St Raphs campaigners have raised doubts about whether Brent Council will be able to go ahead with the option to demolish and rebuild the estate following a GLA announcement.

 Guest Post by Philip Grant

Fryent Way is part of the busy A4140 main road, between Kingsbury Circle and the Salmon Street roundabout. But it has also become a route of a different kind.

When first conceived in the 1920s, it was known as Kingsbury Urban District Council’s Town Planning Road No.17. It was constructed in 1934/35, to open up farm land that All Souls College, Oxford, planned to sell for housing development. You can read more about this in Part 4 of The Fryent Country Park Story.

When, several years ago, Brent Council announced that they would stop cutting the grass in parts of our local parks, to create “wild flower meadows”, I admit that I was sceptical. It sounded like putting a positive “spin” on a decision to cut spending on the upkeep of our public open spaces!

But walking home from an appointment at my GP surgery on Thursday, I could see and enjoy the results. The grass verges alongside Fryent Way are now a bee and butterfly corridor, that encourages the wonderfully diverse wildlife from Fryent Country Park to travel into the heart of Kingsbury. 

Philip Grant.

Today BRAAP - Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements - have released their scoping paper  LINK reporting the shortcomings of Brent Council’s 2016 Policy to replace the paving slabs on the borough’s pavements with asphalt (tarmac).  BRAAP has sent the paper to Cllr Roxanne Mashari, Chair of Brent Scrutiny Committee for Resources and the Public Realm, asking them to carry out an investigation of the processes that lead to the policy along, with its implementation and to recommend an approach which takes account of residents’ input LINK.

BRAAP is a new, unique and unprecedented alliance of residents’ associations and street groups from across Brent who have got together to campaign to reverse the Council’s policy of asphalting at all costs.

MAIN POINTS

•  Brent’s 2016 Policy was introduced using hard to understand and unconvincing financial arguments.

•  A lack of transparency on the long-term running costs of asphalt vs re-laying paving slabs.

•  Over 95% of petitioned residents objected to the asphalting of pavements and the resulting reduction of the quality of the urban environment.

•  A lack of meaningful consultation with residents and residents’ associations, either on the general policy or individual schemes.

•  Hurriedly arranged ‘special’ meetings with worried residents, Councillors, Officers and the Leader, where Brent claim surprise at the level of opposition, but repeat the same arguments and asphalt anyway.

•  No clear tally showing how many slabs are re-usable.  Residents estimate up to 80% could be re-laid.

•  Shockingly, when the slabs are removed they are not re-used, but pulverized according to contractors.

•  A lack of transparency about the environmental impact assessment around air quality when using diesel trucks to transport 1000s of tons of slabs to be pulverised, and more trucks to bring asphalt into the borough.

•  Roads that were asphalted in 2016, eg Chandos Road, have already degraded whereas paving done at the time looks as good as new.

•  The policy goes against the direction we should be travelling in this time of climate emergency.  

* By default it is obvious that simple levelling of the slabs by workmen with hand tools will have a marginal carbon footprint compared with the use of new asphalt with its high embodied carbon and diesel intensive processes for lorries and plant.

Robin Sharp, Joint Convenor of BRAAP, said:

This is a unique coming together of 11 residents’ groups and associations in Brent objecting to replacing long-lasting paving slabs with cheap impermeable tarmac, which heaves and cracks,  grows moss and looks awful when repaired, radiates heat into the urban environment and is opposed by over 95% of residents.  The council should be working with residents’ and council tax payers’ interests in mind.  They say the policy is cost-driven, but they should be planning for the long term, with sustainability at the fore.  This policy is not fit for purpose.

BRAAP provided the following background information to Wembley Matters:

 
Black radiates more heat than lighter colours.  Urban heating is a global problem and wherever there are heat reduction programmes, the first thing they do is get out the reflective white paint: the New York City Cool Roofs Programme“cooled and coated” 2,077,537 square feet of rooftop.  In Greek villages they paint the houses white.  It’s for a reason. 

Brent has not disclosed an Environmental Impact Assessment to say how many diesel miles will be used disposing of re-usable paving slabs and importing asphalt into the borough.  This doesn’t sit well with their Climate Strategy for carbon neutrality. 

Water run-off increases flood risk to our drains and is why the Council has strict planning regulations for residents putting in front drives or hard standings - they have to install 50% soft landscaping as well as a soak away to stop water running into the highway, but the Council is getting away with laying mile upon mile of impermeable asphalt.  It is universally known that paving slabs allow water penetration through the gaps when they are laid on a sand substrate.   We have asked Brent for the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to Sustainable Drainage Systems where impermeable surfaces are concerned.

BRAAP Member groups:

Aylestone Park Residents’ and Tenants’ Association

Barn Hill Residents’ Association

Brondesbury Road Group

Chandos Road Group

Clifford Gardens Group

Kensal Rise Residents’ Association

Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association

Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

Mapesbury Pavements Action Group

Queens Park Area Residents’ Association

Willesden Green Residents’ Association

From Preston Community Library

Come and join us in celebrating the monumental contributions that the Windrush Generation has made to the cultural landscape of Britain.

