Philip Grant left this comment on an earlier blog post, I thought it deserved a page of its own as it opens the way to more high rise high density developments in the borough.

Proposed "modifications" to Brent's draft Local Plan are currently open for comments (but only until 5pm this Thursday, 19 August!).

In the section of the Local Plan headed "How Will Good Growth In Brent be Delivered?", on pages 28-29, at para.2 "Making the best use of land", the modifications includes the following additional point:

'd) Identifying appropriate areas for tall buildings and change that add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place.'

At sub-para. b), they have also added "Intensification Corridors" (that's main roads in Brent, like Harrow Road and Forty Lane, which include "suburban" sections) to "town centres", as places for higher density housing. This would now read, if the proposed modification is accepted:

'b) Supporting higher density development in Brent’s town centres, Intensification Corridors and in areas with good accessibility to public transport.'

The new areas for tall buildings, and widening of the areas in the borough for higher density developments, are so that Brent can implement another proposed modification.

Instead of the Local Plan's current housing target for an average of 2040 new homes a year up to 2041, the proposed modification at para."6. Delivering the homes to meet Brent’s needs" reads:

'a) Housing delivery will be maximised, with sufficient planning permissions to support delivery of more homes than the minimum London Plan housing target of 23,250 between 2019/20-2028/29. A minimum 46,018 dwellings will be delivered for the whole plan period of 2019/20-2040/41 ....'

All of these points are part of "main modification" MM3 in the revised draft Local Plan out for consultation. If you wish to make any representations on this, or any other points BY THURSDAY \9th AUGUST at 5pm, details are on the Brent Council website at:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/services-for-residents/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/shaping-brent-s-future-together/

CLICK HERE FOR A DIRECT LINK TO THE REPRESENTATION FORM THAT YOU NEED TO COMPLETE

This is the  Cabinet decision sheet that contains the official account of his speech LINK:

Councillor Mashari, Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, provided an update on the discussions held at the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 16 July 2021 regarding the scenes witnessed around Wembley Stadium in advance of the UEFA 2020 European Championship Final.  She advised that as well as focussing on the impact upon local residents, the Committee had also been particularly concerned at reports of injuries along with issues identified relating to public safety and public health and how this may affect arrangements for the hosting of future events at the Stadium.  Cabinet were advised that the Committee had taken evidence from relevant officers and stakeholders during their meeting and had welcomed the information provided.  As a result of the concerns expressed, however, the Committee had recommended that Cabinet hold a public review into the Council’s actions taken before, during and after the Final to establish the lessons learnt.

 

Councillor M Butt, as Leader of the Council, thanked Councillor Mashari for her contribution and in response began by highlighting the need for care to be taken in terms of the accuracy of any statements made relating to the events witnessed, given the current external independent review being led by Baroness Casey and nature of ongoing police prosecutions.  The Council were fully cooperating and supporting the independent review and in order to avoid prejudicing the outcome of this and ongoing criminal prosecutions he advised it would not therefore be possible to comment in any more detail at this stage on the issues identified.  Councillor M.Butt ended by highlighting the level of support provided by staff from across the Council in the staging of the tournament at Wembley Stadium and thanked all those involved on behalf of the Council for their efforts.

I think readers can see why I interpreted that as not agreeing to a internal public review as requested by Scrutiny. Usually decisions are recorded in  the form: Cabinet 'RESOLVED', and then a record of the action points.

However Cllr Mashari  tweeted this morning:

It is puzzling that Cllr Butt, as Leader of the Council, did not mention the two internal reviews in his Cabinet speech but they are very welcome and I am sure local residents would welcome a way to contribute.

 To: Department of Education

Brent Council's proposal with building heights (storeys) - Kilburn High Road is top right

Guest post  by Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents' Association

Ten months on from first publication of the “mini-Master Plan” for a huge infill housing expansion on the Kilburn Square Co-op Estate, while Cllr Southwood continues repeating that “Nothing is decided” about the scale of the project, Brent is still busy clearing away potential obstacles…

Last month Cabinet approved (LINK) a series of enabling measures. And in the proposed modifications to Brent’s Local Plan, lo and behold they’re seeking to designate Kilburn Square a “Tall Buildings Zone” – to pre-empt formal objection to a new 17-storey tower when a Planning Application is made in October.

  The existing tower and otherwise low profile estate from Kilburn High Road. The Council claims a new tower block will 'mirror' the existing tower to create a 'landmark'. LINK

Kilburn Village RA (whose territory includes the estate)  submitted this objection  on Thursday – with a request that the relevant clause be deleted…

• To seek to designate the tiny area of Kilburn Square as a Tall Buildings Zone is a ridiculous mis-reading of the thrust of the Tall Buildings policy laid out in MM94 section 6.1 Design, which explicitly envisages clusters of Tall Buildings
• On this really small footprint there is theoretically room for one tall building, and no scope for the prescribed stepping down…in no way can that constitute a cluster or a Zone
• MM3 4.1.2d requires that Tall Buildings should “add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place”
• MM77 5.6 SE Place BSESA20 Design Principles (p222) notes the  Brondesbury Road Conservation Area adjacent to Kilburn Square and states “Development should integrate well with the surrounding context and consider character, setting and the form and scale of surrounding buildings”
• Brent has draft housing plans for a new 17-storey tower on the Kilburn Square footprint. KVRA strongly contends that such a building would fail all three policy tests. An existing 17-storey tower dates back over 30 years, and is already an anomaly in the skyscape of the surrounding area – we believe it would not be approved today. 
• The Council has produced no Heritage or Urban Design report in support of this proposed new clause; nor any evidence of potential compliance with its Climate Emergency strategy or other environmental impacts; nor of consultation with the neighbouring Borough of Camden on a Tall Building zone.
• KVRA rejects  as absurd suggestions by Brent’s New Council Homes (NCH) project team that a second tower would create a ”Landmark” for Kilburn and bring desirable “symmetry” with the (not even matching) existing tower
• In July 2021, NCH held pre-engagement Zooms with KVRA and our neighbouring RAs; in four live sessions, and at least fifty subsequent feedback forms, the proposal for a second 17-storey tower was unanimously rejected as not being consistent with the surrounding context
• With residents on the KS estate itself, an extensive engagement process by independent advisors Source Partnership is nearing completion and we are confident its conclusions will show negligible support for a new Tall Building.  
• And a petition launched by a KVRA Committee member, rejecting a new Tower, has over 800 signatures
• Clearly the current residents and neighbours of the small Kilburn Square site roundly reject the proposition that a new tower would “be a positive addition to the skyline, that would enhance the overall character of the area”
• This representation is also supported by the Chairs of neighbouring RAs Brent Eleven Streets (BEST), Queen’s Park Area Residents’ Association (QPARA) and Brondesbury Residents and Tenants (BRAT).

See https://save-our-square.org and sign our petition http://chng.it/xwxLyYcDhP if you haven’t already!

The UK Government Events Research Programme has published a report on the Public Health Impact of mass cultural and sporting events on the prevalence of Covid 19. LINK

The report covers Euro 2020 matches including the final at Wembley Stadium on July 12th and will feed into various inquiries, hopefully including the two internal inquiries agreed by Brent Council. LINK

The disorder and stadium invasion at Wembley Stadium on July 11th when England played Italy  probably had an impact as did the nature of football crowds and pre-match socialising and drinking.

I reprint the substance of the report blow. A full version with footnotes can be found on the link above.

DISCUSSION

The increasing number of reported cases across all events reflects the increasing community prevalence of COVID-19 during that period. Both the EURO 2020 matches at Wembley and the All England Lawn Tennis Championships were mass spectator sporting events taking place on multiple days within a short period of time at an outdoor stadium in Greater London. There were similar numbers of spectators and high capacity in the stadia, reaching 75% for the later EURO 2020 matches and 100% on Centre Court at the Wimbledon final. Both required evidence of vaccination or negative LFD or natural immunity as a condition of entry. There are very markedly different numbers of positive cases reported as associated with these events, with those associated with the Wimbledon event more comparable with those reported from the other ERP events running concurrently, and with the numbers testing positive within the wider community at that time. This suggests that the EURO 2020 matches generated a level of COVID -19 transmission over and above that which would be more commonly associated with large crowds attending an outdoor sporting event with measures in place to mitigate transmission.

The number of potentially infected persons attending Wembley stadium increased as the tournament progressed, reaching more than 2,000 at the EURO 2020 final despite event goers requiring a COVID pass for entry; this was in contrast with much lower infectious cases detected at other events occurring in the same month. This raises questions on the utility of individuals self-reporting tests in reducing the prevalence of COVID infection at rare or special occasion events and the longer term deliverability of self-testing as an option to mitigate disease transmission.

Research teams present at each of these events have verbally reported stark differences in crowd and spectator behaviour (personal communication from Dr Aoife Hunt, formal report in preparation). Whilst attendees at Wimbledon were reported to be largely compliant with the crowd management measures in place, at the Wembley stadium the concourse areas became densely populated with shouting, chanting and boisterous behaviour with close contact in these areas before and during the semi-final and final matches.

