The River Brent below the Welsh Harp dam (an image from “Being Green”)

Guest post by Philip Grant 

Brent Museum and Archives is currently running a project called “Being Brent”. One of the products of this is a new video film which has just been issued, called “Being Green”.

The video features various community groups, and green spaces such as Fryent Country Park, Gladstone Park and the Welsh Harp reservoir, and people whose efforts there help to benefit the wider community, as well as the benefits of our green spaces to the wellbeing of Brent’s residents. This struck a chord with me, and I have sent the following email to all of Brent’s councillors, with a “link” to the video:-

Dear Brent Councillors,

I am writing to commend to you a short video film produced for Brent Museum and Archives. “Being Green” is part of Being Brent, a community project which aims to improve the wellbeing of local residents by connecting them to the borough’s rich heritage. 

I hope you will enjoy the video (just over 8 minutes long), which you can view here, and that you will share the “link” with residents in your Wards, so that they can enjoy it too: https://t.co/WxYSKbJ12N?amp=1

Brent’s green spaces are so important for the wellbeing of our borough’s residents. That is why the Council (you and your elected colleagues) have adopted planning policies whose purpose is to protect them. 

This is the promise in Core Policy CP18, which the Council adopted in 2010:

‘Protection and Enhancement of Open Space, Sports and Biodiversity

Open space (including waterways) of local value will be protected from inappropriate development and will be preserved for the benefit, enjoyment, health and well-being of Brent's residents, visitors and wildlife. Support will be given to the enhancement and management of open space for recreational, sporting and amenity use and the improvement of both open space and the built environment for biodiversity and nature conservation.’

The Development Management Policies which you adopted in November 2016 reinforced this, saying:

‘The provision of open space is important for sustainable communities, contributing to health and well-being.

Core Strategy policy CP18 protects all open space from inappropriate development. It also seeks improved provision in areas of deficiency and where additional pressure will be placed on open space.’

You may wish to reflect on why it is that Brent Council, in developing some of its own projects in recent years, has chosen to ignore this key planning promise.

These are just three examples of proposals (inappropriate developments that there is still time to change, if you have the will to do so) which would deprive Brent’s residents of “protected” green space which is important for their health and wellbeing:

·      

 The community garden in front of 1 Morland Gardens, due to be built over as part of the Brent Start redevelopment;

·      Areas of Brent River Park, which the proposals for the St Raphael’s Estate propose to build on;

·      The open space and mature trees which would be destroyed and built over, if the Council’s plans for Kilburn Square go ahead.

Enjoy the video about Brent’s green spaces, and the benefits to the health and wellbeing of our community that they provide. 

But please also think again about the Council’s own plans to destroy some of those green spaces, in breach of its own planning policies. 

Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Following today’s stark warning by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Global Witness is calling for world leaders and big corporations to wake up to the undeniable immediacy of climate crisis and act now to avoid further irreparable damage.

In a landmark report, the most significant climate warning since 2018, the IPCC say global heating will hit 1.5°C  by 2040 – but that it is still possible to prevent warming going beyond that critical level if “immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions” in emissions start now.

To address this crisis, Global Witness is joining others across the growing climate movement to call for:

• The immediate phase out of all fossil fuels around the world. We don’t have time to waste switching from one fossil fuel to another, from coal to gas, or hoping for new technologies to clean up this dirty industry. The science is clear that fossil fuel extraction and use has to fall fast and start falling now.
  
• An end to the financial pipeline fuelling deforestation around the world.
• Legislation to hold big companies liable for the environmental and human rights impacts of their value chains.
• A zero-tolerance approach to violence against land and environmental defenders – those who stand up for their land and our planet. We cannot solve the climate crisis whilst riding roughshod the rights of frontline communities – we need to prioritise their interests and voices, not those of big polluters.

Amy Richards, Director of Communications at Global Witness said:

While the UK government is telling the public how to rinse dishes, the experts are telling us loud and clear: the climate crisis is here, it’s now, and we are running out of time to prevent unthinkable catastrophe.

This report will send shockwaves around the world, but it must do more than just shock. It must be the catalyst to finally see the radical climate action that is needed to avoid disaster. Politicians needn’t look far to see the reality of climate change – from floods in Germany, deadly wildfires in Turkey, or the waning of the Gulf Stream, the climate crisis is here now. And without immediate and real action these events will be just a taster of what is to come.

We have less time than we thought, but there is still time to limit the damage and prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis. This report confirms we absolutely cannot afford to waste another minute tinkering around the edges, blaming individuals for systemic failures, and trumpeting false solutions. We have no time to waste.

Click on image for interactive version

A 'People's Walk for the Planet' will pass through Brent and Harrow on Monday September 6th. Details are still being finalised but it appears places for long-distance walkers with accommodation are full. However day-walkers are welcome and the distance of 9.7 miles will take you through some of our green spaces including the Welsh Harp and Fryent Country Park.

The organisers say:

XR Faith Bridge is an interfaith alliance across a broad spectrum from established religions to those who are spiritual but not religious.