We will be screening two short documentary films: Rootical, featuring the Jamaican-born restaurateur, photographer, and documenter of black London, Charlie Phillips, followed by The Mas Man with a Magical Touch, featuring the Trinidad-born photographer and wire-form sculptor, Carl Gabriel.

After spending his early childhood with his grandparents, Charlie Phillips joined his parents in London, in 1956. Working in his parents’ restaurant, Charlie began his photographic career by accident when, while still very young, he was given a Kodak Brownie by a black American serviceman. He taught himself to use it and began to photograph life in Notting Hill, making prints in the family bathroom after his parents would retire to bed.

Phillips is now best known for his photographs of Notting Hill during the period of West Indian migration to London, but his subjects also include film stars and student protests.

Coming to London in 1964, Carl worked as a specialist sheet metal worker and was trained in photography and moved into a career in this profession. He was also a pan player for the Ebony Steel Band and has since become a Carnival Artist, specialising in wire-form sculptures that have been presented at large scale festivals globally. His work has also extended to sculptures that have been exhibited at Durham Cathedral and the British Library.

Many of Preston Community Library's members will already be familiar with Carl Gabriel's work through his generous loan to us of two vibrant sculptures in our sunken garden, as well as his specially commissioned sculpture Inspiration for Brent Borough of Cultures 2020.

This event is brought to you by PCL in collaboration with Black History Studies, and will be hosted by Charmaine Simpson, chairing a Q&A with these two iconic artists.

Venue: Your own home via a Zoom Link, which will be emailed to you on receipt of your FREE TICKET reservation.

Both artists are multi-disciplined in their approach to their practice and the conversation promises to range far and wide.

 Guest post by Philip Grant

Following my “open email” of 26 May, Carolyn Downs appears to have accepted that it would be unreasonable for the Council not to answer the strong case that I put forward, showing that there is no advertisement consent to cover the “footballers” mural in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway with adverts. 

Last Thursday evening, I received an email for the Council’s Legal Director, saying that ‘the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.’ I will set out the full text of that email below, so that anyone can read how some Senior Council Officers feel they can treat Brent’s citizens. Although Ms Norman considers the correspondence on this matter is over, there are some important things I wish to say in response to her, and I will say them here.

You might think that, because ‘a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns’ I raised, I have been wasting the Council’s time. 

I have submitted Freedom of Information Act requests, to establish the facts behind transactions that Council Officers have failed to conduct openly and transparently.

I did make ‘a whistleblowing complaint’ when those FoI’s uncovered potentially fraudulent arrangements, which may have given a false impression that a “deal” done by Council Officers was “best value”. You’d have thought Brent’s Director of Audit & Investigations would be grateful for my bringing this to the Council’s attention!

I havewritten a number of letters to Senior Council Officers about this matter, but if those letters had been dealt with properly, from the start, the difficulty I drew attention to could have been sorted out much earlier. Unfortunately, it is a dispute which has still not been resolved.

Last month I suggested what I believe was a sensible way to resolve it, quickly and efficiently, through a small arbitration panel of our elected councillors. Ms Norman dismissively refers to this as ‘some sort of agreement between yourself and the council’. The reason she gives for that opinion is that ‘such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights’, but those “legal rights” only exist if the Council has given them and they are still valid. 

It’s a simple point, and I think that councillors are capable of considering it fairly, and deciding it on the basis of the facts and evidence. But if Brent wants to invite Quintain to have their say to an arbitration panel, I would have no objection, as long as they, like the Council and myself, agree to accept the panel’s decision.

If the dispute is resolved that way, we would not need ‘repeated correspondence.’ I’m ready to “put my cards on the table”, and will ask Martin to attach my ‘up to 1,000 words’ submission to the panel setting out why there is no advertisement consent for the footballers mural.

The Council’s Legal Director would prefer me either to “go away”, or ‘to consider what legal steps may be available to you.’ She would be prepared to spend £000’s on legal fees of our Council Tax money (some of which might be recoverable from me if the Council managed to “win” the case on some legal technicality), rather than have our dispute settled quickly and effectively by arbitration. 

There is no need to go to Court over this, but I think that is Ms Norman’s last line of defence for what can now be exposed, through the details set out in her email, as a very weak case in claiming that there is advertisement consent. The Council’s case is so weak, and based on a superficial reading of only some of the relevant documents, that Brent’s Legal Director should be ashamed to put her name to it!

I have accepted from the start that the consent given in August 2017 (13/2987) did allow the subway walls, including the footballers mural, to be covered with vinyl advertising sheets. Ms Norman claims that this consent remains in place for the “footballers” mural, but that is where her case goes wrong. You could only take that view if you ignore most of the evidence!

Council lawyers seem to fixated on the 2019 consent being for ‘the use of light boxes … for advertising purposes.’ They’ve assumed this must mean that application 19/1474 does not apply to the footballers mural, but all of the supporting documents and drawings for that application show that it does, and that this tile mural scene will be uncovered as part of it.

The email says that I rely on ‘on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.’ Yes, and for very good reasons! The letter submitting the application says it ‘will replace the existing system of wall coverings (approved under ref. 13/2987).’ This is also supported by the Officer Report to the Planning Committee meeting in July 2019 which approved it, that says: ‘The current application seeks consent for a replacement scheme.’