At both venues alcohol was served, but at Wembley attendees were not allowed to take this into the seated accommodation. At both venues the compliance with risk mitigation measures was variable. However, the initial reports from research teams indicate that the Wembley spectators became less compliant with mitigation such as face coverings as the tournament progressed. In addition to this, the carbon dioxide levels reported from the concourse areas were higher than those recorded at other high risk settings in the ERP events, including the densely crowded areas at the Download music festival, and will have compounded the risk associated with the high numbers of spectators potentially infectious at the event itself (personal communication from Dr Liora Malki-Epshtein UCL, formal report in preparation).

Finally, the public disorder offences occurring at EURO 2020 have been widely reported, including an undefined number of ticketless fans who gained entry to the stadium. Public disorder in and around the stadium meant that COVID-19 status checks were suspended for the Final.

 

The EURO 2020 events had an increasing impact on a national scale which was not observed for other events within the ERP, suggesting that there were additional factors associated with these events and that the risk of COVID transmission was not mitigated by the control measures in place for entry to the event itself. There was increasing national interest as the tournament progressed, as this was the first time an English team were in an international final for 55 years generating a sense of the final stages being a ‘once in a generation’ occasion. This will not be replicated for all sport tournaments taking place over the winter, nor for all football matches. However, previous crowd behaviours associated with football fans has underpinned the methods used to manage these crowds including the legislation in place governing alcohol consumption within football stadia. In general terms, this has the effect of concentrating people into as few areas as possible while crowd management strategies often hold groups until they can be moved en-masse in a controlled manner. To mitigate the risk of transmission of COVID-19 it would be preferable to dissipate the crowds across as wide an area as possible and manage the movement over long periods of time, as happened at other events including the Wimbledon tennis championships. Further analysis of movement strategies will be reported as part of ERP phase 3 reports.

In addition to the cases associated directly with Wembley stadium, there was a noticeable national impact on COVID-19 case rates for key games including the Ukraine versus England quarter-final (3 July in Rome), for the England versus Denmark semi-final (7 July) and for the England versus Italy final (11 July), reflecting that in the later stages of the EURO 2020 tournament people came together across the country to watch the games and celebrate. There are higher proportions of events coded as pubs or bars on each of these dates compared to other dates for COVID-19 cases in England.

The case numbers associated with the events were detected using the routine reporting systems and were mainly from individuals who were symptomatic. As high proportions of cases, especially in young healthy individuals are asymptomatic, this is likely to be an underestimate of the full impact of these events. In addition, contact tracing is only undertaken for PCR test results and supervised LFD test results (those who are positive on home LFDs are requested to undertake an immediate PCR test) and recall bias of those contacted will vary. While there is no detailed age and sex breakdown for those who attended, it is highly likely that certain sports events (for example, football, golf) were more likely to have higher male and younger demographic attending. The age distribution also likely reflects the impact of vaccination; by 11 July 2021, more than 80% of those over 50 years were fully vaccinated and less than 30% of those under 40 years were fully vaccinated.

Contact tracing information can indicate events or locations individuals have attended while at risk of transmitting COVID-19 or places where transmission may have occurred.

It is not possible to say with certainty how many individuals transmitted COVID-19 at an event or venue, nor exactly where an individual contracted the virus. The Euro Final match did not take place until 8pm, meaning that those attending may have been engaging in social activities during their journey to the match, and prior to entering the stadium itself. Transmission of infection may have occurred at the event itself or during any of the other reported activities associated with the event, of which attending a pub or
restaurant is the most frequently reported.

Neither full vaccination nor a negative LFD test will completely eliminate the possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, but it should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the event.  

CONCLUSION

The EURO2020 tournament and England’s progress to the EURO final generated a significant risk to public health across the UK even when England played overseas. This risk arose not just from individuals attending the event itself, but included activities undertaken during travel and associated social activities. For the final and semi-final games at Wembley, risk mitigation measures in place were less effective in controlling COVID transmission than was the case for other mass spectator sports events.

EURO2020-related transmissions have also been documented in Scotland where 2,632 individuals self-reported attending a EURO2020 event in the UK; and Finland, where 947 new SARS-CoV-2-positive cases were linked to travel to Moscow, Russia.

Whilst some of this may be attributed to a set of circumstances which are unlikely to be replicated for the forthcoming sporting season, other aspects may be important to consider including mitigations for spectators to consider such as face coverings when travelling to and from events and minimising crowding in poorly ventilated indoors spaces such as bars and pubs where people may congregate to watch events. It is also important that individuals are informed to reduce the risk of transmission from aerosol exposure related to shouting and chanting in large groups by improving ventilation in enclosed spaces.

Other risk mitigation measures at high community prevalence include reducing the number of persons entering events or venues who are potentially infectious or at risk of severe disease or hospitalisation by promoting attendance by fully vaccinated individuals will be important. Promoting vaccination and the wearing of face coverings for those attending events will also reduce the risk of transmission associated with the journey to and from the event and associated social activities. Finally, event organisers should consider measures to manage the density of crowds in areas such as hospitality and concessions on the concourses, and entry and exit points to the event.

Barnet Council have approved a scheme to go to Planning Committee in 2022 for the transformation of the West Hendon Playing Fields at the Barnet end of the Welsh Harp. 

Satellite image of the area as it is at present

The Welsh Harp is within the boundaries of both Barnet and Brent Councils and is jointly managed by them and the Canal and Rivers Trust.

In a Press Release LINK  Barnet Council said:

When Brent Council announced on August 12th LINK that redevelopment after demolition was no longer an option for St Raphael's Estate, Wembley Matters offered both resident groups active on the estate a guest post  to explain their reaction.

St Raphael's Estate Community Action posted a guest blog on August 13th welcoming the decision LINK.

Today Asif Zamir, Chair of St Raphael's Voice, puts their perspective:

We are happy to have had the opportunity as St Raphael's Voice and residents of St Raphael’s Estate to co-work with the council and KCA to develop both masterplans.

Having heard the announcement that redevelopment is no longer financially viable and will not be offered as an option; as per the original commitment from the council there will be no need for a ballot.

This has left many residents who were looking to exercise their preferred choice by way of democratic vote (Ballot)disappointed as they felt that redevelopment could have been a life changing opportunity for them financially as well as positively changed and uplifted the area they live in. Others welcomed the decision as it has meant that they will not have to make any changes and can continue with their lives and do not have to plan for any major changes.

Many residents are of course disappointed that they won't get the opportunity to vote on the redevelopment and that there is no longer an option for it to happen but we understand the reason for the decision and will work positively with the council to ensure the Infill plus option delivers the best possible result for residents. SRVs role has always been and continues to remain to support and ensure any consultation/work was truly led by the community. It is a role we have always taken seriously and have delivered on it. Over the last few years we have worked hard to support residents and have assisted residents throughout covid - leading the Stonebridge ward mutual aid group offering a food and medical supplies support service, we have set up the residents association which assists in the management of the estate, we have successfully set up youth sports clubs on the estate and lots more. We are committed and will continue to work hard to ensure St Raphael's Estate receives the investment it needs and there continues to be improvements to enrich the lives of residents.

St Raphael's should never have become a point scoring platform for organisations such as ASH who with certain individuals attempted to divide the estate - fortunately residents did not play into their hands and continued to support St Raphael's Voice- we have always attempted to be the backbone of the estate and stand up for the rights of residents and amplify their voices it was never their masterplan - it was always ours. Even though we didn't get the opportunity for a ballot, it remains a victory for the residents of St Raphael's Estate, as this process has allowed us to attract investment and further improvements.

From Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements

Brent’s new and unprecedented coalition – Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements – has called on the Leader of Brent Council, Cllr Muhammed Butt, to reverse the current policy of asphalting pavements instead of repairing broken slabs.

Now representing eighteen (18) residents associations and groups right across the Borough, BRAAP is pointing out that covering the many miles of pavements in the Council’s current renewal programme with asphalt involves thousands of trips by diesel-engined heavy lorries. These emit both pollutants of the air we breathe and global warming CO2. This is in direct conflict with Brent’s recently adopted Climate Emergency Strategy. 

BRAAP’s letter to Cllr Butt supports the just-published report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and welcomes his article in the Kilburn Times about it. There he says “This is a climate emergency. We must act now.”

BRAAP joint-coordinator, Robin Sharp, says:

Why is Brent not taking the simple option of reversing its policy on asphalting pavements? This would save hundreds of tons of CO2, unnecessarily spewed into the atmosphere, and be widely popular across the Borough? It would produce a win-win outcome.

BRAAP is also asking for an explanation of why Brent councillors voted against a motion at Full Council on 21 July to have the asphalting policy referred to the Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Mashari promised in the debate to write to BRAAP the next day with an explanation but no letter has been received.

In the light of the IPCC’s report last week, BRAAP is more determined than ever to see an end to Brent’s environmentally disastrous policy to asphalt pavements.