 

We are united by our faith; a faith that we can advocate and influence and be the change that we want for our world. We choose to walk to COP26 as a practice of that faith, an act of connection with the earth on which we walk and the people with whom we walk and the communities through which we pass; and we make our way in kinship with the peoples and creatures of the earth who are suffering and displaced by climate and ecological breakdown. We do so peacefully and lawfully, ready to engage and learn, because we care and we have hope.

Details of the route will be updated HERE

An information pack is available HERE

 In response to a question from Wembley Matters, reminding the council that early publicity on the joining up of North End Road stated it  might be used for re-routed buses, particularly on event days,  Brent Council have issued a statement and clarification  over the 7.5tonne limit on the road:

The recent 7.5 t restriction on North End Road prohibits HGVs exceeding this weight from entering the zone except for loading or unloading or visiting a place of business. There is also a general 17 tonne weight limit over the culvert.

 

We are liaising with Transport for London on improving bus services in the area and a potential future route along North End Road. The 7.5 t restriction applies to goods vehicles, it would not apply to buses operating a future service.

 

 From Brent Council

Noisy residents are the target this summer in a clamp down on noise disturbances.

Party Patrol teams will inspect the borough and clamp down on excessively noisy parties and unlicensed music events - issuing warnings or even confiscating speakers and music equipment if a party is creating an unreasonable disturbance.

Warmer days and longer evenings usually prompt an increase in noise complaints. To nip the nuisance behaviour in the bud, Party Patrols will be in operation between 6pm and 2am on Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

They will check events to see that noise is kept to a reasonable level, use noise monitoring equipment, and make sure that any businesses have the correct licence if they choose to host a party.

Where appropriate, officers will engage with private landlords and housing associations and, if necessary, demand tenancy management interventions.

Cllr Promise Knight, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Engagement, Brent Council said: 

Persistent and excessive noise can be a nightmare for many neighbours. We want to strike the right balance in allowing people to enjoy themselves and not letting that fun disturb other people. 

 That's why we are taking a hard line against those who lack consideration and cause misery for others.

Avoid a visit from the Party Patrol with these tips from our Noise Nuisance team:

·         Tell your neighbours in advance of your plans - or better still, invite them.

·         Keep noise to a reasonable level at all times. Many people wrongly believe you can play loud music before 11pm. The law actually requires neighbourly and considerate behaviour at all times. It is a good idea to turn music right down after 11pm and to close windows and doors.

·         It is difficult to control music noise when you are outside in the open, so avoid speakers in the garden.

·         Ask guests to leave quietly after the party - no shouting, revving of car engines, or sounding of car horns.

·         Businesses looking to host a party must seek permission from their local authority if they are not already licensed for activities like music and the consumption of alcohol. If you're unsure whether you need a licence, please contact the team at business.licence@brent.gov.uk

To report noise nuisance or an unlicensed music event, download the Noise App at www.thenoiseapp.com or go to our website.

From Draycott Avenue

From the back garden of the property

A planning application to demolish a detached 2 storey 5- bedroomed family house in Draycott Avenue, Kenton will be decided by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday evening.

The application has some similarities to the controversial Queen's Walk planning application where a block of flats has replaced a detached house. This application proposes 9 residential units:

3 2 bedroomed units at market rent

2 2 bedroomed units for market sale

4 1 bedroomed units for market sale

The cost of the build is estimated at £2million

All commentss on the application are objections from near neighbours. When the Queen's Walk application was approved some objectors felt this would make way for more such applications as developers could buy up such properies and erect blocks of flats turning a handsome profit.

This comment on the planning portal is similar to several others:

We have recently received the notice of 1 Draycott Avenue's proposal to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a part four-storey apartment block providing 9X self-contained flats with associated car parks.


We unequivocally object to this planning for the reasons outlined below.

1. The development would greatly impact our privacy, especially as it has a roof terrace. The occupants of these proposed flats will have direct visual access to the surrounding gardens, which violates their privacy and introduces concerns about safety. The majority of the surrounding residents are elderly and they use their private gardens as a "safe" place for relaxing and enjoying quiet time. All of the residents have agreed this would be an invasion of their privacy, with the flats overlooking their gardens. Not only will this have a severe impact on mental health but it will now limit the time spent in their own private spaces because of this proposed plan.


2. The proposed designs also indicate a number of side windows which look directly onto our property. Whilst the windows are "opaque" according to the designs, when opened, the occupants will have direct visual access into our property without any obstructions. This issue is further exacerbated due to our plans to extend over our existing garage, which we have put an application for. Therefore the development will be severely invading our privacy.


3. The proposed four storey development is not only much taller than any of the existing residential properties in the area but it is completely out of character of the existing dwellings. Due to the completely different design of the proposal, not only does this reduce the views from the current properties, it is overbearing and reduces the outlook of our own property This would therefore make the property taller than our property and impact our views. Also, the design of the property is completely out of character of ours and the surrounding properties outlook. This development would be extremely detrimental and reduce the outlook of our property and is completely overbearing.