You will note that I have used a primary evidence source here, backed up by secondary evidence from a report on what the application documents show. The Legal Director’s argument falls apart when she bases it just on that same secondary source (and ignores all of the original application documents as well).

“The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application” is a quotation from a summary at the start of the Officer Report. If whichever Legal Officer researched this had read the body of the report, or taken the trouble to consider the application documents, they would have realised that this statement actually means the opposite of what Brent now claims!

In para.15 of the detailed part of the Officer Report it says: 

‘Advertisement [consent] has also been previously granted for vinyl adverts over the tiles (also in a way that does not damage them), and should advertisement consent not be granted for the light boxes, the vinyl advertisements also could still be installed revealing less of the tiles than what would be visible under this proposal.’

In other words, the consent under 13/2987 would only continue to apply to the walls of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway if application 19/1474 was not approved. 

It was approved, and replaced the 2017 consent, both for the new light boxes, and for the footballers mural. The advertisement consent documents show that, including the “Statement of Significance” (see quotes from this in my document below) submitted because the murals were identified as a heritage asset. Additional confirmation is given in para. 11 of the Officer Report:

‘The Council’s Principal Heritage Officer notes that, given that the tiles are not a designated heritage asset, the proposals are a reasonable compromise. Officers therefore consider it appropriate that the plaque would be visible and the Twin Towers would be permanently exposed in recognition that they are part of Brent’s Heritage.’

The plaque in the footballers mural, below one of the Stadium towers.

It was a key part of Quintain’s application that they recognised there was a heritage issue over the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway. While applying for consent to advertise on the light boxes, they committed to put the footballers mural back on permanent public display. That was an integral part of the consent given under 19/1474, with a majority of Planning Committee members approving it because it was seen as ‘a reasonable compromise.’

For some reason (potential profits?) it appears that Wembley Park’s commercial team, and a few Council Officers, are seeking to claim an advertisement consent for the footballers mural which does not exist.

I will send a copy of this “guest blog” to Brent’s Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs. I will ask her to decide, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, whether Brent should continue to hold to its false view over advertisement consent (and the disrepute this would bring, if the footballers mural is unlawfully covered with adverts when football fans come to Wembley for the Euros), or accept what the evidence clearly shows, that there is no such consent.

Philip Grant.

This is the full text of the email I received on 3 June:

Dear Mr Grant

The Chief Executive has asked me to write to you one final time to answer your most recent emails to her and to reiterate the grounds upon which the council considers that Quintain has advertising consent to place vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural. 

The council’s position, and the reasons for that position are as follows, and have already been given. 

Consent to the placing of vinyl advertisements on the tiles of the footballers mural is given by advertisement consent 13/2987 [25 August 2017]:

‘Advertisement consent for eight “gateway advertisements”  comprising… .. 4 no. vinyl advertisements attached to the east and west tiled walls of the underpass and adjoining Olympic Way’

This consent in respect of vinyl advertisements remains in place notwithstanding the subsequent advertisement consent 19/1474 [22 August 2019] which relates to the use of light boxes for advertising purposes and does not permit the light boxes to extend over the footballers mural.

19/1474 does not expressly restrict reliance on 13/2987. 

I understand it to be your view that despite the lack of an express restriction, 13/2987 can no longer be relied upon in respect of the Bobby Moore Bridge and its underpass because 19/1474 gives consent covering the same area, except of course that it does not extend to the footballers mural.

You rely on references to 19/1474 being a “replacement scheme”.  As stated in my email to you of 9 April, although the applicant for consent 19/1474 stated the consent was sought as a replacement scheme to 13/2987, there is nothing in the 19/1474 consent itself which prevents reliance on 13/2987, to the extent that the two consents are compatible. Display of vinyl advertisements on the footballers mural pursuant to 13/2987 would not impede reliance on 19/1474 to use light boxes for the display of advertisements on the area permitted by that consent, which does not include the footballers mural.

I also note that the officers report considered by the Planning Committee on 16 July 2019 expressly states that “The advertisements already consented can be displayed irrespective of the outcome of this application.”

I think the council’s position and the reasons for it have been made very clear.

As the Chief Executive has pointed out, Quintain has indicated that it does not in fact intend to place vinyl advertisements over the footballers mural in reliance on the 13/2987 consent.  With reference to your email of 24 May 2021, this is an informal indication from Quintain and not a binding commitment, although the Chief Executive hoped it would provide you with some re-assurance.

Consent 13/2987 will expire on 22 August 2022, so next year.  As you have pointed out, the reference to re-tendering at the end of this year in the Chief Executive’s email of 24 May 2021 was an error, perhaps connected to the consent expiring next year.  She has asked me to apologise for the confusion.

Your most recent email of 26 May 2021 repeats your assertion that the legal position could be resolved by some sort of agreement between yourself and the council.  This suggestion ignores the fact that such an agreement would not include the holder of the legal rights in relation to the advertising consents and so could be of no effect.