Background

This month’s report by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change makes it unequivocally clear that the catastrophic floods and fires we are seeing across the world are caused by man-made activities producing greenhouse gases.  The evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change -  carbon dioxide from diesel lorries for example.  

BRAAP Background

Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements is a new coalition of 18 (and rising) residents’ groups across the borough representing opposition to Brent Council’s policy to asphalt pavements.   It was formed in spring 2021.

Letter to the Leader of Brent Council

BRAAP’s letter to the Leader of Brent dated 23 August 2021 is below.

BRENT RESIDENTSAGAINST ASPHALT PAVEMENTS

23rd August 2021

Cllr Muhammed Butt

Leader of Brent Council

Civic Centre

Engineer’s Way HA9 0FJ

Dear Councillor Butt

Residents against Brent’s Climate-unfriendly asphalting policy

We would like to begin by introducing you to BRAAP – Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements. We are now an unprecedented coalition of eighteen, yes eighteen, residents’ associations and residents’ groups across the whole of the borough. We do what it says on the tin. We don’t know of any similar voluntary grouping in Brent on this scale on any other topic of concern to the citizens of our community. We are asking you and your colleagues to hear what we have to say.

IPCC

This month’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report makes it crystal clear that the catastrophic floods and fires we are seeing across the world are caused by human-controlled activities producing greenhouse gases. This epoch- making document serves to reinforce Brent’s own Climate Emergency Strategy which we support, as far as it goes. Among other things that says: „We will develop and implement a sustainable procurement policy that requires sustainable practices to be considered throughout our procurement and contract management procedures.”

We agree with your article in the current Kilburn Times where you state‚’This is a climate emergency, we must act now.’

Brent’s Strategy explains that there are many actions that individuals can take towards the UK’s net zero carbon goal – and that the Council must make every effort to adapt its own policies to the same end. There is a simple cheap option that the Council could take very quickly – but it is not listed either for short- or longer term action.

This is to reverse the policy of replacing footway paving slabs with asphalting throughout the Borough and not to start any new asphalting contracts from now on.

The rationale is really a no-brainer. Asphalting the many miles of footway in the Council’s current programme is requiring thousands of journeys by diesel-engined HGVs which emit both global warming CO2 and pollutants of the air we breathe. In addition asphalt when laid down contributes to warming of the ambient air temperature, needing alleviation through planting. By contrast replacing broken paving slabs consumes minimal resources and very few HGV miles, while pulverising good slabs to make way for asphalt burns up yet more energy.

Voting against Brent Scrutiny of asphalting policies

This being the case we are at a loss to understand why the Council has rejected BRAAP’s fully reasoned request for the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to examine policies involved in asphalting pavements by voting against the motion put forward by Cllr Kansagra at the Full Council on 21 July. Moreover we are dismayed that Cllr Mashari, Chair of Scrutiny, did not honour her promise to write to BRAAP the next day to explain why you and colleagues voted against scrutiny of a policy which is opposed by so many residents’ groups.

We look forward to your response. Could you please let us know by 31st August if you are ready to consider our proposal and include it in the Climate Emergency Strategy? We are also writing to other Councillors.

Best wishes

BRAAP Co-ordinators

Contacts:

Flavia Rittner - administrator & co-ordinator: frittner7@gmail.com

Robin Sharp - co-ordinator: robisharp@googlemail.com 

Brent Residents Against Asphalt Pavements

Aylestone Park Residents’ & Tenants’ Association 

Barn Hill Residents’ Association

Brent Eleven Streets

Brent Parks Forum

Brondesbury Residents’ & Tenants’ Association

Brondesbury Road Group

Chandos Road Group

Clifford Gardens Group

Harlesden Area Action

Kensal Rise Residents Association

Kensal Triangle Residents Association

Kilburn Village Residents Association

Mapesbury Pavements Action Group

Queens Park Area Residents Association

Roe Green Village Residents Association

Sudbury Town Residents Association

Wembley Central & Alperton Residents Association

Willesden Green Residents Association

 The case of a Black child being told their hairstyle was unacceptable by a Brent secondary school was the focus of a talk by veteran Grenadian born education campaigner and academic Professor Gus John, at the 'Institutionalisation of Racism Weekend' at the ICA in London.

John  said was using the case to make the point, in his words, that 'Decolonising the institution is a prerequisite for decolonising the curriculum.'

The slides appear to refer to an old case LINK but clearly pertinent given the Black Lives Matter movement and more recent issues in schools.

Slides were shown with extracts from the school's position on corn rows at the time:

Since Michael Gove's education reforms no Brent secondary school is directly controlled by the local authority. There are stand alone academies, multi-academy trusts, academy chains, faith schools and a free school. 

However, Brent Council does have an overall responibility for the wellbeing and safeguarding of all children in the borough and in the light of Black Lives Matter has adopted a Black Community Action Plan. LINK

Of   relevance is a more  recent case won by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission reported here LINK:

Stopping a school from using a discriminatory hairstyle policy

Case name: Ruby Williams vs Urswick School

A pupil, Ruby, took her school to court after it enforced a uniform policy that banned Afro hair of excessive volume. When the school didn’t respond to the claim, the court issued a default judgment in her favour and the family reached a settlement. We funded the case through court and secured a legally binding agreement with the school to ensure it ended the discriminatory policy and considered factors such as race and religion when determining what a ‘reasonable’ hairstyle was. 

Legal issue

Is a school’s policy against pupils wearing ‘voluminous afro hairstyles’ discriminatory.

Background

Ruby Williams is mixed race and has naturally big, afro hair. She was repeatedly refused entry to Urswick School, or sent home, while in years 10 and 11 because the school had a policy which banned big afro hairstyles.

She was told to change her hairstyle to one consistent with the school’s uniform policy, which said that hair must be of ‘a reasonable size’.

Ruby tried numerous hairstyles to comply with the policy but many of these damaged her hair and were time-consuming and expensive.

Ruby developed signs of depression and felt anxious about going to school because of it all.

She worried she would be singled out by teachers in front of her classmates because of her appearance.

The school was sent letters from Ruby's GP and a clinical psychologist warning that she was suffering because of the policy.

Why we were involved

Race is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and afro hair is inherently linked to race.

We were concerned that the policy was indirectly discriminatory because it put Ruby and other mixed race pupils at a particular disadvantage compared to white pupils, and the school could not show it was appropriate or necessary.

What we did

As part of a Legal Support Project we ran in 2017-2018 to tackle discrimination in education, we funded a race discrimination claim against the school on Ruby's behalf.

We then followed up with the school by securing a legally binding agreement, which meant the school removed any reference to volume in its hair-style policy. It also drafted a ‘Policy Equality statement’ to accompany the hairstyle policy so that factors such as race and religion would be factored into determining what a ‘reasonable’ hairstyle was. 

What happened

The school failed to file a defence to the claim and the London County Court therefore issued a default judgment in Ruby’s favour.

After years of delays with her case, Ruby and her family decided to settle out of court.

We followed up with the school by securing a legally binding agreement, which meant the school developed a new hair-style policy which could take account of factors such as race when deciding if a hair-style was appropriate.

Who will benefit and how

Urswick School has nearly 900 pupils. By working with us to establish a non-discriminatory policy, the school has taken steps to protect other children from being treated in the way that Ruby was.

By supporting this case and bringing the issue to the fore through the press, parents and children will be more aware that Race is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and that any discriminatory treatment can and should be challenged.  We have also provided support to Urswick school develop a new hair-style policy.

Young people have set up a campaign to fight discrimination over hair styles called the Halo Collective LINK. They explain their mission:

We are the Black hair revolution

We are an alliance of organisations and individuals working to create a future without hair discrimination, founded by young Black organisers from The Advocacy Academy.

Race-based hair discrimination has been illegal in the UK since the the Equalities Act became law in 2010, and yet it still happens all the time.

For too long, Black people have been told that our hair textures and hairstyles are inappropriate, unattractive, and unprofessional. We’ve been suspended from school, held back in our careers, and made to feel inferior by racist policies and attitudes.

Together, we are fighting for the protection and celebration of Black hair and hairstyles.

Ever wanted to learn to canoe  but didn’t know where to start? Join us at one of our free, Let’s Paddle! events.

Location

Phoenix Canoe Club & Outdoor Centre

Cool Oak Lane

London

NW9 7ND

About this Event

Learn to paddle with our team of professionally qualified instructors . All the equipment is provided, so all you need to do is book in on this free session and turn up on the day.

Book now

Please book one time slot per person. Please arrive no more than 15 minutes before your booked slot. These sessions are designed for adults and for children from 9 years old upwards who are interested in trying out a potential new hobby.

Parents and Guardians (for those under 18) are required to remain on site during the activity.

Covid-19 Guidelines

COVID-19 compliance 2021

1, if you or a person in your support bubble have any symptoms of COVID-19 please do not attend the event

2, Spectators should follow local government guidance on group size and avoid standing in large groups

3, All equipment will be sanitised before each session

4, Hand sanitizer must be used prior to the event.