4 The designs shows there is cycle parking adjacent to our fence. This would also cause disturbances on our quiet enjoyment of our garden.


Many of the above points directly contravene Article 8 of our Human Rights Act 1998, clearly impacting aspects of our private, family and home life. This act (protocol 1, article 1) clearly states that we have the right to enjoy our property peacefully. The lack of privacy and increased noise from extra residents both prevent this from happening.



With regards to concerns affecting the general area:



5 This is a purely residential street with single families living there. This proposal would change the character of this part of the street significantly and greatly impact those living around it.



6 The area has already had previous issues with noise and disturbances. In fact, the owners of 1 Draycott Avenue themselves have reported the noise and disturbances to the local police and council in the past. The more intensive use of the site would no doubt increase the noise and disturbance purely from the multiple increased number of residents.



7. The property itself backs onto a conservation area. Building a large set of flats will be of great detriment to the existing wildlife that is present and also be completely out of character of the existing conservation area.



8. The property design indicates that there is cladding on the outside. We are all well aware of the disaster that occurred in Grenfell. Due to this tragic incident, the cladding and fire safety measures are currently being reviewed and there is much uncertainty about what is deemed safe. This building would therefore be a fire hazard to those within the property and those around. Especially the fact that the property backs on to a conservation area, this could be a disastrous problem. - I'm not sure this is a good point - they will put the new fire safe cladding



9. The design indicates that there are only 7 parking spots for the property (6 for the tenants and 1 visitor parking), despite 9 flats being developed. The area already has noise and parking issues. The lack of parking for each of the flats would mean the residents of the development would need to find street parking in the surrounding area, as well as any parking for their guests. This would greatly increase the noise and parking issues many of the local residents are already facing.



10. There are balconies shown at the front of the property designs. This would also impact the privacy of the opposing houses, as the occupants of the development would be able to sit and view into the opposing houses at leisure, therefore impinging on Article 8 of their Human Rights. The balconies are also clearly spoiling the outlook and character of the entire street and are totally inappropriate.



11. The increased use of Drayton Waye will be a safety hazard. This road is used by many families and young children who cross to go to school daily. There have already been multiple instances of accidents and near misses - the increased use of Drayton Waye would significantly increase this risk and put many lives at risk.



Finally and most importantly: Most of the surrounding residents have owned and lived in their homes for many decades, brought up their families, and enjoyed the quiet residential area. This new development is completely out of keeping with the existing dwellings and as outlined above completely destroys the character, privacy, and safety of the existing properties.



All of the residents have agreed this is an absolutely selfish act to monetise a plot of land that will ultimately drive out families that have been living in the area for many generations.

 Planning Officers consider the objections in their report LINK and recommend that the Committee approve the application. 

The Brent Heritage Officer considered the impact on the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area:

The applicant has provided a heritage statement which identifies the potential impacts on the nearby Conservation area. This identifies areas where the development would be most visible from within theConservation Area. Heritage England have been consulted on the application and raised no objections.

The Council’s Heritage Officer has viewed the submitted Heritage Statement and the wider scheme andconsiders that the development is a reasonable distance away from the Conservation Area and is mostlyscreened by trees along nearby boundaries. It would not be highly visible from the most significant focal point of the conservation area and is of a similar scale to nearby developments. As such, the proposalwould not result in harm to the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area.

 Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, yesterday informed residents of St Raphael's Estate that redevelopment of the estate was no long an option. This had appeared to be inevitable once funding  no longer seemed likely due to changed criteria, although the Council continued talks to try and achieve funding.

The change means that there will no longer be private housing built on the estate and there will be no demolitions. Instead there will be infill new housing on parts of the estate and the council promises to 'invest in existing council homes' and carry out improvements on the estate.

The two options for the estate: infill and redevelopment, both had the support of sections of the community. LINK  A ballot would have been held which would have established the true extent of support for either. Now the council has announced the infill decision no ballot will be held.

Controversy is likely to continue, as it has on other estates, on exacly what infill will take place and where, and the impact on residents' amenity.

This is the letter sent to residents.

The Council has also issued a Newsletter outlining potential estate improvements that could be possible over the next 5 years.

A process with major repercussions for the future of basic services provided to residents and worth millions of pounds will be discussed at Brent Cabinet on Monday.

Brent Council synchronised the end dates of various Public Realm contracts so as to enable the Council to consider ways of Redefining Local Services (RSL). Of the contracts above the Veolia contract is the most costly.

Following an initial consultation over the provision of local servives the Council proposes to adopt a 'specialist contracts delivery model with low to moderate levels of insourcing [the council providing the service rather than external contractors].' 

This is a lower level of insourcing that some Labour councillors hoped for. Insourcing would involve TUPE from existing providers.