As indicated at the start of this letter, the Chief Executive has asked me to write to you this final time.  In addition to the correspondence with myself and the Chief Executive you have submitted FOIs requests and a whistleblowing complaint.  These have been, or are being, responded to. As set out in my email of 16 April 2021, a substantial amount of council resource has been devoted to considering the concerns you have raised and the council is not able to agree with your view or to take the steps you wish.

If you consider that there is something legally wrong in how the council has proceeded, I would urge you to consider what legal steps may be available to you.  It is clear that the disagreement between yourself and the council as to the legal position is not going to be resolved through repeated correspondence and it is not appropriate that any more council resource be devoted to such correspondence.

Best wishes

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations

Brent Patient Voice has written to the Brent Representative on the Governing Board of the North West London Clinical Commissioning Group calling for a pause in the current process that would see the NHS accessing GP’s confidential individual patient data. This is the letter:

There is great concern among patient groups about NHS Digital’s new scheme for taking confidential patient data from GP records, with patients having only until 23 June to notify any wish to opt out and the vast majority having no inkling that this is the case. We understand that concerns on these lines were voiced at yesterday’s NWL Info Governance meeting, when members heard that doctors in NE London were refusing to co-operate with NHS Digital in view of the lack of information so far shared with patients about the effects of GPDPR and their options. There also seem to be practical issues for already overloaded GPs who are supposed to process confusing opt-out applications to be made on paper within a time window of 7 days between the closing date for patients to apply and the start date for extracting data of 1 July.

In our view 99% of patients would be unable to comprehend the information about this scheme and the opt outs currently displayed on the NHS Digital website. The interaction of a Type-1 opt-out with a National Data opt-out is obscure and, despite the alleged three years during which this scheme has been prepared in secret, does not appear to have been thought through. It leaves many questions in the air, including the relevance of any opt outs from personal data sharing which patients have made previously under the “Extraction” scheme or care.data. Nor is it clear how the paperwork is to be signed if it can be sent electronically. The ‘explanation’ looks as if it has been written by a committee, not all of whose members agree with each other.

What it does say is that personal data is to be “pseudonymised” which means that the person to whom it relates can be re-identified. This is inherently risky and no good reason is given for it. If the data is wanted for planning there can be no need to re-identify individuals. Furthermore we are told that the data collected and passed to NHS Digital will not be used “solely for commercial purposes”, which means that it can be used partly for commercial purposes.

We cannot see how such a distinction can be monitored. In any case this rushed secretive exercise risks not just the hugely trusted confidential GP/patient relationship, free to all, that is the jewel in the crown of the NHS and its success as a valued healthcare system, but it undermines trust in any properly legitimated data collection. Surely it is madness to put this at risk by arranging for the mass irretrievable transfer of sensitive personal data out of the control of GPs to commercial interests, particularly without the direct consent of the patient?

Can we therefore please ask you, the CCG, its PCCC and Brent GPs to send an urgent message to NHS Digital, NHSE and local MPs demanding a significant pause in the current process:

   a. to allow for a complete rethink on the scope and design of the scheme, noting that there is a fundamental difference between census-type data which is anonymised for 100 years and continually updated data relating to individuals;

b.   to require NHS Digital to prepare a proper information campaign about the benefits and safeguards involved, which can then be the subject of Parliamentary and public debate;

c.    to clarify and simplify the opt-out process;

d.   to give GPs the necessary support for informing all their patients directly and for handling the administration aspects of the process?

EDITOR'S ADDITION The current form to send to your GP to opt out of sharing your data can be found HERE

The first proposals from the Boundary Commission on revised parliamentary constituencies are published today. The constituencies that will cover parts of Brent are now Kenton and Wembley West, Hendon and Golders Green, Brent Central and West Hampstead and Kilburn. The red lines above are constituency boundaries and green the borough boundary. Only Brent Central is wholly in Brent. We would have four MPs rather than the present 3. A significant part of Kingsbury becomes part of the Hendon and Golders Green constituency. Harlesden becomes part of West Hampstead and Kilburn.

An 8 week consultation period ending on August 2nd starts today LINK

The proposals. Click bottom right square to enlarge. 

Follow these links for detailed zoomable maps:

Brent Central: https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-7.-Brent-Central-BC.pdf

Kenton and Wembley West https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-46.-Kenton-and-Wembley-West-BC.pdf

Hendon and Golders Green https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-37.-Hendon-and-Golders-Green-BC.pdf

West Hampstead and Kilburn https://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-06-08-London-Initial-Proposals-73.-West-Hampstead-and-Kilburn-BC.pdf

Kilburn Square potest over over-development threat to green space

An article in last Wednesday's Guardian LINK on growing opposition to London council's plans to meet housing quota by building on green space and playgrounds rang a bell with campaigners opposing plans to increase the amount of housing on the Kilburn Square Co-op council estate by over 80% with the potential loss of  much valued green space.

Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents' Association, was moved to write to the Guardian on how such proposals affected this corner of Brent close to the traffic laden polluted Kilburn High Road.

This is the letter that is awaiting publication:

Harriet Grant’s article (“London councils under fire for plans to build homes on play areas” June 2) struck a strong chord here in the South-Eastern corner of Brent.