5, Where possible a 2 metre distance should be observed

Allow for a short delay when booking in as we need to ensure previous participants have cleared the area

We make the events as safe and fun as possible under the current circumstances

Walk ins will not be accepted. If you can no longer attend, please cancel your ticket via Eventbrite or please get in touch with us to allow another person(s) a chance to take part. Social distancing measures will be in place and all equipment will be cleaned in between sessions. 

Donate to Let’s Activity!

The Canal & River Trust’s Let’s Activity campaign is free to attend as part of our work as a waterways and wellbeing charity to help everyone get out, get active and make their lives better by water by learning to paddle. You can now support the work our teams do with children and families and make a donation on our website here.

 

The General Secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, Sarah Woolley. issued the followed statement today on behalf of the Executive following media rumours that the Labour Party is poised to expel BFAWU's General Secretary.

The statement said:

Today the Labour Party has made a clear statement of intent in its aspiration to repair its relationship with the bosses but seems to be determined to widen the divide between the representatives of labour and those our movement represent.

The recent decision to proscribe organisations is seen as a divisive and a purely factional attack which will do nothing to unite the party or provide any real opportunity for the party to be able to unite to fight and defeat our real enemy The Tory Party.

We have decided to make this statement following recent media speculation in relation to the expulsion of our National President. Our executive have met to discuss the potential of this event occurring, and reaffirmed its position that our National President has only ever conducted himself in line with the policies and the decisions taken by this trade union. 

The executive expressed dismay and anger at the idea the Labour Party should consider expelling the office of our nominated political lead in our organisation, and agreed that a firm response was required should the party take such actions.

The BFAWU executive unanimously agreed a timeline that would coincide with the leaders address to national Labour conference in September should such a situation arise and that from Wednesday 25th August communication to Branches would be initiated and would be formally issuing notification of our intention in preparedness to recall conference to debate the disaffiliation from the Labour party. 

The Executive made it quite clear an attack on one of ours is an attack on all of us and stood in absolute solidarity with our Elected National President. 

It’s also worth remembering that the recent survey of our membership returned a slight majority in favour of disaffiliation.

The feeling is should the decision to debate disaffiliation go ahead it would result in a break with the Labour party for the first time since we helped fund its creation in 1902. But we will not accept bullying from any bosses or a party that seems to be choosing to prefer to be on the bosses side. 

John McDonnell tweeted

Each day brings with it yet another act of ludicrous targeting of respected socialists. Ian Hodson is the sort of working class trade unionist that the Labour Party was created by BFAWU and one of our party’s foundation stones. Message to Labour Drop this act of stupidity.

From Brent Council

Self administered Covid 19 Lateral Flow Tests are now available for collection at every Brent Council run library.

"It’s really important to keep taking the Covid-19 tests, and to self-isolate if you test positive," said Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure.

"Testing kits for people without symptoms are available in libraries and Brent Civic Centre for you to pick up and take home at your convenience. These LFT tests are easy, quick, and you will get your results in 30 minutes. I urge everyone to take advantage of this service. The virus is still with us, and we still need to be careful. We need to keep ourselves and each other safe."

The tests are available at Ealing Road Library, Harlesden Library Plus, Kilburn Library, Kingsbury Library, Wembley Library and Civic Centre and The Library at Willesden Green. Find the library opening times here.

If you are showing symptoms of Covid-19, you will need to self-isolate and take a PCR test – even if you have been fully vaccinated.                                        

Headstone Manor

Guest post by Emma Wallace of Harrow Green Party 

In June 2021, Harrow Council published its ‘Annual Public Health Report 2021’, this year entitled ‘Let’s Go Outside: Using Nature to Recover’.  As the title suggests, the report focuses on the opportunities Harrow’s green spaces provide to ‘promote a healthier lifestyle’, aiming to encourage people to exercise and reconnect with nature.  The Director of public health at Harrow Council, Carole Furlong, has “outlined the positive impact that parks and reserves have on people’s mental and physical fitness, particularly in light of the past year, when coronavirus has dominated daily life” (Harrow Times, 9th June 2021).  Indeed, since the arrival of the pandemic in March 2020, parks and green spaces have been “propelled into the nation’s hearts and minds, proving their status as lifelines for local communities.” (Parks Fit for the Future, Local Government Association).  Many of us during the various lockdowns have come to appreciate, seek out and discover local green spaces to carry out our daily exercise, walk dogs, play sports, relax and meet others (when the rules allowed) and experience local wildlife.  The open green spaces provide time for quiet contemplation, visual relief, somewhere to breathe clean air and a break from our ever congested and urbanised neighbourhoods. 

Our green spaces have undoubtedly helped to enhance our mental and physical wellbeing during the pandemic, and it makes sense that the Council should highlight this for future community health benefits.  Whilst it is great news that they are recognising the value of our many wonderful parks and nature reserves, it is essential that the Council reflects on the other roles and purposes our green spaces have, such as supporting local biodiversity, wildlife conservation, helping to prevent climate change and local flooding.  Further thought needs to be given to how an increase in public use will impact them, both in their ability to continue to act as safe, well maintained and welcoming spaces for the community, but also how they will be able to meet biodiversity and climate targets.  There also must be some reflection on and acknowledgement of the vulnerable state they are already currently in.  In the last decade, parks have faced unprecedented council budget cuts, impacting on their maintenance and overall condition, whilst coping with a steady increase in public use.  It is these issues I will explore further below to try and ascertain what impact the last ten years have already had on Harrow’s parks and green spaces, the continued challenges they face and what actions need to be taken to ensure their future survival. 

West Harrow Recreation Ground

Harrow’s Green Belt, Historic Parks and Green Flag Awards

Harrow has an extensive amount of open green space, with 20% of the borough’s land identified as such, placing it number ten out of the thirty-two London boroughs (Natural capital accounts for public space in London, London Government, p.12).  This green space is formed of more than 80 separate areas, including parks, allotments, nature reserves and cemeteries, as captured in the Harrow Biodiversity video, commissioned for the Woodland Trust Tree Charter Festival in November 2020.  The North of the borough boasts Green Belt land, including Bentley Priory, Harrow's most important nature reserve and only biological Site of Special Scientific Interest (SINC) (Harrow Nature Conservation Forum).   In total, Harrow has ten nature reserves and several other wild open spaces in the borough (Harrow Annual Public Health Report 2021, p.12).  There are twenty-eight parks, which are distributed relatively evenly across the borough and most of which are accessible within 10-15mins of walking from a resident’s home (OPEN SPACE PPG17 STUDY, Harrow Council, p.4).  Four of our green spaces are nationally registered historic parks and gardens, including Grims Dyke and Bentley Priory.  There are also four locallylisted green spaces, including Pinner Memorial Park and Harrow Weald Park (Historic Parks, Harrow Council).  On top of this, five of Harrow’s parks have repeatedly won Green Flag Awards - Canons Park, Harrow Recreation Ground, Roxeth Recreation Ground, Pinner Memorial Park and Kenton Recreation Ground – handed out annually to the nation’s best parks “as a way of encouraging high environmental standards” (Green Flag Parks, Harrow Council).  

A Decade of Increased Use

Our parks have long been considered “treasured public assets”, illustrated by the steady increase in use over the last decade (Public Parks report, Communities and Local Government Committee, 2017, p.22).  This has left them in an ever more vulnerable state, open to overuse, facilities falling into disrepair, increased litter, anti-social behaviour, wildlife disturbance and general ecological degradation.  This can be seen in part, as a consequence of Harrow’s population increasing by 7.6% over the last ten years (Population Estimates, Harrow Council) and a proliferation of building developments arising all over the borough.  New housing has repeatedly focused on high-rise tower blocks (recent examples include College Road, the Kodak site and Palmerstone Road), consisting generally of single-use apartments, with either no or minimal access to gardens or green space.  Our roads have also seen a dramatic increase in traffic over the last decade, resulting in ever more toxic air and increased dangers for cyclists, pedestrians and runners (Road Traffic Statistics, Department for Transport).  This has resulted in an increasing number of people utilising Harrow’s public green spaces for their leisure and health.  If we couple this with the recent surge in use of our parks and green spaces over the pandemic, with many more people now working from home (a trend that does not look to be fully reversed post-pandemic), our green spaces have never been under so much pressure.  

Bentley Priory

A Decade of Underfunding 

As the five Green Flag Awards attest, Harrow has a number of ‘jewels in the crown’ in terms of its parks.  In comparison with other boroughs though, this is a relatively low number of parks to receive Green Flag awards.  For example, neighbouring Hillingdon has sixty parks that have been awarded the Green Flag status, whilst the borough of Ealing has twenty-two Green Flag parks (Green Flag Award Winners 2020, Keep Britain Tidy).  In Harrow, there are many other parks, often smaller, less central or well-known, that have unfortunately not achieved this recognised status.  This can be seen as a consequence of our green spaces long being underinvested and neglected, lacking adequate Council funding, staffing or central strategy to create a well-connected and maintained green network in Harrow.  

