforced by new tree planting, however it is acknowledged that construction work and the removal of some trees near the boundary could result in a temporary loss of and disturbance to habitats, and a financial contribution to ecological enhancements in Northwick Park would be secured as compensation. The proposal would create new habitats of potential ecological value, including rain gardens, and further ecological appraisals would be required post-completion. Ecological impacts are discussed in paragraph 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Ecological impact: Tree saplings will not compensate for loss of mature tree stock or well established wildlife foraging lines. Officer response: The proposals for replacement tree planting are expected to include a mixture of semi-mature and younger trees.

 Further measures requested to reduce increase in pollution and congestion. Officer response: Traffic generation is covered in paragraphs 296 to 303 and 323 of the main report. Travel Plans would be required, to encourage and reinforce sustainable travel choices by occupiers of the development (see paragraphs 322 and 323). These measures are considered sufficient to minimise additional traffic caused by the development.

 

 Details of plans to reduce congestion and pollution in surrounding roads requested, including Watford Road and Sudbury Court Estate. Officer response: As set out in paragraph 303 of the main report, the proposals are expected to reduce congestion, and consequently pollution, on Watford Road. The proposal is unlikely to directly impact on Sudbury Court Estate, as there is no direct vehicular access. An Active Travel Zone Assessment was carried out by the applicants, identifying barriers to sustainable travel choices in the wider area, and this is summarised in paragraphs 324 to 326 of the main report.

 

Further details requested of how bat survey was carried out in line with current best practice. Officer response: These details are set out in the Environmental Statement Volume 3: Appendix: Ecology, which is available on the Council's website. A bat assessment was carried out by an experienced and licensed ecologist, following English Nature Bat Mitigation Guidelines (2004) and Bat Conservation Trust Best Practice Guidelines (2016). The document sets out equipment used, inspection methods, and an assessment of the bat roosting potential of all buildings, trees and habitats on site. Some trees were identified as having moderate and above bat roosting potential, and the Social Club building as having low bat potential. Further surveys were carried out, comprising four dusk emergence / activity surveys and two dawn re-entry / activity surveys in various locations around the site with potential for roosting, foraging or commuting. No evidence of bat activity was observed, and no bat roosts were discovered. Ecological impacts are covered in paragraphs 198 to 208 of the main report.

 

Further details of replacement tree planting as soon as available. Officer response: Further details of replacement tree planting would be secured under Condition 33.

In October last year a councillor for Northwick Park ward expressed concern over ecological issues in a 'neutral' submission and concluded:

Mitigation and protection will not be an easy task here, but is achievable I'm sure. May I remind everyone that this is predominantly a rural site will many SSI areas and not a urban brownfield site, yes there are substantial concrete building, but they are home to Bats, Kestrels and now Peregrine Falcons (recently witnesses from the upper floor of the hospital block), on ground levels there are without doubt Hedgehogs, Badgers, Weasels and many more species just wondering around the secluded areas around the concrete buildings.

I am all for improvements to the site's housing and facilities, but we must protect as well ? Brent Council did declare a Climate Emergency and wildlife obviously is part of this, take our Bee Corridors for instance.

The officers' report includes many of the now  familiar  reasons why they recommend approval despite  the application not meeting some policy guidelines of which the amount of affordable housing,  as well as the number of Shared Ownership  properties are likely to be of concern to councillors

The proposal would provide 40% (by habitable room) affordable homes (including 13% for London Affordable Rent). While the overall proportion of London Affordable Rented homes is not in line with the percentage specified in DMP15, it has been demonstrated that the scheme would deliver the maximum reasonable number of Affordable homes on a policy compliant basis(70:30 ratio of London Affordable Homes to Intermediate), but with additional Affordable Homes delivered, lowering the levels of profit associated with the scheme. These would be delivered as intermediate rented homes, London Living Rent homes and shared ownership homes, and would including housing for NHS keyworkers. Appropriate nominations agreements will be secured within the Section 106 Agreement. The Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with the application has been robustly reviewed on behalf of the Council and is considered to demonstrate that the proposal delivers beyond the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can support. Early, mid- and late stage review mechanisms would be secured. The overall proportion of family-sized homes (16.6%) is below the levels set out in Brent's adopted and emerging policies. However, a higher proportion would further undermine the viability of the scheme and the provision of Affordable Housing, and the benefits associated with the provision of Affordable Housing are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the lower proportion of family housing. Affordable student accommodation would be secured as part of the development of the University Campus.

The application refers to 'Northwick Village' - 1,600 is a pretty big village, and blocks are not particularly village-like. Here are some of the 'impressions' in the plans.

The Planning Committee is on Monday March 29th at 4pm. You can watch it live HERE

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

On 6 May 2021, we'll vote for the next Mayor of London and future London Assembly Members – including our representative for Brent and Harrow.