 

I’m Chair of a Residents’ Association that includes the Kilburn Square Co-op – a mature, well-balanced, sociable estate with 246 flats. Council-owned, but managed by residents. Two-thirds Council tenants, one-third Leaseholders.

 

Last October, Brent announced to some residents a Plan for an extra 180 Council flats in an “Infill” development. Infill may be accepted jargon to housing insiders; but it’s a laughable euphemism in this case. Together with a new block completed last year, this Plan would increase the number of flats by over 80% compared with the original estate.

A 17-storey tower (right by the highly-polluted A5 Kilburn High Road), plus four further medium-rise blocks – removing green space and a number of mature trees, encroaching on a playground – does that sound familiar…?.

 

Our Association has been arguing that this would be serious over-development; the draft Local Plan had a suggestion, with limited elaboration, of a project on less than half this scale. This Plan would transform the Estate’s character and there’s no clear evidence that it would respect norms of amenity space per resident. We have so far been denied sight of any of the surveys and analyses on which the Plan is supposedly based. An extract from a pre-Covid parking survey showed it had wrongly assumed Brent residents can park in neighbouring Camden!

 

As elsewhere in London, Brent cites housing need and its ownership of this land – but how does that justify ignoring the wellbeing of all the current residents?

 

The project team’s attempts at pre-consultation on the estate have been ineffective: poor uptake for “Resident Panels” and a low response rate to a questionnaire; and questions merely about design details, with the overall scale a taboo subject.

 

Unlike the Southwark project, this one is not yet at formal Planning Application stage.  So is there a ray of hope? Brent’s Cabinet Housing Lead has assured a local paper that “no decisions have yet been made” and the Director of Housing told a recent Scrutiny Committee meeting that Brent “would not want to force homes on anyone”; but there’s no sign of a resident ballot. Consultation with the wider community has been postponed while the Project team “review the designs”. That hardly sounds like a major rethink on the project scale… 

 

Yours truly

Keith Anderson

Kilburn Village Residents’ Association

For full information about the Kilburn Square proposal see  https://save-our-square.org/

The mural beneath Bobby Moore Bridge, Olympic Way, Wembley Park

Dear Mr Grant,

I have spoken to both the Leader of the Council and Councillor Nerva before responding to you, as you requested.

The Council has taken your representations on this matter very seriously. It is not just Brent’s lawyers but also external legal advice which aligns with that of the council regarding Quintain’s right to advertise over the football mural.

Because the Council values the mural very much and because we have requested of Quintain that it remain on view, and because they too value it, it has now been on display for a considerable period of time and has not been covered by advertising. Furthermore Quintain have confirmed to me in writing that they do not intend covering the mural for the remaining period of the lease. 

I concur with Ms Norman that we have spent enough time corresponding with you on this matter particularly given that the mural will remain on view and that is what you have sought to achieve.

Yours sincerely,

Carolyn Downs

Chief Executive

Congratulations Philip!

Euro 2020 signs are going up throughout the borough (The Paddocks) directing coaches to Fryent Way

An initial crowd limit of 22,500 at Wembley Stadium may well be increased for later dates depending on the progress of the Delta Covid19 variant and feedback from test events that were held over the last few weeks.

13 June 2021

Wembley Stadium event - England v Croatia

13 June 2021, Kick off: 2pm, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

England v Croatia will take place on Sunday 13 June 2021 at Wembley Stadium. Event day parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

18 June 2021

Wembley Stadium event - England v Scotland

18 June 2021, 8pm, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

England v Scotland takes place on Friday 18 June 2021. Event day parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

22 June 2021

Wembley Stadium event - England v Czech Republic

22 June 2021, 8pm to 12am, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

England v Czech Republic takes place on Tuesday 22 June 2021. Kick off is at 8pm and parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

26 June 2021

Wembley Stadium event - Round of 16: 1A v 2C

26 June 2021, 8pm to 12am, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

Round of 16: 1A v 2C takes place on Saturday 26 June 2021. Kick off is at 8pm and parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

29 June 2021

Wembley Stadium event - Round of 16: 1D v 2F

29 June 2021, Kick off: 5pm, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

Round of 16: 1D v 2F takes place on Tuesday 29 June 2021. Kick off is at 5pm and parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

06 July 2021

Wembley Stadium event - Winner Quarter Final 2 v Winner Quarter Final 1

6 July 2021, 8pm to 12am, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

Winner Quarter Final 2 v Winner Quarter Final 1 takes place on Tuesday 6 July 2021. Kick off is 8pm and parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

7 July 2021

Wembley Stadium event - Winner of Quarter Final 4 v Winner Quarter Final 3

7 July 2021, 8pm to 12am, Wembley Stadium, Wembley, London HA9 0WS

Winner of Quarter Final 4 v Winner Quarter Final 3 takes place on Wednesday 7 July 2021. Kick off is 8pm and parking restrictions will be in place until midnight.

EVENT DAY PARKING SCHEME

Reacting to the announcement of a delay in implementaion of the NHS Digital GP Data sharing scheme, Robin Sharp, Chair of Brent Patient Voice said:

This is a small step in the right direction but the plans need a radical overhaul if they are to maintain confidence in the GP/patient relationship. Opting out is still advisable.