There have been severe Environmental service budget cuts imposed by Harrow Council over the last ten years, with funding to our parks and nature reserves hit particularly badly.  In 2014, it was reported nationally that “Almost £60million has been axed from park budgets since the Coalition came to power in 2010 – forcing cuts in staff, early closures and equipment to fall into disrepair.” (The Mirror, 28th July 2014)  Since then the situation has only got worse, with Harrow and other councils around the country being left in an almost impossible situation, as core central government funding to local authorities has almost completely dried up.  It has been reduced particularly severely in Harrow, by 97% over the last decade (Wembley Matters, 27th February 2021).  As a result, councils such as Harrow have been driven to spend their remaining annual budgets on statutory services, such as social care, to the detriment of the non-statutory services, such as parks.  In 2015, Harrow Council introduced its most severe cuts to park services, reducing them to a statutory minimum with the aim of saving £327 000 (Harrow Council Cabinet Meeting, p.262).  This reduction in Council services was partly achieved by converting some of the parks into wildlife open space, which require less overall regular management (p.218).  The services which were highlighted for removal included, locking parks overnight, leaving grass areas to naturalised (with the exception of sports pitches), a reduction in pruning of shrubs and hedges to once a year and a reduction in litter picking and emptying of bins from twice weekly to once a week (Harrow Council Cabinet Meeting, p.262).

 Pinner Village Gardens

Independent Funding and Grants

Whilst many local groups and residents fought these cuts, the majority were voted through in 2015 by the Council and since then many of our parks and open spaces have suffered an ongoing decline.  Luckily, a range of Friends of park groups have stepped in to continue the overall management of a number of Harrow’s green spaces (more on this below).  To plug the funding gap for the parks maintenance cuts, including buying new plants, trees, signage, gate locks etc and also, financing bigger projects, the Friends groups now have to apply to the Council for one-off funding or independent grants from external organisations.  For example, it is the Friends groups who must be given credit for Harrow’s five parks retaining their ‘Green Flag’ status, with volunteers applying for separate funding grants to continue maintaining and improving the parks.  There is also the Headstone Manor Park regeneration project, which has been possible due to the securing of millions of pounds through a range of grants, including from the National Lottery Heritage and Community Fund (Headstone Manor).  This dependence on individual grants means that there is now an inconsistency and inequality in funding across Harrow’s parks though, with many spaces not benefiting from proactive volunteers applying for and managing the funding when received.  The House of Commons ‘Communities and Local Government Committee’ report on Public parks concluded, “it is a matter of concern that friends groups may be forced into competition with each other for scarce resources and that some parks are losing out to others. We believe that local authorities should consider their parks to be part of one portfolio, rather than as disparate individual sites.” (p.36)

Harrow’s Volunteers

Due to the severe budget cuts over the last ten years, Harrow Council has reduced or withdrawn the majority of its own park services and general maintenance, instead passing them over to volunteers.  In 2012/2013, an “army of volunteers” helped landscape and improve numerous open spaces as part of Harrow’s Green Grid scheme (Harrow Times, 17th Feb 2013).  After the swingeing park cuts of 2015, ‘Harrow Parks Forum’ was set up in 2016 to act as a collective voice for the network of now twenty-four ‘Friends of’ park groups, which aim “for all of Harrow’s Parks and Open Spaces to be beautiful, well-maintained and litter-free, safe and welcoming, to have appropriate facilities and equipment, and to be loved and used by and for the benefit of the whole community.”  Harrow Parks Forum also supports Harrow Nature Heroes, which encourages a younger generation to get involved in our green spaces, providing “fascinating and fun nature and wildlife sessions across Harrow Parks and stunning nature reserves”.  Our nature reserves and wild open spaces themselves are overseen by Harrow Nature Conservation Forum (HNCF), a Sub-Committee of the Harrow Heritage Trust, organising groups of volunteers to maintain these spaces.  There are also many other groups which play a part in looking after and advocating our green spaces, including Harrow in Leaf, Harrow Biodiversity, Harrow Litter Pickers and our two Harrow London National Park City Rangers.

These volunteers carry out essential work in maintaining and improving our green spaces in Harrow, including acting as park wardens, carrying out general gardening, rewilding, tree planting, monitoring wildlife, frequent litter picking, improving paths and maintaining facilities, locking gates, organising park events, fundraising and securing grants.   The commitment and dedication these local volunteers show is inspiring and without them I can only imagine how immeasurably worse our parks, wild spaces and nature reserves would be.  It must be recognised though that depending on volunteers to oversee and maintain our parks requires members being available on a regular basis and willing to give an extensive amount of time and energy.  The Mayor’s London Green Spaces Commission Report published in August 2020, identified that volunteers “require ongoing support and management by park services. They can add real value but are not in themselves a sustainable solution to longer term funding.” (p.23) I believe that it is unfair to expect so much from local volunteers and instead, it is the council who should be recruiting permanent, paid and well-trained staff to provide a regular and comprehensive service across all our parks and reserves.  

Privatisation and Selling off our Parks

Another consequence of a decade of severe council budget cuts is that our parks are extremely vulnerable to privatisation.  “Because of this pressure, councils are looking at options for selling off bits of land, outsourcing parks management and making money by allowing private companies to rent out the space.” (Parks Should be in public hands, We Own It).  The outcome of this is a loss of public control, removing parks from their original purpose to provide free, public, communal spaces for everyone.  Parks also have an important role to play in improving social cohesion within communities, as identified in Harrow Council’s Annual Public Health Report 2021’ (p.5).  This cohesion is undoubtedly severely hindered by the commercialisation of parks, preventing various groups of the community from accessing them.  So far, Harrow Council has largely avoided privatisation, although there have been several cases of park spaces identified for building projects.  An example of this was the 820 flat ‘Byron Quarter’ development proposed in 2017, which would have resulted in the loss of land from Byron Park (Harrow Times, 18th July 2017).  This development did not go ahead, but in July this year a new partnership between Harrow Council and Wates Residential was announced, identifying three ‘brownfield’ sites in the Wealdstone area, including around Byron Park for housing (Harrow Times, 11th Sept 2020).  Reassuringly, Ms Furlong acknowledges in Harrow’s Public Health Report that the public health department will “include collaboration with the council’s planning department to ensure there is no unnecessary loss of green space.” (Harrow Times, 9th June 2021)  I hope this proves to be true and helps towards protecting our green spaces from future developments.  

Lack of a Connected, Long-term Vision

Parks have also been seen as an easy target for budget cuts because they “are not recognised for the value they could add to a range of other statutory council services, such as public health and well-being, economic development, social care, and environmental resilience.”  (A review of London’s parks and green spaces: strategy, governance and value for THE LONDON GREEN SPACES COMMISSION, Feb 2019, p.6).  Whilst Harrow Council has recently recognised the value that our parks bring to public health, this strategy does not appear to connect with others involving parks, such as the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2019-2024.  Instead, the Public Health report appears as a standalone report, lacking a wider strategic vision of how it converges with others or may impact the numerous other roles our parks already play.  This lack of connection between strategies has a negative impact on the health of our green spaces, as there is no acknowledgement of how the individual projects will actually impact the parks as a whole.  There generally appears to be a lack of recognition that parks are living, breathing organisms that need to be continuously maintained through the seasons to ensure their continued health (as revealed by the ongoing Council cuts to park budgets).  

Another consequence of parks and green spaces being included in separate Council strategies is the absence of a single, consistent funding model.  Financing of these schemes is either completely missing, or if included at all, consists of one-off, finite amounts of money from the individual department championing the project or from external grants, as mentioned above.  For example, there appears to be no long term commitment to investing in our parks to support the Council’s recent public health strategy, with only a fleeting reference to funding in the report: “When resources allow to ensure and promote accessibility to green spaces by improving paths, signposts and information on local green spaces, particularly in areas of Harrow with limited green space.”  (Harrow’s Annual Public Health Report 2021, p.14)  I also wrote about the absence of funding to enable the Council to meet its Net Zero Carbon strategy, which draws on parks, back in April (Wembley Matters, 3rd April 2021).  To resolve this, it is essential that the Council begins to take a “fully integrated approach to the planning, design and management of green space that could better address the potential collaboration and tensions across these areas, in the form of an overarching green infrastructure strategy.” (A review of London’s parks and green spaces, p.6)  This would then facilitate the Council pooling its resources to meet the various strategies aims, whilst being an economical and sustainable financial model.  This will then hopefully ensure the overall continued survival and environmental health of the parks and green spaces themselves.   