The London Assembly holds the Mayor to account on decisions that directly impact our everyday lives, from tackling air pollution to improving public transport and creating more green space.

The people we elect will have the power to push for a clean, green and fair future – locally in Brent and Harrow and at a national level too. So, we need to make sure that our constituency’s candidates have the climate and environmental emergencies on their agenda.

Brent Friends of the Earth is hosting an online hustings with the London Assembly candidates at 7 pm on Wednesday 7 April. Join us remotely via Zoom to find out where candidates stand on important issues and ask them questions of your own ahead of the election.

View from Park Avenue

"The proposal is considered to have a high quality design that has regard to the character of its surroundings and would have an appropriate relationship with the surrounding buildings and would not result in harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Building."  Officers' Report

Kingsley Court the Grade II Listed Building opposite the site

 The garage site

Brent Planning Committee will decide this afternoon whether to accept changes to the extant planning permission for the garage site at the junction of St Pauls Avenue and Park Avenue, Willesden Green. There is likely to be discussion about whether the changes amount to a 'minor amendment'  to the planning permission already granted or necessitate a new application. Committee members will be aware that a previous planning appeal against refusal of planning permission succeeded.

The main change is the addition of 6 private flats for sale at market rates requiring changes in the internal layout.:

     PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

 The 6 extra units obviously means some changes in the internal layout. This includes multiple flat entrances from landings. I suggest that this level of traffic is worth looking at in the context of Covid19  contagion  as well as the reduction in size of the units.

Five of the private floors would exceed the Housing SPG target of 8 homes per floor per core (with 2 x 9, 2 x 10 and 1 x 12 homes per core on the respective cores). However, this is not considered to have a significant impact on the quality of accommodation or levels of social cohesion.

There are 13 comments about the development on the Planning Portal, all of which are objections from neighbours. Some refer to the extant application rather than the revisions. This comment is about the revisions:

 I am concerned that in increasing the number of units this will have several adverse impacts, and would like to raise the following issues:


1. The increase in units has not led to a change in the number of affordable units. why not? A revised Financial Viability Appraisal should be submitted to ascertain whether further affordable units would have to be incorporated due to the improved viability.

2. More family units are not being added, as obviously this is an attempt to squeeze more out of the site.

3. Disabled bays are being lost. Changes to basement car parking do not offer a more efficient layout but do fail to meet either the London Plan requirement of space for 10% of the flats or Condition 6 in respect of spaces for disabled parking (7 not 8).

4. The reduction of landscaping elements does not help mitigate noise levels in the amenity spaces.

5. The provision of outdoor amenity space ("winter gardens") does not come up to the standard aimed for by Brent. There is a bigger overall shortfall and 5 units would fail to meet the London Plan's minimum of 5 SQM.

6. The iron railings with vegetation behind in the approved scheme are apparently to be replaced by a solid brick wall along St Pauls Avenue which would have a detrimental effect on the street scene especially with the removal of the green roof over the ramp.

7. As another resident has commented: the changes in palette and landscaping mean the proposed amendment is no longer "in keeping with the urban character and appearance of the area".

8. Since the last application, COVID-19 has led to major changes in peoples lives - with workers/residents spending more time at home - is now the time to approve smaller flats?

9. Issues around parking, servicing and deliveries associated with the proposed development have not been further considered in the latest documents. This is particularly relevant due to the continuing increase in on-line sales and home deliveries.

11. Near neighbours have concerns that: Aspects of the proposed changes that would worsen the situation are the omission of the landscaping features which were in the central space as well as around the perimeter and the large open spaces on the 3rd and 4th levels which are particularly concerning to neighbours.

10. The additional 6 self-contained units, enlarged external floor space and repositioned and redesigned ramp constitute a proposal that is significantly different.

11. Para 17 of the Committee Report confirmed that the scheme now approved would result in a density above the London Plan matrix range . The further intensification now proposed does not represent sustainable development and there is no justification for the significant harm that would result.

12. The significant changes to the internal layout and the increase in units beyond the reduction to 70 originally approved by the planning officers exceeds the scope of a 'Minor Amendment' and requires a new planning application.

The application will be heard this afternoon at 4pm.  View live HERE

 From Brent Council

Brent Council is on the hunt for landlords in targeted areas across the borough who would like to sign up to a regeneration scheme that aims to bring empty shops back into long-term use.

The council have launched a new pilot scheme to reactivate empty premises on local high streets and support local businesses. Vacant space activators Meanwhile Space have been contracted to deliver the scheme, and are working with Brent Council to engage landlords, offering grants of up to £25,000 for shop improvements.