Professor Martin Marshall, Chair of the Royal College of GPs, responding to the news  of the pause that the college had campaigned for said:

We’re pleased that the Government has announced a delay to the GPDPR programme following the concerns that the College, the BMA and others have raised over the past few weeks.

It is essential that this time is used to properly communicate with the public and with clinicians so that patients and GPs have trust in the programme. In principle, improved and more secure sharing of data for healthcare planning and research purposes is a good thing. We have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic just how important the appropriate use of GP patient data is in responding to a health crisis, but it is also important in normal times to plan for better overall service provision and public health strategies, and enhanced understanding of diseases and treatments for serious illness.

We want to see a comprehensive campaign, led by NHS Digital and accessible to all members of the public, which should include every patient being communicated individually with, clearly articulating the benefits and risks of data sharing so that patients can make a genuinely informed decision about whether they are happy for their data to be shared - and if they are not, how they can opt out.

The safety and confidentiality of data in general practice is paramount to GPs and our teams. Surveys show that most patients are happy for their data to be used for legitimate planning and research purposes, but this must be built around trust. What data will be shared, with which organisations, how and why this will be done - and in particular, what safeguards that are in place to ensure data is not used inappropriately - must be communicated effectively with patients and healthcare professionals, so that they have trust in the programme.

Year 11 school students from Ark Elvin Academy today helped open the controversial Wembley Steps ahead of the first Euro2020 game at the stadium.

Raheem Sterling who attended Copland High School, the predecessor to Ark Elvin before an equally controversial decision to academise the school sent a message to the students.

 Growing up in Brent, I could see the arch of Wembley Stadium from my home. A short walk away and a lot of work later, I’ve got to do what I love in the stadium and representing everyone who calls Brent home. I am so proud of where I grew up – our community and the growing number of new, accessible spaces for younger members of the community to play and discover their skills and passions.

Please do not travel to Wembley unless you have a ticket for Sunday’s game. We are asking residents to avoid booking COVID-19 testing at Brent Civic Centre on match day. Alternative testing sites can be found on our interactive map. Ticketholders should check the UEFA website for the latest information.

BBC information earlier this week: 

 

Guest post by Philip Grant 

Yes, this is another “guest blog” about tile murals with a heritage tale to tell, but this time they are not at Wembley Park.

1.Water sports on the Welsh Harp Reservoir, in colourful tiles.

The murals pictured in this article are in a pedestrian subway under the North Circular Road at Neasden. Although I have driven over them, and have visited Neasden a number of times in the past (to visit the former Grange Museum, and former Neasden Library on the site of the 1930s Ritz Cinema), I have never actually seen them myself! 

These photos were taken by Russell Cox, an Area Manager for Daniels Estate Agents, and sent to me by his colleague, Francis Henry, who knows of my interest in local history (the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals). As soon as I saw them, I knew that I wanted to share them with you, and some of the stories they represent. Russell has kindly agreed that I can do that.

The first mural scene above clearly represents the nearby Welsh Harp Reservoir. Its history goes back to the 1830s (you can read about that here). You may think that water sports on the reservoir are a fairly modern addition, but you would be wrong. Although the canoeists in this mural may have been from the Youth Sailing Base (opened by Middlesex County Council in 1963, and closed by Barnet Council in 2004), a canoe was first tested on the Welsh Harp by “Rob Roy” Macgregor in the 1860s! The Royal Canoe Club he founded in 1866 met at the reservoir well into the 20^thcentury.

2.Sailing dinghies racing on the Welsh Harp.

Since the Second World War, sailing rights on the reservoir have been leased from British Waterways (now the Canal & River Trust) by the Welsh Harp Sailing Association. It has around eight member clubs, mainly based at Birchen Grove. It is enjoyable watching the dinghies in action as you walk nearby, but the Wembley Sailing Club is offering families the chance to actually try out sailing, with a free lesson on Sunday 27 June (see the Kilburn Times article).

The Brent Reservoir (as it is officially known) was built to supply water to the Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal, which opened in 1801, so it’s no surprise that the murals also show scenes from the canal. “The Feeder”, which runs through Neasden (between the Railway Village and Quainton Street Open Space) and Stonebridge, to join the canal at Lower Place, was dug through Willesden’s fields in 1811. It first took water from a bend on the River Brent at Kingsbury, and since 1835 has provided the link between the Welsh Harp and the canal.

3.A narrow boat passing under a canal bridge.

4.A lock and lock-keeper’s cottage.

If you walk through this pedestrian subway, between the shopping centre and Neasden Lane North, it might encourage you to talk a stroll alongside the canal itself. There are a number of places in Brent where you can join the canal-side path, from Alperton in the west, past Acton Lane to Kensal Green / West Kilburn in the south-east.

5.A canal-side walk, in a Neasden subway.

How did these murals come to be here, and when were they installed? I don’t know, and I’m hoping that one of you reading this can add some information in a comment below, please. I do know that the Neasden Underpass, which takes Neasden Lane under the North Circular Road, was built in the early 1970s. The subway, which takes pedestrians under the main road, was probably built as part of the same scheme, and was certainly in use by the 1980s.