The Natural capital accounts for public green space in London report from October 2017 reveals how there are actually huge economic benefits to be gained from our parks and that their value far outweighs the cost of maintaining them.  A key finding for example is: “For each £1 spent by local authorities and their partners on public parks, Londoners enjoy at least £27 in value.” (Natural capital, London Government, p.3)  This is reflected in Harrow’s recent public health report, which recognises the role green spaces can play in supporting local residents' mental and physical health, minimising the need for the use of a related NHS service for example.  In London, this can amount to avoided costs “of £580 million per year by being in better physical health and £370 million per year by being in better mental health.” (Natural capital, London Government, p.3)  It is essential that the Council uses this evidence to reconsider their cuts to park services, and instead acknowledge the role they can play in meeting a range of statutory services, whilst also being extremely cost effective in the process.  This is a persuasive argument for the continued investment in parks and green spaces, saving the Council money, whilst relieving pressure on a multitude of public services.  

Conclusion - Protecting, Preserving and Enhancing our Green Spaces for the Future

If Harrow Council is serious about residents making “the most of the range of green spaces on their doorstep as we come out of lockdown” (Annual Public Health Report, Harrow Council, p.2) it is essential that they create a strategic vision for all our green spaces.  This overarching and connected strategy needs to be long term, rather than consisting of one-off, short-term projects.  It requires ongoing financial investment in our parks and green spaces and the recruitment of trained, paid staff, not dependent on individual grants or the goodwill of volunteers.  The Council must fully recognise the role green spaces can play in supporting a range of statutory services, coordinating how to best share funding and resources to help improve all our green spaces to facilitate these services.  To help with this, it is important that the Council clearly identifies the ‘social return in investment’ that parks and green spaces bring to the borough, and recognise why continued, ongoing financial investment is not just optional, but essential.  Our green spaces are something that will save the council money in the long term, whilst also benefiting the local community (Natural capital report, London Government, p.7) 

The Local Government Association is calling on the government to introduce a parks fund: “We must ensure that parks are accessible and are in a good state to support everyone in the future, that is why we are calling on the Government to introduce a local, flexible £500 million Green Parks Fund to help unlock small scale, affordable initiatives to help the nation’s parks and green spaces recover and flourish.” (Parks Fit for the Future, LGA).  Whilst this money would of course be of use, I believe that for their long-term future, the government must also start to fund local authorities properly again to allow councils to fully take parks and green spaces fully back under their control and management.  We pay council tax (now the second highest in London) for Harrow Council to maintain our public green spaces and it should ultimately be their responsibility to look after them.  As We Own It states, “We have enough money for them - they should be properly funded and run for people not profit.” (Parks Should be in public hands, We Own It).  It is the council who are best placed to create a connected, joined-up strategy for allour parks that ensures a consistency in maintenance across the whole borough.  Only then will our parks and green spaces receive the maintenance and management they desperately need and ensure their continued and sustainable future for generations to come. 

776 and 778 Harrow Road

The Barham Park Trust Committee is a curious beast as it consists entirely of members of the Brent Cabinet and last year was chaired by Council Leader Muhammed Butt.

During the year the potential development of numbers 776 and 778 Harrow Road into flats became a matter of hot controversy and in the end the application to demolish the houses and build flats was withdrawn. LINK 

The two houses are actually within the park grounds. The restricting covenants on that properties played a key part in the campaigns against development.

Some cynics said the developer would be back when things quietened down but it appears that Brent Council may itself ease the way for a developer.

A report LINK going to the Barham Park Trust Committee from the Director of Regeneration and Environment makes the following recommendation to the Committe:

2.8 To authorise the Operational Director for Environmental Services to enter into discussions with the owners of 776-778 Harrow Road to explore the possibilities of reaching agreement to amend the restricting covenants on that property for the benefit of the Trust.

Later in the report he sets out the argument:

3.16 776 -778 Harrow Road consist of two cottages within Barham Park that were subject to a freehold sale some years ago. The restrictive covenant in the sale required that the site be retained as two residential units. Planning applications have been received in the past and more recently to re-develop the site with multiple residential units namely a block of flats. This was subsequently withdrawn. The Trust is reminded of the restrictive covenant should a similar application be received again and it may be prudent for the Trust to provide a steer as to how such re-development proposals, which include seeking to amend the terms of the restrictive covenant, should be considered in the future as the site appears to be attracting the interest of developers. As set out in the recommendation in paragraph 2.8 of this report, if members of the Trust Committee are minded to explore the possibilities of amending the current restrictive covenants for the financial benefit of the Trust in discussions with the owners of 776-778 Harrow Road, there is the option to delegate authority to the Operational Director for Environmental Services to enter into such discussions.

The Trust Committee would have to make a decision or delegate a decision to officers in future as to whether to amend the restrictive covenant in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road and on what terms and for an application to be submitted to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to amend and modify the terms of the said restrictive covenant.

 

 The 'financial benefit' to the Trust may in many eyes be outweighed by the potential damage to the park land of a block of flats.

The Marley Walk Estate is tucked away beside the Metropolitan and Jubilee railway line  in Willesden Green with only one road at the end of Station Parade, Lennon Road, leading to the estate.

People on the estate are aghast at plans by the Willesden Green (Brent Central) Mosque  to build a four storey block of 21 flats, with a double basement, on the mosque car park next the the Pakistan Community Centre on Lennon Road, which will overlook the estate's Elvis Road. Such is the opposition to the plans  Marley Walk Residents Association are appealing for a expert on planning to come forward to help them prepare their case against the development. They are willing to pay for advice CONTACT.

The developer describes their proposal:

The proposal is for the erection of a new building with access to the building off Lennon Road and provides 2 levels of underground parking and parking on the ground floor for a total of 48 car parking spaces to serve the mosque replacing the existing 48 parking space on site as well as secure parking for 42 cycle spaces.

There is a provision of three floors of residential apartments on the ground floor, first, second and third floor providing 7  one bedroom apartments, 7  two bedroom units and 7 no. three bedroom apartments along with a communal roof garden.

Each flat comprises an open plan lounge/kitchen diner, bedrooms and bathroom as well as private balconies accessed via the open plan living area (excluding caretakers flat). The balconies have been designed to provide shelter and privacy from neighbouring properties.

The proposed development also includes lifts and stair cores which provides access to each floor within the building, including the basement car parks. There is a provision for two lifts – one for residents to access their flats and the roof top amenity space from the car park and the second lift for the users of the car park from the basement levels to ground floor level.

The roof top amenity area comprises of a decked seating area with walking routes interspersed with green areas and a pergola in the centre of the amenity space is also proposed. The amenity space on the roof terrace measures a total of 506m².

The housing, apart from one flat on the ground floor reserved for the Mosque caretaker, is described as 'affordable/social' but details regarding rents are not given. A number of housing associations are listed as possible managers of the property.  The developer, apart from arguing that the housing will be a community benefit, also suggests that the development with a double basement and a ground floor car  park (which includes the caretaker's flat in a corner) addresses long standing car parking problems.

Policy Comment: In summary, whilst the proposed residential use of the site is supported in increasing the efficient use of land in conjunction with its existing community facility, there are some policy concerns with this application. Most significantly this is around the provision of an amount of car parking on site which has not been sufficiently justified. In addition there are concerns about the design of the scheme, particularly at ground floor whereby vehicle entrances and bin stores create inactive frontage. FULL PAPER

  

 

Transport Comment: This proposal should be resisted, on the grounds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed car park for the mosque complies with Brent Council’s parking standards or is required to meet a transport need that cannot be met by other forms of transport, contrary to Policy DMP12 of the adopted Development Management Policies 2016. FULL PAPER

At the time of writing there were 58 submissions on the Brent Council Planning Portal. 33 in support, 24 objections and 1 neutral comment. The objections tended to be very local and the supporters spread further afield. The supporters' comments were shorter than several of the more detailed objections. Below is the one neutral statement  and one each from a supporter and objector:

The present car park on the left and mosque on the right

NEUTRAL

A block of flats will make a difference to the area but the real issue is the parking problems generated by the mosque. But although the proposed flats will be car free this still needs to be managed. In particular the residents of Marley Walk are concerned about the access to their estate being blocked by illegally parked vehicles on Lennon Road, which is the only road into the estate and the only access by emergency vehicles.

The refuse plan does not identify an area for bulky item storage or food waste. There are already flytipping hotspots on the Marley Walk estate so how the occupiers of the new flats will get rid of bulky items must be addressed. And clarification on the food waste disposal, individual bins or a communal bin. (Albeit these are not popular)

A loading bay area should be identified on Lennon Road for deliveries to the new block. This is to prevent Lennon Road becoming blocked. Some of the current parking bays could be changed to a loading bay.

The skyline will change if the flats are built. But given the journey of the sun will have result in some reduced sunlight. This will impact on the houses at the entrance of Marley Walk and the rear gardens of Riffel Road in particular. Lennon Road may feel safer as it will be more overlooked by the new flats. Also there are claims of people currently misusing the car park so this will stop..

If residents are not to have access to the car parking areas then access to the flats from the car parking areas must be secure so that non-residential car drivers cannot access the communal areas of the flats.

It is one thing for individual residents to drive in/out of a car park but a mass exodus of cars at the end of an event could be disruptive to residents. There must be adequate sound insulation so that cars in the parking areas cannot be heard from the residential flats when they leave the site. There must also be no light penetration from headlights into residential properties or communal areas or surrounding properties.

The Affordable Housing Statement and Statement of Community Involvement states "....the proposed car park will provide much needed private parking for the community when visiting the Mosque. As a result, the proposed stresses that the current uncontrolled parking has on the surrounding streets will be removed." I disagree. The mosque has a capacity of 1k plus. The parking pressures are experienced by residents on many of the surround streets in CPZ zone MW and GB as well as the Marley Walk estate. Residents just grit their teeth on Friday and put up with cars parked on double yellow lines, across drives and on drives. And access to Marley Walk has been blocked by cars parked on the Lennon Road pavement / double yellow line making access by emergency vehicles impossible. Access/egress by residents of Marley Walk and delivery vehicles is also problematic due o the parking issues.

The Car Park Management Plan states at 2.2 "During the site visit it was observed that illegal and irresponsible parking occurs on the surrounding highway network due to the high numbers of people attending BCM." There are photos illustrating this on Lennon Road and Station Parade but any street corner with a double yellow could have been used. Illegal parking on street corners extends to Melrose Avenue.

A councillor from another ward arranged for bollards to be installed on the Lennon Road pavement outside the mosque. However this has merely narrowed the pavement and not resolved the parking issues.


The mosque car park is open to anyone to use and is frequently used by visitors to the Pakistan Community Centre. They have events running into the late evening. Some people use the car park when they travel from Willesden Green station. Use of the car park by the PCC must be incorporated into the car park management plan else it will lead to on-street parking issues.

The open access to the car parking spaces should cease and access should be managed at all times. 24/7, 365 days.

The parking bays in Lennon Road are invisible to passing motorists so are only used by drivers who know they are there. Often the bays are empty. To keep the road clear for access to Marley Walk the bays should be removed or converted to disabled parking bays, a loading bay for the new flats or bike storage.

The membership of the mosque now has older members and this has to be acknowledged. Many are disabled and cannot walk long distances. Many will be unable to walk from the car park. But often they do not drive to the mosque themselves. There should be better utilisation of taxi firms by mosque users. And drop off points outside the mosque marked out, albeit this may mean the removal of the parking bays on Lennon Rod.

To stop drivers unable to enter the car park in the new development driving into the Marley Walk estate or doing 3-point turns there should be a turning circle at the end of Lennon Road where it meets Elvis Road. At mosque times traffic marshalls should be on duty at the junction of Lennon Road / Station Parade to prevent cars entering Lennon Road unless they have a parking space booked or have a legitimate reason for accessing Marley Walk.

The parking provision in the new development will not resolve the parking problems generated by the mosque A new audit of where the mosque users who drive there come from should be undertaken. The submitted survey was done in 2020 which is not a typical year given the pandemic. A full traffic survey and transport management plan must be done, agreed and implemented before the building can be occupied.

The Travel Audit document in the planning submission is inadequate. 2020 was not a typical year for mosque usage. People who arrive early get a space in the car park. Those who arrive late park on double yellow lines etc. Evidently announcements are made requesting people not to park on double yellow lines or across drives but this clearly bas no impact.

The people who arrive early are likely to be the people who pre-book a space in the new car park. Action must be taken against those who arrive late and park on the street. Parking enforcement is non-existent as it would likely require police presence. I have been verbally challenged whilst taking photos of the parking and it is obvious I am not a parking attendant. A new Travel Plan must be undertaken to establish where the latecomers drive from.

Often the car park is used by the Pakistan Community Centre. If access is agreed by the building owners the use of the parking in the new block by the PCC must be incorporated in the transport management plan.

A parking plan is required for the construction period, both for mosque users and for builders lorries.

Whilst construction is underway there will be no car park. There must be a planning condition for a plan for where the cars that currently use the car park will park And lessons learnt from this period of time should be incorporated into a new travel plan.

 

For several months past, I have worked at the mosque vaccination centre queues and admin within the vaccine centre. Never have I ever had an issue with any of this. Whilst managing the queues allowed me to observe this site and all traffic movements, including those during Friday prayers.

The site at present consists of an open space offering, somewhat disorganised, car parking ancillary to the mosque, together with surrounding rough grass and scrub, together with a 6-track railway line at rear. It is a most unprepossessing spectacle.

Having inspected the deposited plans and elevations, I have no doubt that the proposed residential block will hugely improve the visual aspects of this location, without adversely impacting on the appearance or light of adjoining premises

I understand that some local residents are concerned at the car parking situation in Station Parade and Lennon Road but my, extended, direct observation does not bear out those concerns.

It is true that, on each occasion I was present, an undue concentration of worshippers' vehicles existed during some 90 to 120 minutes around Fridays' midday prayers. At other times - my shifts included Monday and Thursday evenings as well as Friday and Saturday daytimes - there was no traffic congestion, with even the existing car park no more than half full.

Having read details of the car parking provision, and limitation, intended, together with the submitted Travel Plan, and noting the proposal for a parking superintendent to be supplied by the mosque, I have no doubt but that the present traffic problems and any associated with the proposed development can be resolved and that the current development also is within the Tall buildings act of Brent (sic) as it is only 4 floors high.

We oppose the proposed plans on four main objections outlined in detail below.

Objection 1: inadequate parking management

The car parking management plan (CPMP) prepared in support of the planning application acknowledges that congested on-street parking due to insufficient spaces in the current car park (currently 50 spaces) is a chronic issue due to usage by Brent Central Mosque (BCM) attendees, particularly for Friday prayers as well as other religious events. This is particularly the case for Riffel Road, which is reduced to single file usage, despite being used as a through-road for the surrounding area. Resultingly there is considerable disruption (both traffic, noise, and air pollution) caused by the overspill.

Firstly, the newly proposed car park of 48 spaces remains highly likely to be insufficient for current demand given that this is a decrease from existing capacity of the car park (50 spaces). Given the insufficient nature of current parking capacity and illegal/ irresponsible parking as noted in the CPMP, it is also highly probable that current demand may be an underestimate.

The Travel Plan projects a maximum of 600 visitors to BCM and given current car usage this relates to over 300 individuals including single use journeys and car sharing. Car sharing is unlikely to be feasible nor popular in current/future circumstances given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic (which is likely to remain endemic in the population). Even if car sharing is taken up by the majority of car users, the proposed car park will do nothing to abate the parking issue it is trying to address, as the proposals indicate a decrease in the number of parking spaces. Furthermore we note that the estimated numbers (max 600 visitors) is a considerable decrease from the 1000 to 1500 estimated attendance for Friday prayer and other peak times as noted previously and clarification of realistic attendance is needed.

Secondly, the 21 residential flats are going to be sold 'car free'. Residents of new purpose-built developments are more likely to own a car than London residents as a whole (TfL report, 2012). In absence of allocated parking within the basement car park, residents will have to resort to using on-street parking therefore exacerbating the overcrowding and parking issues noted in the CPMP for Riffel Road and the surrounding area. There is also no indication of how this car free policy would be enforced among residents.

Thirdly, the proposed plans will not relieve the heavy congestion and traffic in the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road as BCM users arrive and leave the area. Therefore the congestion, noise pollution, and air pollution for the surrounding residential area including Riffel Road will remain the same, or will get worse.

Finally and relatedly, the proposal includes ten fast charging electric vehicle charging points. The provision of these points could draw more traffic towards the area including Riffel road given that they will represent the largest cluster of fast charging points for electric car users in the local area (for current electric charging points see: https://www.zap-map.com/live/).

Objection 2: loss of privacy and overlooking

The proposed four-storey building presents a serious loss of privacy and high risk of overlooking for residents in multiple properties living along Riffel Road. This is based on the following:

The height of the proposed development is four-storeys, which is substantially higher than the surrounding area (mostly two-storey buildings).

The large ceiling to floor windows on the north side of the proposed development will mean that gardens and rear windows of multiple Riffel Road properties will be clearly visible. This affects multiple households given that several Riffel Road buildings are converted flats.
The proposed rooftop garden will further risk loss of privacy in the gardens and households of the Riffel Road properties given the elevation.

Objection 3: overshadowing and loss of light

The proposed four-storey building will create a significant risk of looming and overshadowing. There are no nearby buildings of such a height, with the vast majority of properties in the area being two-storeys high. Moreover, the nearby three-storey properties on Lennon Road have their impact further reduced by the fact they stand at a lower position relative to sea level than the current car park. In summary, the proposed four-storey development will be considerably out of the pattern of developments and relative heights of the surrounding buildings; this significantly risks overshadowing.

Objection 4: community space usage

The proposed rooftop community space has been described as a big benefit to the current residents and future residents of the proposed development. It is unclear whether the rooftop garden will be made publicly accessible as indicated in the community consultation documents and reflected in the statement of community involvement. If it is a publicly accessible space, there is no indication of how this space will be maintained and monitored (for anti-social or illegal activities).