The scheme aims to reactivate 3-6 empty shops in targeted areas of Church End, Neasden and Willesden Green town centres. Landlords have been contacted with details of the initiative and invited to make an application for their shop, with a closing deadline of Sunday 18^th April 2021. Improvements will be made to each successful vacant premises up to the sum of £25,000 per unit.

The pilot scheme will support local businesses in need of a premises but unable to take on a full lease, or who may struggle to pay rent on town centre premises. The pilot scheme will provide an opportunity for these businesses to develop a sustainable business model in the medium and long term with the aim of going on to rent a high street unit on commercial rates.

Alan Lunt, Strategic Director for Regeneration & Environment at Brent Council, said:

 Our businesses and high streets have taken a big hit from the pandemic and now is the time to look for opportunities to turn that around and build back a better Brent for businesses and residents. Through activation of empty shops we hope to stimulate long-term demand for space in the area and support the economic recovery of our neighbourhoods.

Details of the scheme and opportunity for landlords can be found at

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/regeneration/cu rrent-projects/meanwhile-pilot-scheme/

Network Homes, with its head office located in Wembley, is one of the partners in the massive development at Northwick Park as well as an adviser to Brent Council on the building of council houses in the borough LINK.  Network's other partners at Northwick Park are Brent Council,London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust and the University of Westminster. It comes under the auspices of the government's One Public Estate policy which aims to maximise the return on public property.

Network Homes have been embroiled in the cladding scandal and warned in January 2020 that it would need to pass on most of the £200,000,000 that needed to  spent on remediation of its estate would have to be passed on to leaseholders. With its properties requiring so much work doubts have been raised over the quality of its housing.

 Although the Planning Committee has a quasi-statutory role and is supposed to be non-political Brent Council is a developer itself in this case.

Cllr Daniel Kennelly, a member of the Planning Committee, took up concerns over  Network Homes  at last night's meeting.

He wanted reassurances of the long-term viability of the project with Network Homes as a partner given its financial difficulties  and wanted to be assured that they properties they built would be safe. He noted that Network was facing long-term difficulties regarding its cladding responsibilities 'down the road' - what they had done had been 'criminal'. 

Officers responded that they did not look at the financial viability of the developer itself but of the financial viability of its project - did it give sufficient return to the developer on the basis of what they would build and the income it would derive. Network would have to adhere to fire regulations and the plans were for brick build with no cladding. The fire strategy would be considered under reserved matters and rigorously checked.

Kennelly continued to press on the impact of the overall scheme if one partner collapsed financially:  would other partners be liable to its costs? A lead officer responded that different entities in the partnership would be responsible for their own section of the development and would not be responsible for the other parts. He pointed to the  financial collapse of a building company which, after it crashed, its development had been bought by another company and completed.

The councillor sought assurances that although there was an undertaking that there would be no ground rent on the scheme would there be other costs on top of the rent. An officer replied that planning did not control service charges. Cllr Johnson was concerned that the existing NHS residents on the Network Homes estate that was to be demolished would get first refusal on new 'intermediate' (MF not genuinely affordable) properties. He was concenred that they would not be able to afford them. Officers replied, rather obviously, that this would depend on their salary. Network Homes had been engaging with them about their options. NHS staff would not be eligible for London Affordable Rent properties as these were allocated to people on the Council's housing list.

Cllr Kennelly also asked about the large number of trees that would be removed in the development and asked how long it would take for the present level of carbon capture  by existing trees to be reached by the new planning. An officer commented that this issue was not captured by planning guidance at the moment while another said it would depend on the rate of growth of the different tree species planted and what was done with the felled trees - if they were burned and released carbon this would add to the carbon capture requirement. Replacement trees wouldnot  all be saplings and there woduld be a substantial increase in the overall number of trees.

Representations by Brent and Harrow Cyclists over  safe routes around and  through the development were largely dismissed as referring to the new through road that had already been approved. Officers said there was not enough space on the road for segregated cycling and that a single crossing at the junction with Watford Road would make life easier for cyclists and pedestrians, but as there was heavy traffic flow on Watford Road, maintaining the flow was the priority.

Give some of the less than convincing  answers by officers (I have never heard so many 'sort ofs' in such an important meeting), it is surprising that the application was unanimously approved.

 I am grateful to  Kensal Kilburn Better 2021 for permission to embed this video on a very important subject.  They would welcome any comments so please leave them below and I will pass them on or Tweet to @KKBetter2021

This is a video of the 26th March 2021 talk "Conspiracy Theories and the Digital Dark Arts: How Worried Should We Be?" Hosted by Tom Lennard @To_Murse. 