 The objectives of RSL are listed:

The Final RLS Delivery Model will aim to achieve the following overarching objectives: 

 
· A neighbourhood approach to managing local issues to meet the needs of local areas
· A borough-wide approach to managing our assets and infrastructure (e.g. highways, street lighting) to ensure investment is spent well
· A specialist contracts approach for outsourced services
· Improved contract management and monitoring for contracted services
· An intelligence-led approach to the deployment of resources
·Integrated deployment of environmental enforcement services across public realm
· Greater responsiveness to addressing issues and problems in the public realm
· Better digital customer interface with real-time information and issue reporting
·Additional council capacity for continuous service improvement and innovation
· Focusing specialist officers where they can add the greatest value, with more triaging between generalist and specialist roles
· Deliver improved Social Value outcomes via our Social and Ethical Procurement Policy, including: striving for carbon neutrality by 2030 and enhancing nature and biodiversity; the number of local jobs created (where appropriate for the contract), including focus on disadvantaged groups; and the number of SMEs and third sector organisations that benefit from the procurement exercises.

 The service benefits are set out:

The Final RLS Delivery Model offers the following service benefits:

·Ongoing funding for the highways reactive maintenance gang based at the Depot, tasked with 20% of reactive highways repairs which arise from customer reports, in order to provide a more flexible and responsive service than the current highways services contract. No additional cost as this has already been funded from within R & E budgets). 

·Insourcing the Education, Communication and Outreach (ECO) team (6 staff) would give the Council direct responsibility for communication, education and outreach to help address our considerable waste, climate emergency and circular economy objectives and challenges. 3 of these staff are already on LGPS with the additional cost of insourcing estimated at £52k per annum. 

·Insourcing the Head Park Warden and 4 Park Wardens would enable better integration of education and enforcement across the whole public realm in Brent. It would also enable a more strategic and holistic approach to stakeholder management and community engagement of park interest groups and park users and help to increase participation and volunteering in parks. All these staff are on existing LGPS via an Admission Agreement with the Council but there would be additional cost estimated at £26k per annum to cover Brent’s higher employers’ pension contribution (35% compared to Veolia’s 20%). 

· The Pre-Notice to Owner (NTO) Correspondence work-stream (informal parking appeals) could be incorporated back into the larger Parking back-office Notice Processing Team (formal parking appeals). The addition of these two individuals would be absorbed within the structure without any need to change either structure or management capacity. The additional cost of insourcing is estimated at £32k per annum. There has historically been discomfort that outsourcing this function results in a situation where the contractor is in effect "marking its own homework” as it is issuing the PCNs and then answering the challenges to those same PCNs. Moving this service back in house could provide: 

‒ Greater transparency on the activities of the contractor
‒ More control on how policy is applied to the cancellation of PCNs
‒ Improved quality of Pre-NTO correspondence
‒ Greater consistency between Pre and Post NTO communications with
customers
‒ Greater flexibility across the wider PCN correspondence team to deal with
surges in workload 

·In-sourcing the Tree Surveying function, tree database and the raising of
tree works orders would provide the Council with greater strategic and
financial control of the Arboriculture Services contract, improved planning
and completion of works and achieve better value for money from our tree
maintenance budget. This is estimated to cost an additional £30k per
annum, comprising £20k in staff costs and up to £10k in annual tree
database license costs. Staff time required to maintain the database would
be covered from existing resources, and/or as an element of the TUPE
transfer to the Council of the existing surveyor post. 

·Creating a stronger highways inspection regime - 1 additional highways
inspector post would significantly address the lack of resource for highways
inspections noted in section 4 of this report. Total cost £43k per annum.

Street cleaning, litter, fly-tipping, waste collection and recycling are one of the main concerns of residents so dealt with in my detail here.

One of the proposals is for an 'Integrated Street Cleaning and Waste Contract' that combines street cleansing and waste collection but separates waste collection from recycling. A discussion with potential providers was in favour of such a separation. The Cabinet paper outlines the main requirements:

Street Cleansing Services 

 
· Provide comprehensive, seven-day cleansing services that deliver high performance standards across all land use types and which maximise the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling, composting and recovery
· Provide a ‘Clear All’ service on designated roads ensuring the removal of all waste in these areas, regardless of the source material
· Provide and manage receptacles, including litter bins, ensuring that they never become full or overflowing
· Provide a fly tipping removal service which proactively reduced the amount of fly tipped waste and delivers the highest possible performance standards
· Provide a graffiti and fly posting removal service that meets EPA standards

 Waste and Recycling Collections 

 
· Provide a scheduled residual, recycled, food and garden waste collection service that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and composting, while minimising contamination of target materials to improve the quality of the separately collected waste streams
· Provide an assisted collection service to meet the needs of those households who are unable to present household waste and recyclables at standard collection points
· Provide a special collections service for bulky household waste that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and recovery

Winter Maintenance 

 
· Provide an effective winter service which ensures that safe passage along all main highways, priority routes and other relevant land use types is not endangered by ice and/or snow during the designated Winter Service Period
· Provide and manage all salt bins, ensuring that they are stocked and available for use during the designated Winter Service Period to reduce risk to residents

Other Services 

 
·Emergency and out of hours response
· Waste container management and delivery
· Customer care and satisfaction, including response to service requests and complaints.