Were these tile murals part of that original scheme, or were they added later, to brighten up what could have been an uninviting passageway? The style of the murals looks similar to those at the Bobby Moore Bridge, which date from 1993. They were the work of the Langley (London) Architectural Art Service, and designed by their artist, Kathryn Digby. Were these murals also from the 1990s, or were they earlier. If you lived or worked in Neasden then, please share your memories of these murals.

6.A holiday narrow boat, moored beside the canal (and the North Circular Road!).

Even if you know nothing about their history, you can still enjoy these murals, either in person or just by looking at these photos. Imagine yourself on a bright early summer day, sailing out on the Welsh Harp, walking beside the Grand Union, or relaxing on a narrow boat. These beautiful and colourful pieces of public art can help you to be there!

Philip Grant.

 Sir Michael Wilshaw

Sir Michael Wilshaw, former Chief Inspector at Ofsted (2012-2016), has stepped in as temporary interim executive principal of the Jewish Free School (JFS) in Kenton following the sudden departure of headteacher Mrs Rachel Fink.

Dame Joan McVittie

Sir Michael will be advised by Dame Joan McVittie a former London headteacher, senior Ofsted inspector and an expert in safeguarding.

JFS is tha largest Jewish secondary school in Europe and, although in Brent ,takes pupils from a much wider area.

The Jewish Chronicle reported LINK:

Parents have voiced concern about the situation at the school, highlighting disciplinary and safeguarding issues. Speculation is rife about the findings of a supposedly negative Ofsted inspection last month, which have yet to be published.

The school had been named on the Everyone's Invited website where pupils reported peer-on-peer sexual misconduct. The Daily Telegraph  LINK reported on the tesimonies:

“I was in the lunch queue and he put his hand up my skirt and groped me [and] no one said anything,” one account allegedly about JFS read. Another said it was “normal for boys of any age to grope girls”.

At the time Mrs Fink write to parents about the 'disturbing' testimonies:

There are those who might suggest that it is impossible to verify the truth of these allegations, or that the naming of different schools and universities is inconsistent.

Others will argue that when you read the testimonies it is clear that most of them reference incidents that take place out of school, at parties and on the weekend; that they are nothing to do with school.

My view, both as an educator and as a woman, is that we have a responsibility to have an open and honest discussion and once again partner with students and parents to really understand what is taking place in our community, a microcosm of society, and how do we collectively create change.

Andrew Moss, Chair of Governors said:

We appreciate that changes of this nature cause concern. We have full confidence in the team along with the entire staff body to deliver the education priorties and maintain the Jewish ethos of the school. 

Although JFS is not a local authority school, Brent Council has an overall responsibility for the wellbeing and safeguarding of all children in the borough.

There was much disappointment in 2014 when Ofsted downgraded JFS from 'Good' to 'Requires Improvement' based on the behaviour and safety of pupils and the school's leadership and management. Action taken at the school enabled it to reurn to the 'Good' category in all areas in 2016.

The report on the latest Ofsted inspection has not yet been published.

Brent Council's Cabinet will decide on Monday to go out to consultation on far-reaching plans for the Neasden Stations Growth Area (NSGA) Draft Masterplan.

The Masterpan envisages the long-term transformation of the often derided (particularly by Private Eye LINK) area with co-location (housing and industrial/commercial) development on 5 sites including that of the College of North West London on Dudden Hill. There will be a total of 2,338 new homes plus commercial and light industrial spaces.

"This Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) seeks to unlock the massive potential that the Neasden Stations Growth Area (NSGA) has to offer, and define a new place for the post-pandemic world that balances local choices within the wider metropolitan context. The delivery of new workspace, improved accessibility to the wider area, an interconnected network of green open spaces, enhanced public realm and a permeable movement network will create an inclusive neighbourhood that can support at least 2,000 new homes, and also serve as a distinctive gateway to Neasden. This Masterplan SPD sets out the overarching vision for NSGA, and the underpinning urban design framework, to help ensure that the transformation of the existing poor quality environment brings forward physical, social and economic regeneration for all the community."

At times the Masterplan is almost Utopian in its vision:

"A diverse Neasden will be a place that is used and enjoyed by all people, irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity, physical ability, sexual orientation or social background. The natural and built environment will be fairer and more inclusive, reflecting best practice through design to ensure the area is welcoming, responsive, intuitive, flexible, varied and convenient.

With around 25% of the local population aged under 18, Neasden will represent the needs of children and young people, and reflect London’s status as an increasingly youthful city. Children and young people will be able to access social and physical infrastructure and move around the area safely, independently, and without adult supervision, benefitting their physical, social and mental development and health.

Development at Neasden will be child-friendly, maximising opportunities for safe play and outdoor activities. Open spaces will support formal and informal play, exercise and rest, and be accessible to all with no segregation. Open spaces will be well-overlooked by homes and other active uses to ensure they are welcoming and benefit from natural surveillance, overcoming crime and the fear of crime.

With around 55% of the local population identifying as belonging to Black, Asian or minority ethnic groups, Neasden will represent both the needs and cultures of all people. Protected groups will be considered from the outset and given a greater participatory role in shaping how the area evolves through meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Development at Neasden will support different modes of living, catering for multi-generational households, young families, and over 60s, alongside a range of different domestic cultures. Buildings and landscapes will be as much for local people as for new residents, allowing the establishment of a mixed and balanced community that reflects the diversity of the area."