How worried should we be about conspiracy theories, and are they a threat to democratic norms and digital freedoms? Who benefits from these theories, and how do we help to stem their proliferation and draw people away from such destructive beliefs? How can we distinguish between "conspiracy fact", such as Watergate or MKUltra, and "conspiracy fiction", such as chemtrails and vaccine-microchipping? 

Joining the discussion were: - Jitarth Jadeja, a former QAnon believer-turned-spokesperson for those re-emerging from conspiracy-led beliefs. - Booker Prize long-listed James Meek, author of the recent LRB essay Red Pill, Blue Pill that looks at the power of conspiracy theories in the UK. - QAnon Anonymous Podcast's UK correspondent and researcher Annie Kelly, writer of the article Mothers for QAnon. - Educator and social psychologist Alexandra Stein, author of Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachments in Cults and Totalitarian Systems. 

Stay tuned for future events! You can find Kensal and Kilburn Better 2021 on Twitter at @KKBetter2021 :) Thanks for watching.

 From IpsoMori - interesting to see poverty and inequality moving up in the list of concerns.

The March 2021 Ipsos MORI Issues Index records the first significant drop in concern about Covid-19 since June 2020.The proportion who name the coronavirus as a big issue for the country has fallen from 72 per cent in February to 49 per cent this month. One third see the pandemic as the single biggest issue (34%), a decrease from almost six in ten last month (57%).

While economic concern has held steady, there has been a fall in the proportion of the public naming Brexit as an issue. This month 26 per cent cite the UK’s exit from the EU as a worry, the joint-lowest score for this issue since the vote to leave in 2016 (concern was also at this level in April 2020). This month’s score is seven percentage points lower than last month – and half the level of concern recorded in December 2020 (60%).

There has been an eight-percentage point increase in mentions of the NHS as a big concern: 24 per cent mention it as an issue. Fieldwork occurred between 5 and 11 March, covering the period when the Government announced a one per cent pay rise for NHS staff.

Other issues that have risen significantly from last month include Poverty and inequality (up 6ppt since February), education (up 4 ppt), unemployment and immigration (both up 3ppt),

 

 

Density in the age of Covid

It might seem a stark summary but that is what Brent Planning Committee voted for last night when  the developer sought a variation in consent to allow 6 private flats on the same building footprint (so squeezing more into limited space) and the only benefit their agent could muster when challenged was that they were offering ONE extra bedroom in ONE of the affordable flats.  They also claimed that moving the building back from the pavement by 1.2m would be a benefit to the residents who had opposed the changes. All other 'benefits' appeared to favour the developer. 

Because of the higher number of private flats the proportion of affordable housing actually FELL as a result of the granted variation.

A view that this was more than a minor variation to the granted scheme, which itself had been decided by an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, and should be a new application, came to nothing.

There was an attempt by councillors to draw attention to the disbenefits of a denser development at a time of Covid when people were at home more but only Cllr Maurice voted against granting the change in consent on those grounds as well as parking issues.

The statement of persons nominated was issued on the Brent Council website this afternoon:

Guest blog  by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:

Last month I wrote about these heritage murals, and my surprise at discovering that Council Officers had agreed a three-year extension to the lease which allows Quintain to use the Bobby Moore Bridge at Wembley Park for advertising purposes. The initial response to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made suggested that this might be a “dodgy deal”. Further details extracted from Brent Council under that FoI, and two further information requests, now mean that I can set out what happened over the lease extension, and there were some very “dodgy” aspects to it!

The Bobby Moore Bridge from Olympic Way, March 2020.

Although the lease extension only became public knowledge in January this year, the events leading up to it started more than two years ago, so let me set the scene. Council Officers had first given Quintain a four-year lease over the bridge and subway in 2013, and this was renewed for a further four years, to August 2021, by a Brent Cabinet decision in January 2018.

By 2017, Brent and Quintain were proposing major public realm improvements to Olympic Way. In July 2017 Brent’s Cabinet agreed to give Quintain £17.8m of Community Infrastructure Levy money to help pay for these (mainly, but not exclusively, towards the cost of replacing the “pedway” to the Stadium with steps). One of Quintain’s proposed “improvements” was upgraded advertising panels on the Bobby Moore Bridge.

Tile mural scenes on the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway (when they were visible!).

During 2018, Wembley History Society had called on Brent and Quintain to put the heritage tile murals, on the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, back on permanent public display, rather hide them with adverts. Following discussions with the Society,  Quintain agreed to put the large “footballers / twin towers stadium” mural, on the east wall, back on display, and to periodically uncover some murals on a wall in Olympic Way, just outside the subway.

Because it was “investing” money in buying new advertising screens, Quintain’s Wembley Park company wanted to be sure that it could use them for at least five years. This seems to have been what caused one of its managers to approach Brent Council about extending the advertising lease beyond August 2021. As I have sent a report on my findings to the Council’s Audit & Investigations team, I will not give the names of any of the individuals involved. I will simply refer to this Quintain employee as “WPmanager”.