The potential for further insourcing in the future is noted:

Under the Final RLS Delivery Model, there would be potential to insource further functions from the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste Contract during the main contract term, as detailed in paragraph 6.12 of this report, and to insource the full grounds maintenance service after the next contract ends in 2027/28, should the council’s finances improve. There was broad support for such further insourcing in the best value duty consultation response.The council would also retain an interest in considering insourcing the full street cleansing service at the end of the main contract term of the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste contract

The Timetable:

The full report can be found HERE

 From Brent Police

 Please be aware there are road closures in WEMBLEY HIGH ROAD / EALING ROAD due to a fire, there are no serious casualties, road closures will likely be in place till 7PM tonight while we make the area safe, please avoid the area as there will be an increase of traffic.

The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, currently the “Brent Start” college. (Photo by Irina Porter)

Guest post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)

Over the past eighteen months, I’ve written a number of guest posts about Brent’s plans to demolish “Altamira”, this beautiful locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, in order to redevelop the site. In June, I reported that their plans had been delayed, because Council officers had not carried out legal requirements, to build out over the highway and community garden in front of the property, which they’d been advised (in December 2018!) were necessary.

On 11 August 2021, notice was given of a Key Decision, made by the Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment). Authority was given (subject to call-in) to re-tender for the Design & Build Contract for 1 Morland Gardens. 

I’m not sure what the “design” side of this is about, as it was a very detailed design which was approved by Brent’s Planning Committee (despite strong grounds for objection to the proposed scheme) a year ago! The design, by architects Curl la Tourelle Head, even won an award in September 2020 (after being nominated for it by Brent Council).

The award-winning design for the new 1 Morland Gardens building (with an added observation).

The Report on which the Key Decision was based makes interesting reading. The reason why Brent’s Property and Assets team need authority to re-tender for the contract is because they received no bids, after they invited tenders in February 2021 (via a one-stage mini-competition under the Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) Contractor Framework agreement). Following feedback from potential contractors, they have now recommended ‘re-use of the existing NHG framework and re-tender under a two-stage D&B contract.’

The first stage would be a Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), under which the contractor would design the project, and at the same time come up with an overall fixed price for which they would carry out the whole construction project. If that price is within the Council’s budget for the project, the second (build) stage would be awarded to them, to carry out the work.

This approach does come with some risks. The report doesn’t mention the risk that none of the contractors invited to bid might decline to do so. It does say: ‘The main risk of a two-stage D&B process is that the contractor may not stay within the budget so the Council has to re-procure an alternative contractor.’ But if the first contractor can’t build what the Council wants for the price they are prepared to pay, what chance is there of finding another contractor who will?

How much is the budget? The Report says: ‘The Morland Gardens project budget was approved by Cabinet on 14 January 2020. The total project budget is £43m of which £41.5m was assigned for the redevelopment of the Morland Gardens site…. The pre-tender estimate for the redevelopment works of £39,820,380 is within this budget.’

But when Cabinet approved the scheme in January 2020, the Report to that meeting said: ‘Current estimates of build cost (excluding decant) are up to £42m.’ Have building costs gone down, not up in the past 20 months?*

One indication is that the estimated cost (in the January 2020 Report to Cabinet) of the building work needed at the Stonebridge Annexe, to prepare it as a temporary home for Brent Start while the redevelopment is carried out, was £500k. When the contract for that work was awarded towards the end of 2020, the cost had risen to £1.2m.

When Brent’s Cabinet approved the 1 Morland Gardens project in January 2020, they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and that work should be completed by July 2022. Now, IFany acceptable bid is received under the re-tender exercise, the first stage of a contract is due to begin in November 2021. 

If that goes successfully, and a price within budget is proposed by May 2022, work on site is expected to begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete. So, that’s when Brent’s redevelopment mighthappen. 

Although, given Brent’s history of errors over this project since 2018, it might not.

Philip Grant.

*[Forecasts published by the RICS suggest a rise in tender prices of around 6.5% between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2022.]

The group St Rapahels Estate Community (Community Raphs')  have welcome Brent Council's decision not to redevelop the St Raphael's estate which is situated between the River Brent and Norfth Circular Road:

We at Community Raph’s are delighted with the news that Brent Council has decided to back down on the redevelopment options for St Raphael estate.

 We are privileged & thankful to be working with Ash (Architects For Social Housing) from 2019 to this present day, together we have helped produced a detailed report to highlight that infill with refurbishment is financially viable, socially beneficial & environmentally sustainable. This report was sent to the Chief Executive, Brent councilors, Mayor’s office and relevant parties.

We believe this report to have an impact on this announcement.

We at Community Raphs are proud to have helped support some quarters of the estate mental wellbeing, created by the lack of transparency, honesty, respect by the official bodies of brent, & more so the thought of losing their homes & community.

We have worked hard to highlight our plight to outside bodies like Ash and the wider community.

Moving on we must have proper engagement, transparency and clarity at every stage of this infill + (refurbishment) project. Despite this announcement our work is not done, we feel there are a few things that needs to be ironed out.