 If you are sympathetic to the Marley Walk Residents' Association case and would like to respond to their request for legal advice contact the Secretary HERE

 APPLICATION ON PLANNING PORTAL

Gaynor Lloyd sent this comment on my earlier post on the possible removal of the restrictive covenant on 776/778 Harrow Road, the houses in Barham Park that were the subject of a controverial planning application to demolish them and build a block of flats in their place. LINK

As ever, thank you for highlighting a point of great local interest. The Trust Committee  has commented in the past about how much of the Council’s resources in staff time is taken up administering the Barham Trust. Of course, the site is complex with various lettings and maintenance issues and a building crying out for repair. It is a pity the Trust was unsuccessful in its recent NCIL bid. Perhaps it was hoping for  a windfall from “developers” instead. 

I wonder, however,  what time (and possible expenditure on advice) will be given to consideration in principle of this application to the First Tier Tribunal to get the covenant lifted/modified. And then of course, independent advice on costs, valuation aspects, timing, overall negotiating position and even choice of “developers”.

Leaving aside whether this is appropriate, would such an application be fully funded by these “developers” ? How do you choose which? And  what are the prospects? It has now been many years since I was in practice but I can’t see a snowball in hell’s chance  of the Tribunal finding the covenant is obsolete  - even  just on the substantial evidence of the huge  and demonstrable level of opposition to the recent Planning application. Including, very vocally,  by local (& other)  Labour Councillors and our local MP. 

The most concerning point is that it appears to be a  proposal that the Barham Trust (or a developer with the approval of the Barham Trust) applies to lift the covenant the Trust imposed for the protection of the Park - and which the purchaser accepted, paying a price appropriate to the limited use. The only apparent "benefit for the Trust" being getting money in from this queue of developers. (I was only aware of the current landowner’s interest but you live and learn.) I wonder what consultation there has been with the local Councillors or even Park users. 

The Charity Commission provides a useful "Councillors' Guide :to a Council's role as Charity Trustee." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/351608/council_as_charity_trustee_overview.pdf

This interesting publication outlines why Local Authorities make such eminently suitable trustees of gifted assets of land - "rooted in the local community; open and transparent in their dealings; highly accountable for their actions." 

The Guide also says: "Depending on the size and circumstances of the charity, it may make sense for a committee of councillors to be allocated this task. It must not be forgotten, however, that responsibility continues to rest with the whole council."

Planning (as a council function) is separate from the business of council as charitable trustee. Nonetheless, by way of background, the Trust Committee is referred to the withdrawn proposal to build a block of flats in the Park..The Committee is not, however,  referred to the large and sustained public objection from residents and statutory consultees alike. Bearing in mind that the charity's objects for Barham Park are "to preserve the same for the recreation of the public in such manner and subject to such regulations in all respects as the Council may from time to time think proper ", the Committee is asked  to "provide a steer as to how  such re-development proposals, which include seeking to amend the terms of the restrictive covenant, should be considered in the future as the site appears to be attracting the interest of developers".  

Last time I looked, Barham Park was not a "development site"; it is a charitable asset entrusted to the Council on particular trusts. The benefit of the restrictive covenant is an asset of the charity. If the Trust Committee is asked to consider that asset's disposal, shouldn't the guidance of the Charity Commission be considered first? The Charity Commission might suggest that the views of the beneficiaries be considered; even if the Charity Commission doesn't, wouldn't the "whole council" acting for their residents? If any of these considerations have been thought about, it's not on the face of the report.

Despite appearances to the contrary, I really don't want to spend my life moaning to public bodies. However, if the Trust Committee decides this is a good wheeze, I guess I'll just have to think about sharpening my quill and raising with the Charity Commission both the unpopular proposal to  lift the restrictive covenant to facilitate a development within Barham Park but, even more immediately, the suggestion of  the Committee delegating " a decision to officers in future as to whether to amend the restrictive covenant in respect of 776-778 Harrow Road and on what terms" . As the Charity Commission Councillors' Guide says: "While ongoing management may be delegated to officers, responsibility for  decision-making and oversight rests with the councillors". 

For me, this proposal goes to the heart of  the charity's objects. There is overwhelming and recent evidence of widespread, local opposition to the very idea of redevelopment on the Park - let alone that - borrowing words from the Report  " reaching agreement to amend the restricting covenants on that property" would be "for the benefit of the Trust".  

Pamela Fitzpatrick campaigned to save Belmont Health Centre from closure in 2019 (more HERE)

More than 1,000 people have signed a petition LINK in a single day in support of a popular Harrow Labour councillor.

The petition in support of Labour Councillor for Headstone South, Pamela Fitzpatrick, was launched by local Labour members when she was threatened with expulsion from Labour this week. The bizarre reason for expulsion was for giving an interview to a publication (Socialist Appeal) in May 2020, support for which was banned by Labour more than a year later in July 2021.  A similar move  based on of what appears to be retrospective guilt by association, has been made against Pete Firmin of Hampstead and Kilburn Labour Party .

The petition attracted a huge response when it was shared on Wednesday 25 August and is still growing. It can be signed HERE .

Today  Fitzpatrick announced on Twitter: 

In respect of the Labour Party threat to auto exclude me from the party for giving an interview in 2020 to Socialist Appeal. I have now instructed Solicitors who have today written to the Labour party to put them on notice of potential legal proceedings.

 

Elected as a councillor for Headstone South in 2014 and re-elected with an increased majority in 2018,  Pamela also stood to be Labour MP for Harrow East in the 2019 General Election, attracting hundreds of volunteers who came to Harrow from across and beyond London to canvass for her. In an effort to defeat Bob Blackman, the Green Party candidate Emma Wallace stood down and demonstrated her respect for her opponent saying,  ‘Whilst there are a number of differences between the Labour party and the Green Party, we believe Pamela Fitzpatrick is a progressive voice, one that is committed to working with the local Harrow East community and standing up for all their best interests.’

Pamela Fitzpatrick was  recently elected to Labour’s Women’s Committee and is well known nationally across the Labour movement. Her interview to Socialist Appeal in May 2020 was given when she stood to be General Secretary for Labour.

In addition to her political work, she set up Harrow Law Centre and continues to work there supporting people in often desperate situations.  LINK

Cllr Maxine Henson, councillor for Roxbourne ward in South Harrow, said:

Pamela is a very caring and hardworking councillor who has done a lot for her community. It would be a great loss for residents and the Labour Party if she were to be expelled.

Cllr Fitzpatrick is not the only member at risk from Labour’s recent rule changes banning support for groups deemed to be ‘left’. Respected British director Ken Loach, who has spent decades making films exposing social injustice and campaigning, was also recently controversially expelled by the Labour Party in similar circumstances.

THIS IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION

New shop on Bridge Road

Secondary school students returning to school next week will find two new chicken shops within a the few hunded yards of Ark Academy and the bus stops that are used by pupils from Preston Manor, Michaela and the Lycee, bringing the total to 6.

The new shop above is particularly problematic because it is at the bus stop that was moved at the time of the reconnection of Bridge Road and North End Road. The pavement there is narrow and the single bus stop serves the 83, 182, 206, 223 and 297 bus routes resulting in large crowds. Imagine the chicken licking crowds of school children mixing with the public at peak times while local families with push chairs and several childre try to get home from primary school. Not very Covid secure...  I have asked Brent Council and TfL to move the bus stop to its old position on a wider pavement away from shops.

Another chicken shop serves the 245 bus route.

Clearly issues are raised about Brent Council's attempts to tackle teenage obesity and its policy to limit fast food outlets near schools.

A Brent JSNA report (2019-20) stated that for the last 5 years Brent had a higher proportion of obese children leaving primary school than the London and National average. These statistics (note 4 years old) are stark. What would have been the impact of lockdown, I wonder?:

 

 

Red stars denote fast food chicken outlets

Grand Parade, Forty Avenue

Sam's on the corner of Forty Avenue and Bridge Road
 

A new outlet on Bridge Road on the site previously occupied by Nat West Bank

One of the earlier Bridge Road chicken shops

Wok 'n Roe on Bridge Road predates Ark Academy by decades but has a line in spicy and non-spicy chicken and chips as well as other dishes

The latest Bridge Road chicken shop - opened just this week

 

A little further away but heavily frequented by school children at the end of the school day is McDonalds at ASDA. McDonalds controversially replaced the ordinary restaurant some years ago. It is clearly marketed at children.

The Granville Community Kitchen is so important to our local area that Oi, Michelle and Georgea wanted to raise awareness and funds for their work.

They have formed a Triathlon Relay team to train and take part in Blenheim Palace Triathlon on 11th Sept.

This involves training to do a 800 metres open-water swim (Oi), a 13km bike ride (Michelle) and 5.4km run (Georgea). They will be joined by an amazing 189 people from across our community, fundraising for vital local causes.

Please sponsor and encourage our team on this page! 

Granville Community Kitchen is run by the community for the community. The kitchen offer the South Kilburn community a place for repair, resilience, resistance and safety, while the Community Garden educates local people in how to grow food. The Kitchen also provides food aid to hundreds of people every week beyond south Kilburn.