Although leases of Council land or buildings are the responsibility of Brent’s Property & Assets team, WPmanager instead approached the head of another department he had dealings with (who I will refer to as “Head”). A meeting was arranged for 19 December 2018 with Head’s line manager (who I will refer to as “Director”). 

Director has confirmed to me (in response to an FoI) that he met with WPmanager and Head at the Civic Centre on that date. I had asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting, but his reply was: ‘I confirm there were no notes taken of the meeting to my knowledge save for the email [Head] subsequently sent to [WPmanager] that I believe you already have.’

I had been sent copies of some email correspondence, by Head, in response to an earlier FoI request. In fact, WPmanager had sent an email to Head within an hour of the meeting. The redactions in black, about the figures involved, were made by Brent before the copy emails were sent to me. I have used blue to hide the names of the individuals involved (who were clearly on first name terms).

The email from WPmanager to Head on 19 December 2018, confirming the offer made at the meeting.

The final sentence in the email above suggests that WPmanager had left his meeting with Director and Head at the Civic Centre confident that the offer he was making on Quintain’s behalf would be accepted. 

This was confirmed, subject to certain conditions, when Head replied to him on 4 January 2019. Although the lease extension was not formally signed until November 2019, the basic “deal” had already been agreed in principle by early January, and apparently without any involvement by the Council’s Property & Assets team! Although the figures agreed were blacked out, when I “copied and pasted” some of the text into another document, it showed that the basic annual rent would be £XXX,XXX, plus a 50:50 split of any advertising revenue over £XXXk each year.

Head’s email to WPmanager of 4 January 2019, copied to two Brent employees.

As well as copying his email to a Brent property lawyer, who could start liaising with Quintain’s property lawyer over the legal documents, Head also copied it to a more junior officer (who I will call “Officer”) in his department. WPmanager was told that she would ‘be able to help facilitate early conversations with property/highways and planning ….’

Further email correspondence during the first half of 2019 made clear that no formal agreement to extend the advertising lease could be put in place until Quintain had planning and advertising consent for the new screens that they wanted to install, on the parapets of the Bobby Moore Bridge and the walls of the subway. It was April before Quintain put in the applications.

Advertising at the Bobby Moore Bridge, and the proposed screens from a planning application drawing.

Readers may remember the battle over those applications, with over 320 people signing a petition against them. I was one of two objectors who spoke against Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge applications at the Planning Committee meeting on 16 July 2019. The opening paragraph of my presentation was:

‘You’re being recommended to grant consent to these applications by Reports that are flawed. They’re inaccurate, ignore or misrepresent valid planning points made by objectors, and give misleading legal advice.’

We did have some success, persuading two councillors to vote against, but five committee members accepted the Officers’ Recommendations, and the planning and advertisement applications were approved. What we didn’t know then was that the Council would get increased rental income if those applications were approved. I can’t help wondering whether Brent’s planning officers had been made aware of that.

Although Head had agreed terms with WPmanager in January 2019, he wrote to him on 6 June saying: ‘Once we have an agreement in principle I’ll also need to get final sign off from [Director].’ I asked for information and documents on this “sign off” in an FoI request to Director, and his reply was:

‘No I did not sign off the lease that was done by the Director of Property Services. [Head] was referring to my verbal agreement as his line manager so he could proceed to work with Legal and Property Services to extend the lease.’  and; 

‘There was no approval process relating to me. As set out above that that all resides with our Property Service.’

But Brent’s Property Service had not been involved in the discussions over this lease extension at all, so how could they know whether it should be approved? It all came down to a Delegated Authority Report, prepared by Officer in October 2019. This provided the information on which the top officer in the Property team (who I will call “ODPA”) authorised Brent’s Legal officers to sign the “Deed of Variation” (prepared by Quintain’s property lawyers!) that sealed the “deal”.

A redacted copy of that Delegated Authority Report was one of the first documents I received under my first FoI request. In my 10 February blog, I mentioned this claim in it:

‘The Borough Solicitor has confirmed that pursuant to the Council’s New Constitution Part 4, paragraph 4.3 you have the delegated authority to approve of this letting.’

It’s many years since Brent’s top legal officer was known as the “Borough Solicitor”. The extract from Part 4 of the Constitution, included in the Report, showed that: ‘Only the Strategic Director Resources may acquire or dispose of an interest in land or buildings.’ It also said that he could not agree leases if ‘the annual rental value … exceeds £50k’, which this one clearly did!

My FoI had asked for all the communications in respect of the authority for the lease extension, so I pressed for the documents I had not been sent. Among the further items I received was a copy of Part 3 of Brent’s Constitution. The rules about interests in land had been in Part 3 (not Part 4) since at least May 2018, with the limit on ‘annual rental value’ increased to £250k. 