A month ago Brent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee decided to recommend that the Brent Cabinet set up an internal inquiry, open to the public, into the disturbances and security breaches at the Euro2020 Final at Wembley Stadium. LINK  (The precise working is not available  as the Minutes of the meeting have not yet been published.)

The recommendation was not tabled at the subsequent Cabinet meeting but references from the Council's Scrutiny Committees are on the agenda for Monday's 10am Cabinet meeting. No reports are attached to the item.

The Brent CEO made a statement shortly after the Final but Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt was silent until the Football Association set up its own review. He welcomed the review in a statement on the Council website but did not mention any independent Brent Council review:

We welcome the independent review, announced by the FA, to get to the bottom of the scenes we saw at the EURO 2020 Final. It is important that a full and thorough review takes place and that any lessons that can be taken from the events of the England v Italy game are learnt.

The council will be fully participating in that review and will take on board any recommendations Baroness Casey has for activities under our remit.

Clearly there is a difference between participating in another organisation's review and carrying out your own. Cllr Roxanne Mashari, chair of the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, recognised this in her own tweet after the FA's announcement:

Promising to see the FA announce an independently chaired review of security breaches at Wembley Stadium. Essential that this review includes Brent Council who have yet to commit to reviewing their own actions and producing a report on lessons learned.

  Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)

One year ago, the Brent Poverty Commission report by Lord Richard Best was published. The Commission reported that: ‘1 in 6 households (17%) live below the poverty line, doubling (to 33%) after housing costs are taken into account. More than 1 in 5 (22%) of children live in poverty, doubling to a startling 43% after housing costs.’ The report identified: ‘an acute shortage of social housing which has forced people into the private rented sector where rents are two or even three times higher.’

The following month, Brent’s Cabinet gave its full backing to the report’s recommendations, including those based on the key point that the Council needed to put ‘more investment in social housing’, and ‘build even more affordable homes.’

Next Monday (16 August), Brent’s Cabinet has the opportunity to put those recommendations into action, when they consider a report on implementing the Council’s proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone. I will set out briefly what is proposed, and why Cabinet members may wish to question how what Council Officers are proposing might be improved, to take better account of the Poverty Commission’s findings.

The Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) was set up in partnership with the Greater London Authority, to speed-up the delivery of new homes. £8m of GLA funding was received, and part of this (£4.8m) was used by the Council to buy Ujima House in Wembley High Road. The other site (already Council-owned) which now forms part of the WHZ is across the road, where Copland School used to stand (whose buildings were demolished after Ark Elvin Academy moved into its new school further down the slope).

A detailed planning application for the site on the corner of the High Road and Cecil Avenue, and an outline application for Ujima House, were made towards the end of 2019. Although these were approved by Planning Committee in March and June 2020 respectively, the formal consents were not signed off until February 2021. 

It had been decided that the two WHZ schemes would be treated as one for “affordable housing” purposes, and Cabinet is now being asked to ‘approve the preferred delivery option for the regeneration of the sites’. The two sites between them will provide 304 homes, and it is proposed that 50% of these should be affordable homes. I will give a short outline of what is proposed for each site.

The planning approval for Ujima House (19/3092) would demolish the existing building and replace it with a ten-storey block. There would be workspace and a café on the ground floor, with 54 residential flats on the floors above. The 28 1-bed, 18 2-bed and 8 3-bed (only 15% of the total) homes would all be for rent by Brent Council at London Affordable Rent levels (not social rents - see below). 

The more detailed application for the cleared site at the corner of Cecil Avenue and the High Road (19/2891) would build blocks, between five and nine storeys high, containing 250 flats and maisonettes. 64 of these homes would be either 3-bed or 4-bed (26%). However, only 39% of the homes in this development would be “affordable”, and only 52 of the 250 are proposed to be for rental, at London Affordable Rent levels.

[These blocks would not be as grim as they look in the elevation drawings, as the plans include a courtyard in the middle!]

The affordable element for this larger site was set out in an “Approved Plan”, which was made a condition of the February 2021 planning consent. More than half of the London Affordable Rent homes (28) would be 3 or 4-bed. The plan also set out that the other 36 “affordable” homes (21 of which would be 2-bed) should be either Shared Ownership or Intermediate Rent (which would be cheaper than private rents, but not within the means of those on the housing waiting list).

There appears to be a discrepancy. The 52 + 36 affordable homes for the Cecil Avenue / High Road site in the planning consent make a total of 88. However, the WHZ report to Monday’s Cabinet meeting says that 152 affordable homes will be delivered (50% of 304), and to reach that figure 98 of the homes from the larger site would need to be affordable, not 88.

Fifty percent of affordable homes may sound good. But if only 106 of the 304 new units are to be for rent, and all of those at London Affordable Rents, how does that meet the Cabinet’s commitment to the recommendations of the Brent Poverty Commission?