The summary for the preferred option is rather more down to earth:

Option 3 proposes vertical stacking of residential uses on podium floors with industrial below and some commercial/retail fronting Neasden Lane is proposed on Site 1 (LSIS) and Site 2 (LSIS). On site 3 (CNWL), proposes predominantly residential development with some commercial/ retail/community uses and retention of the existing housing estate adjacent. On Site 4 (LSIS), vertical co-location of residential uses with industrial uses is proposed. On Site 5, predominantly residential use with some light industrial use is proposed. Site 6 is proposed to be retained as existing and is deemed unviable for development.

The Masterplan is long-term. In Option 3 the estate next to the College of North West London (Severn Way and Selbie Avenue) is not down for redevelopment but it is within the development area and could come forward at a later stage. It does look rather vulnerable in the illustration between the two masses of tower blocks. A further possibility is a new station in the area on the potential West London Orbital line.

The existing green space beside the college at the foot of Dudden Hill/Denzil Road appears unlikely to be retained but instead space will be integrated into the new housing.

Details for each site:

 The 5 Sites

 

North End Road junction with Bridge Road

I was alerted to the opening of the North End Road/Bridge Road connection yesterday (thank you Amanda) and popped down this morning to check it out before the football crowds got going. There are no lights at the junction at the moment so ard drivers and pedestrians were a little confused. It may have got more confusing at later when the crowds and cars arrived.

You will see that there is a 7.5tonne weight limit at the junction. My questions to Brent Council Highways and Transport for London on how that will affect plans to divert buses down North End Road on event days have gone unanswered,

Asd you will see the gradient of the new section of North End Road is steep and the view from the lower section of North End Road towards Bridge Road is quite restricted at driver height so difficult to see vehicles turning right from Bridge Road.

The Hostile Vehicle Mitigation Measures (concrete blocks covered in mock greenery) are very much in evidenc and being used as resting perches by visitors.

The steps and ramps which used to serve North End Road now just lead from Bridge Road to Olympic Way. Michaela staff and students and local residents residents now have direct pedestrian access to North End Road.

 From Brent Council

Apply for the Back to Business Grant  APPLY

If the Covid-19 restrictions have affected your business, you may be eligible for a one-off discretionary grant.

The Back to Business Additional Restrictions Grant is for Brent businesses that have not been supported by the Restart Grant or the Local Restrictions Support Grant (LRSG).

The scheme will open for applications at 9am on Monday 14 June 2021. The scheme closes at 5pm on Wednesday 14 July 2021.

There is a limited amount of funding available.  If demand is high, the scheme may close before this date.

Please check that your businesses is eligible before you apply.

Who is eligible?

This grant is for Brent businesses who:  

• have been impacted by covid-19
• have not received the Local Restrictions Support Grant or the Restart Grant
• are trading in Brent
• do not have a rateable value over £51,000 or annual commercial rent over £102,000
• either:
  • operate from home
  • operate from a commercial premises (including shared workspaces)

Who is not eligible?

Your business is not eligible if it has:

• gone into administration, been declared insolvent or received a striking-off notice
• a rateable value over £51,000 or annual commercial rent over £102,000
• already received the Local Restrictions Support Grant or the Restart Grant

How much you could get

• If you have a business that operates from home you could get£1,000
• If you have a business with a rateable value less than £15,000 or annual rent less than £30,000, you could get £3,000
• If your business has a rateable value more than £15,000 but less than £51,000 OR Annual rent of more than £30,000 and less than £102,000, you could get£6,000 

Apply for Restart Grant  APPLY

The Restart Grant scheme has replaced the previous Local Restrictions Grants (closed) and Local Restrictions Grants (open). 

This grant:

• will be made available to qualifying (rated) non-essential retail, hospitality, accommodation, leisure, personal care and gym businesses.
• will only be paid once applications have been received and verified.

Non-essential retail businesses with a rateable value of:

• £15,000 or less, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £2,667
• More than £15,000 and less than £51,000, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £4,000
• £51,000 or more, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £6,000

Qualifying Hospitality and Leisure properties with a rateable value of:

• £15,000 or less, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £8,000
• More than £15,000 and less than £51,000, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £12,000
• £51,000 or above, will be eligible for a one-off grant of £18,000

 Police statement

A number of searches have been undertaken throughout the course of the investigation into the disappearance of Agnes Akom who was reported missing on Tuesday, 11 May.

An initial search was conducted at a commercial premises in North Acton Road, Ealing, which detectives believe to the principal scene of the investigation.

Police and forensic colleagues are expected to remain at a secondary location in Neasden Recreation Park, Brent, for some days to come as they maintain the scene and complete site examinations following the discovery of human remains on Monday, 14 June.

We understand the concern caused to local residents by heightened police activity and urge anyone with concerns to approach patrolling officers, contact their local Neighbourhoods Policing Team or call police by dialling 101.

We extend our thanks to local communities for their patience and support as we continue with our enquiries.