Head had still not provided the documents under which Officer had sought and obtained confirmation from “the Borough Solicitor” that ODPA had ‘the delegated authority to approve this letting’. I pressed again and, at the third time of asking, was told: ‘there are no further emails or correspondence relating to [ODPA]’s authority to approve this lease extension.’ The statement in the Report about confirmation of that authority was a lie!

The ODPA had either not read the section of the Report that quoted “Part 4”, or ignored it because it was out of date. As the Council is hiding the figures involved, I don’t know whether the ODPA did have the delegated authority to approve the lease extension. One of the restrictions, in Part 3, on that power is: ‘where any leasehold interest has an annual value over £100k or below £250k, he or she shall consult with the Lead Member.’ No evidence has been supplied to show that the Lead Member (for Regeneration?) was consulted in this case.

Part 3 also sets out another very important responsibility for the person authorising the lease:

’11.6 The Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment [or ODPA] may not sell or grant any lease … or otherwise dispose of any land or buildings unless the consideration received, as confirmed by them is the best that can reasonably be obtained.’

As the ODPA had not been involved in discussing the terms for the lease extension, how could he confirm that the rent paid would be the best value that the Council could obtain for the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising rights? He appears to have relied on the Delegated Authority Report. And that Report relied on what Brent’s Chief Executive advised me (in good faith, I believe) was a ‘market appraisal … carried out by an independent advertising consultant who recommended the lease extension.’

Again, although I had been sent this document, I had not received the emails etc. associated with it. I had been told that it had been requested by ‘phone, but how did the advertising consultant (who I will call “Consultant”) obtain the details about the proposed deal on which to base his appraisal? Having pressed further, Head supplied me with an email thread which is worth close examination.

There were just three emails, in a space of less than 24 hours, headed ‘Delegated Authority Report on Bobby Moore Bridge’. On 17 October, Officer sent Consultant a copy of that Report (which she’d signed off that day) with the brief message: ‘This is background information as discussed.’ Her Report had referred to a market appraisal: 

‘conducted by an independent outdoor advertising consultant, [Consultant] from Fortuna, who has recommended lease extension for three years on the basis of current market conditions.’

The October 2019 exchange of emails about the market appraisal for the lease extension.

On 18 October, Consultant sent Officer his market appraisal letter (see above). His email was copied to Head, who the letter was addressed to. The email offers to “tweak” the appraisal letter, if required (which is hardly what you would expect from an independent consultant!). But Officer was happy with the letter as it stood: ‘Thanks [Consultant], this perfect.’ 

Brent Council’s online “Transparency - Our Spending” records for this quarter show a payment to Fortuna Associates of £1,123-48 on 18 October 2019, under the cost heading “Advertising”. I’m sure all of the businesses that supply Brent would love to receive such prompt payment!

You may have noticed that the Fortuna letter was dated 15 October, as if it had been written before the Delegated Authority Report. It appears that it may well have been written after Officer sent the Report to Consultant, using what she had said to justify approval for the lease extension as the basis for the “Advice Note” relied on as evidence for that recommendation. If that was the case, the “market appraisal” was a false document, and the actions of those involved with its creation potentially fraudulent.

A closer look at the FoI responses I received in 2018, over the renewal of the original lease until August 2021, showed a very similar situation. Consultant had provided an Advice Note in September 2017 for a Delegated Authority Report, but it was found that the rental value was too high for it to be approved by a Council Officer. 

When it went for a Cabinet decision, the tile murals were not even mentioned. Members were told that bids had been sought from four advertising companies, and that: ‘Wembley City Estate Management submitted the best value bid, details of which are set out in the confidential appendix.’ In fact, no other companies had been invited to bid, and the only offer was that from the Quintain subsidiary. The Officer Report in January 2018 misled Brent’s Cabinet 

.

A week ago, I sent a formal letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive (see below), along with a detailed report that also went to the Council’s Audit & Investigations team. As well as the alleged misconduct over the lease extension, I complained about the general attitude of council officers over the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, ever since 2013. They have been too willing to give Quintain and its subsidiaries what they want, without regard to the cultural and heritage value of those murals, and without any competitive tender for the advertising rights. The Council’s relationship with Quintain has been far too “cosy”.

The 1948 Olympic torch relay mural, currently hidden, and the Wembley heritage it celebrates.

I have asked for an assurance that the actions of council officers over the lease extension will be properly investigated. Nothing can be done to end the advertising lease before August 2024, but I am seeking a commitment from Brent Council now:- that any new lease will be open to competition, that it will include an option to advertise only on the bridge parapets, and not covering the tile murals, and that it should be considered and decided openly at a meeting of Brent’s Cabinet. That is the least we deserve!