London Affordable Rent levels are set by the GLA. They use a formula based on rent figures decided in 2017/18, which are then increased each year by the previous September’s Consumer Prices Index increase plus 1%. The 2017/18 figures used were around 50% of open market rents at the time, but were between 30% and 50% higher than the average “social rent” levels for the same sized homes charged by housing associations and London boroughs. 

An analysis available on the GLA website makes clear that London Affordable Rent should not be confused with social rent levels, and says: ‘social rent is the only housing type really affordable to lower income Londoners.’ That is why the Poverty Commission report said that Brent should seek to make more of its new “affordable” housing genuinely affordable, at social rent levels.

It appears that the Council Officers making these WHZ proposals to Cabinet are either unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, the recommendations on housing in the Brent Poverty Commission report. Their proposals would ‘bring the Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites to the market together’, through the Council undertaking the construction on both sites, but “procuring” ‘a developer partner to share private housing sales risk.’

The Officer report to Cabinet says that their proposal is a “medium risk” strategy:

‘The Council takes and manages construction risk, which it has experience of doing through its housing and schools capital programmes, but a developer partner is sought to take and dispose the private sales housing, of which the Council has no experience. By financing construction, the Council can use lower public sector borrowing rates and reduce finance costs.’

One of the “risks” of following this route would be:

‘A developer may seek to influence the final scheme, compromising the overall place making vision and regeneration benefits for the area.’

If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list?Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.

I can’t make any detailed suggestions on the finance side, as six of the seven Appendices to the Officer report are secret, because they contain “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)". It appears that the press and public may also be excluded from Monday’s Cabinet meeting while these matters are discussed!

However, it is clear from the report which is available that there are ongoing discussions with the GLA over funding for the scheme, about ‘increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing’:

‘Reviewing WHZ financial viability, the GLA have also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme, but which is subject to confirmation.’

If the Council would go back to the GLA, and its 2021-2026 Affordable Housing Programme, with proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone to provide 100% affordable housing, that could provide the answer.

I believe that this suggestion is worth serious consideration, so I am sending a copy of the text of this article to all of Brent’s Cabinet members (sent Friday 13 August at 4:23pm). I hope that at least some of them will raise questions based on it, especially about the need for social rent homes to be considered, at the meeting on Monday.

I will also send a copy to the Council Officers involved, and to the Chief Executive, for their consideration, and so that they can either provide answers, or at least agree to go away and look at this matter again. 

The Wembley Housing Zone provides a major opportunity to meet some of the housing need identified by the Brent Poverty Commission. That opportunity should not be wasted!

Philip Grant.

 Young Brent people aged 14-16 years old in performed two twenty minute concerts today with musicians from the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra after taking part in a 3 day workshop.

The concert was the grand finale of a creative music project which saw young people from Brent and RPO musicians write brand new pieces on the theme of ‘Wemba’s Dream’ – a creative project exploring the hopes and dreams of Brent residents.

Wemba was the name of the tribe or its leader that  long ago cleared the local woodland to make an open space in which to live - a lea - hence Wemba Lea: Wembley. It was first mentioned in a charter of 825.

Last week Wembley Park announced the performance of'Wemba's Dream' on September 11th:

The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is celebrating its 75th anniversary in September this year by announcing a permanent move of the Orchestra’s headquarters to Wembley Park. The Orchestra is delighted to build on more than 20 years of work with Brent Music Service to make our new home in Brent, and are eager to reach out to local residents to find out how we can engage in meaningful ways over the next months, years and decades.

To celebrate our new announcement, the RPO are working with Wembley Park to put on Wemba’s Dream, a fun-filled ‘festival’ of performances featuring RPO musicians and local artists during the weekend of 11 September. We would love for as many local people as possible to get involved in the celebration, both as audiences attending the weekend performances but also as artists, exploring the project theme through various mediums and sharing their responses with the RPO and the wider community. In the lead up to the performance weekend, the RPO therefore invites local residents to create their own artistic responses on the themes of ‘Brent’ and ‘Dreams’ and submit them to be included HERE, to create an online gallery of local people’s works. 

To find out more about the project theme and how to submit work, dowload the Wemba’s Dream Creative Resource Pack.

By 83 or 302 bus alight at Slough Lane and walk along Slough Lane to the junction with Salmon Street (5 minutes). Walk straight across to Fryent Country Park entrance (be careful - there's a bend in the road).  The event takes place in the large paddock to the right as you enter.

Tree surgeons at work in Carlton Avenue East

 Guest post by local resident L. Green

Last Monday a team of tree 'surgeons’ employed or commissioned by the Council came to Carlton Avenue East and began to demolish a beautiful and sturdy lime tree, one of the many that have lined both sides of this street for eighty odd years.

There was a small amount of fungus growing at the bottom; perhaps someone had complained, but the trunk was sound and the branches decked with as many leaves as all the neighbouring trees. A walk through most woodland will reveal similar fungus growing all over the place.

Early pictures of the street, from Brent Archives, show the newish houses with the recently planted trees in neat rows on both sides. The same view appears in the 1950's Terry Thomas film 'Too Many Crooks', shot in the area and screened at Preston Community Library in 2017.