Philip Grant.

Postscript: After submitting this blog article to Martin, I received a reply from Brent's Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, which included these responses to my letter of 24 March:-

'Firstly, I can give you assurance that the circumstances around the approval of the lease will be investigated by our Audit and Investigations team and that any appropriate action necessary will take place as a result.'

 

'I agree that the Council will undertake the renewal of the advertising rights as you outline.

 Can I thank you for the time and effort you have put into this matter.'

 CLICK HERE TO READ PHILIP'S LETTER OF COMPLAINT

Following my report on the Northwick Park Planning Application hearing I was curious to know more about the submission of Brent and Harrow Cyclists. Cllr Saqib Butt, admitting that he hadn't seen the submission, asked planning officers about it. Without his intervention it is unlikely that it would have been discussed at all. You can hear the response in the above clip. If you read the submission you can see how the officer's summary does not do it justice.

Having declared a climate emergency I thought Brent Council would be proactive in searching for ways of reducing motor traffic and finding ways of making streets more friendly for pedestrians and cyclists in this massive development.  Instead, apart from the offer from the Highways Officer towards the end of the discussion the proposals (apparently unseen by the Committee) were pretty well consigned to the sweet bye and bye*.

I have now seen the detailed proposals made by the cycling campaigners and it is clear that a lot of research and thought had gone into their submission. Here is one of the illustrations:

Brent and Harrow Cyclists introduced  their submission:

This is the joint response from Brent Cycling Campaign and Harrow Cyclists, two local groups of London Cycling Campaign, to the committee report for case number 20/0700, development of ‘Land adjacent to Northwick Park Avenue, London, HA1’ . We represent over 300 supporters and attempt to represent the interests of all who cycle or would like to cycle in NW London. We have some concerns about the planned development and have suggested some potential improvements, which we would be grateful if the council could consider.

I am not convinced that their proposals have been properly considered.

You can read the full submission on Brent Cyclists website HERE

 * I prefer the Joe Hill version of the Sweet Bye and Bye

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

Harrow Council’s Cuts to Environmental Services and Lack of Action on the Climate Emergency Part 2

Greens call for investment, strategic planning and transparency from Harrow Council  

We have to get serious about the climate emergency

Our council tax in Harrow is going up by 5.8% from the 1^stApril, moving our borough from the third highest council tax rate in London to second, just behind Kingston which takes the top spot  LINK.  Whilst you would hope this would mean, if not an increase to our public services, at least protection of the ones we already have, this is unfortunately not to be the case.  The Council has been put under huge constraints by the decimation of local authority funding from central government and having to ringfence a large percentage of the budget to meet statutory duties such as adult social care LINK.  This has resulted in ever dwindling amounts of money to cover the multitude of other essential services the Council should be providing.  One council department that is bearing the brunt of our shrinking local authority budgets is the Environmental Services department, seeing its staffing budget cut by £250 000 from April 2021 LINK.  At a time when we are facing an unprecedented climate emergency, coupled with an increase in population and demand on many of our services, including our local parks and reserves due to the pandemic, this cut seems to be incredibly short-sighted.  The resultant negative consequences for our borough’s environment, its residents and the Council’s ability to meet its own climate and ecological emergency targets cannot be underestimated.

A Climate Emergency

The council declared a climate emergency in July 2019, resolving to “make the London Borough of Harrow carbon neutral by 2030, taking into account both production and consumption of emissions”. LINK    The council created a related strategy to meet its carbon neutral goals, committing to working towards 100% renewable energy in the borough, making homes, schools and commercial buildings more energy efficient, to decarbonise vehicles and move to sustainable travel, to minimise waste and support recycling, to protect and restore the biodiversity we have and to engage communities to become eco literate  LINK.  More recently, the Council reiterated in its 2021/22 budget that one of its key priorities is “Improving the environment and addressing climate change”  LINK.  Indeed, the council has made a number of public announcements, formed a ‘Climate & Sustainability Partnership’ with other organisations including local environmental groups and produced a ‘London Borough of Harrow Climate Change Strategy’ 2019-2024  LINK.   This most recent climate change strategy has not made it to the Council’s ‘Climate Change - Environment and Parks’ out-of-date webpages though LINK. 

Harrow Council’s public commitment to fighting climate change is commendable and urgent if we are to stay within the projected 1.5 degrees of warming in the next ten years and avoid the worst predictions of environmental breakdown.  The reality is though, that these goals are completely untenable unless the Council fully invests in meeting these goals, allocates ongoing budgets, devises an actionable, joined-up strategy and recruits a strong in-house team to works towards achieving its targets.  Unfortunately, as we can see from the most recent Environmental Services staffing cuts this does not appear to be happening.   In May 2020, ‘The Student View’ charity made a Freedom of Information request asking if the council had discussed the costs of climate change adaption to enable it to meet its climate and ecological emergency targets.  It emerged it had not: “the issue of budget and additional resources for delivering the council’s pledge to be carbon neutral by 2030 hasn’t yet been discussed in detail through the Council’s Climate Change steering group meetings with the Cabinet members.” LINK     Last year, the council stated it was spending “£150,000 on tackling the climate emergency, covering staff costs as well as external support and advice on how to reduce carbon emissions”  LINK.  It is not clear exactly what this money was spent on or if a similar amount has been allocated to address the climate emergency this financial year.  

The Environmental Services Team and Transparency

Harrow Council’s Environmental Services department is responsible for a multitude of areas, including our parks, open spaces and nature reserves, street trees, allotments, verge maintenance, street cleaning, fly tipping and general waste management amongst other things, and it has already suffered from years of cut backs.  These areas all have a significant role to play in the Council meeting its 2019-2023 climate change strategy.  Trying to establish the roles that make up the Environmental Services team though and what ones have been cut is incredibly difficult.  Whilst there is an ‘Environmental and Parks’ area on Harrow Council’s website, it is hard to find who is exactly responsible for the many different areas.  At a Harrow VCS Forum ‘Environment & Sustainability Subgroup’ meeting in November 2017, a request was made to Graham Henson, now Leader of the Council, asking for a list of key environmental services council officers to liaise with and how best to contact them for a speedy response.  Mr Henson’s answer was that, basically, there isn’t a list available and it’s best to make contact with the Head of Service, Dave Corby LINK.  This raises the issue that as council tax paying residents, should we not expect to easily find out what roles people hold, what they do and how we can make contact with them in the council?  Should we not also expect timely replies from the council officers and councillors that represent us?  This frequently does not appear to be the case.  It is imperative that our Council is transparent and accountable to members of the public so they can effectively support the community it serves. 

Department Re-shuffle

Dave Corby who has been ‘Head of Community Engagement’ for many years has now retired, taking with him a breadth of knowledge on our parks and local environment that will be a real loss to Harrow.  It is unclear if he is being directly replaced, but the Environmental Services department has recently undergone a reshuffle, with Rebecca Johnson now the new Head of Environment and Waste Strategy and Desiree Mahoney acting as the Community Engagement Officer.  Mark Richardson is the Green Team Manager and Ray Fox the Parks Manager; Rebecca Farrar is the Tree Protection Officer and Steve Whitbread is Biodiversity Officer.  There has been a recent advert for ‘Head of Transport and Environmental Operations’ at the Council,  LINK , stating that the role is within the newly formed Environmental Services Directorate and that the “post holder will be responsible for fleet management of over 300 vehicles, Special Needs Transport Service, Waste and Recycling collections, Trade Waste Collections, Street Cleansing and Ancillary Services, Parks and Open spaces and other associated support services.  The post holder will be responsible the management of a revenue budget of £25 million and a capital budget of £8 million.”   LINK

 This is a huge range of responsibilities for one person, especially in light of the fact that the Environmental Services team has recently been reduced (which roles, is still unclear).  This advert does reveal the department’s budget figure though, something that is almost impossible to establish otherwise or the individual spending and allocations within the department.  The remaining roles (and other unestablished ones) within the Environmental Services team are integral to ensuring our local environment is healthy, sustainable, green and biodiverse.  With the latest round of staffing cuts, it can only be seen that this will be detrimental to our local environment and make it even harder for the council to meet its climate targets.

Greens call for Action, Investment and Transparency

Whilst we are dealing with an onslaught of problems brought on by ten years of austerity, coupled with the economic, social and health difficulties as a result of the pandemic, the climate emergency is not going away and must be addressed.  As the UN Environment Programme Head warned in August 2020 “There is no vaccine for climate change. We must embed sustainability into COVID-19 recovery” .  Unfortunately, at the moment, Harrow Council appears to lack the vision, financial investment and staffing to fully realise its aims of reducing the borough’s carbon emissions and become carbon neutral.  Harrow residents deserve a council who leads on action to mitigate the worse effects of climate change, being accountable and transparent every step of the way.  It is imperative that the council takes urgent action on the climate emergency to avoid the impending ecosystem collapse we potentially face. 

In my next blog…I’ll be taking a look at how Harrow’s parks and green spaces have been impacted by ten years of council cuts and how these rich, biodiverse spaces are an excellent way for the council to move towards meeting their climate change targets.  I will also be shining a light on the many amazing volunteer environmental organisations we have in Harrow and how they are leading the way in maintaining and improving our green spaces.