When the Preston Park Estate was built in the 1920s and 1930s, tree lined avenues were clearly part of the overall vision for the development. Now in a period of great anxiety about climate change, we watch as trees are destroyed with few seeming to care. 

When I moved to this area in the 1990s I used to delight in walking along neighbouring Longfield Avenue. It was lined with a row of glorious Maples, which turned bright red and gold each Autumn. There was also cherry tree with deep pink blossom each spring. Now the Maples and the cherry have all gone, and there are only two trees left in the street, which is greatly diminished as a result. In adjoining Glendale Gardens most of the trees have gone, at least two have gone from Grasmere and in the last fortnight a tree has suddenly disappeared from the roundabout where Windermere Avenue joins Grasmere. All this devastation in just four streets - Is this typical of the whole of Brent, just how many trees have gone? Should we be mapping them?

In 2019 the Greater London Authority provided thousands of trees for Londoners to plant in their communities, and SKPPRA, the local residents' association duly organised a planting in Preston Park. However it seems likely that in this area at least, for every tree planted more than one has gone. The R number for trees is over 1!

Clearly there will be some occasions when a tree genuinely has to go. In Montpelier Rise there is a leafless tree that is as ex as the proverbial dead parrot, though unusually there is no demolition notice posted on its trunk. However, there should be a proper programme of replacement for all trees cut down, and a decent notice period when any tree is endangered, so that local people can respond when the destruction is unjustified.

Trees contribute so much to our environment - not just to the attractiveness of the street scene and as homes for birds and other wildlife, but to our safety. A neighbour had a large weeping willow in her garden which recently died. Now her garden floods more in storms, because the willow was drinking up water from the saturated ground. 

We need a programme of tree planting in our streets and parks, to both replace what has already been lost and to increase the overall number. There are plenty of local sites where trees could be planted. In Carlton Avenue East the rhythm of the planting will be spoilt by the absence of the cut down tree, and a similar tree needs to be installed as a replacement. The Borough needs to increase the number of trees, to play it's part in improving our environment and fighting climate change.

A 26 storey giant rises on the site previously occupied by Minavil House (below)

I would not deny that Minavil House (opposite Alperton Bus station) was ripe for development - but from 2 storeys to 26 is a mighty leap and a trip to Alperton today revealed its impact on the local rail and street scene. The original Minavil House became derelict and was damaged by a fire in 2018. The developer R55 was one of several  invited to a three course dinner with the Leader of Brent Council and some council officers by property PR agency Terrapin Communications back in 2017. Questions were asked about the hospitality event and Cllr Butt answered. LINK 

R55 is also responsible for the 255 Ealing Road development and The Workshop (Willesden) development near Dollis Hill - a development that is much bigger than the name would suggest. LINK

Questions were raised at the planning stage about the height of the building at the time and how it fitted in with the local landscape. In fact its height was later cited as a justiification for a 28 storey building almost opposite on the site of Alperton bus garage.

Minavil House from Alperton Station

From Bridgewater Road

The illustration below gives the height of the various towers in progress or planned:

Alperton High School bottom right and Alperton Station

On the way to Alperton on the 297 bus I took a photograph (below)  of the building locally known as the 'Twin Towers', named 'Uncle' by its  owner and on the site of the former Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road. It shows the visual impact of such a building from  suburban Wembley Park Drive. The tallest tower is 26 storeys.

In the aftermath of the disturbances at the Euro202 Final at Wembley Stadium the Council’s Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee added an emergency item to its agenda and discussed what had happened with council officers before agreeing a recommendation to be made to the Cabinet.

Cllr Roxanne Mashari presented that recommendation yesterday. She said that there was public concern in Brent about the disturbances and resulting injuries as well as concern over the public health implications of what had been called the Wembley Covid Variant. The Committee had been disappointed with the lack of detail coming from officers.

Cllr Mashari thanked Brent CEO Carolyn Downs for sharing an incident report with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee as well as the Chair of the Community and Well Being Scrutiny Committee but was concerned at the lack of publicly available information regarding the Council’s activities and responsibilities on the day.

The Scrutiny Committee resolved that the Council should hold a public  review into its actions before, during and after the Final to establish lessons learnt.

Responding the Leader of the Council, Cllr Butt, said that there were live cases going through the courts at present and no one from the Council or anyone else would be making any public statement about what had happened on that day.

He said that the Council would cooperate fully with the Casey Inquiry and went on to thank council officers for the work that they had done ‘going above and beyond what was actually required’ – work that had been in preparation over 3 years.

Cllr Butt reiterated that it would be wrong to make any comment or to assert any wrongdoing from anyone until investigations had concluded. He thanked everyone for ensuring that the event place in very difficult and challenging circumstances.  He added that the Government had recommended that the number of people attending the matches should be staggered slowly and that was exactly what had happened. The Council had played its full part in making sure that that everyone who needed testing and support had it. Every single service in the Council absolutely played its part and would continue to do so.

No other Cabinet member spoke, and no vote was taken on the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation.