Architect's Publicity

A report going to Brent Council's Wellbeing and Scrutiny Committee next week LINK reveals that blocks built in 2009 on the South Kilburn Estate by Higgins suffer from water penetration and cladding, fire safety and window issues. The blocks are known together as Granville New Homes.

The problems are so bad that demolition was one of the options considered. Brent Housing Partnership purchased the properties for £17.1m and the estimated cost of remediation works is £18.5m.

The report summarises the issues:

First Wave Housing (FWH)  is one of the Council’s wholly owned housing companies. It is a registered provider with 326 properties. Of FWH’s 326 properties, 110 are located at Granville New Homes. These 110 properties comprise of 84 social rented properties, 25 intermediate rented properties, and one leaseholder. 

 

Granville New Homes is a residential development that completed in 2009. It was developed by the Council and Higgins. The Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), purchased the properties at a cost of £17.1m. This figure met the Council’s development costs and was funded via a loan from the Council. BHP also received 45 one bedroom market rented properties in order to cross subsidise the acquisition, as on its own, the purchase of Granville New Homes would not have been viable for BHP. Since 2009, the properties have been managed as part of BHP/now FWH’s portfolio. 

 

FWH commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville, Princess, and Canterbury blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m.

A report going to Cabinet on October 11th after Scrutiny has considered the issue set out the options that were rejected: 

The Ridge report stated that the issues identified are not easily repairable in a way which will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems. These works include:

· Removing and replacing all cladding (both cementitious and brick effect panel) with non-combustible A1 or A2 fire rated materials;
· Stripping external façades and removing all external doors and windows;
· Providing new external doors and windows within a new panelised cladding system;
· Replacing insulation; and
· Stripping roofs and providing new roof coverings. 3.9 Including consultancy services, the waking-watch, the fire alarm system and contingency allowances, the estimated total cost of remediation works is circa £18.5m (including VAT). This figure includes £2m of contingency costs. If the remediation is carried out as outlined, the estimated completion date is September 2023. At present these costs are not affordable for FWH. It should be noted that the £18.5m is an estimated value from Ridge; until works are tendered and completed the actual cost will not be known.

The Cabinet Report suggests the following complex  option to resolve the issue:

5.1 The recommended option is for FWH to dispose of the blocks to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and for the HRA to carry out remediation works as recommended in the Ridge report. There are nuances to this option in regards to how the transaction would be structured. These are detailed in section 6.

However, broadly, under this option:

· The transfer occurs at zero value as the blocks’ asset valuation of £12.5m is offset by the £15.4m of works required to the asset (the figure excludes VAT as this is reclaimable by the Council). The HRA as part of the Council will come
within the scope of public law principles. Therefore, it cannot act unlawfully or irrationally. Therefore, the HRA cannot pay a sum for the blocks.
· The HRA carries out the remediation works.
· The 84 social rented tenants would become secure Council tenants.
· The 25 intermediate rented tenants would be transferred to i4B under the recommended option; the HRA will recharge i4B for its proportion of the works.
· FWH’s loan for the blocks would be refinanced to a more affordable rate.
· As the transfer will formally be valued at zero value by the valuer no capital gains or SDLT costs are anticipated. As the transaction is a commercial transaction to support the ability of FWH to trade as a going concern, any tax
implications to the transfer are incidental and would be in accordance with General Anti avoidance Rules operated by HMRC. Tax advice from the Council’s tax advisors have confirmed this position.

 

5.2 The following assumptions have also been made:
· It is assumed the housing management function will be managed within existing staffing resources. There will be a reallocation of resource time and cost from FWH to the HRA to reflect the work associated with the transferred units.
· Rent inflation at 1.5% in line with CPI+1 and cost inflation at 2% per annum in line with Bank of England target rates.
· The cost assumptions in this report do not include estimates for decarbonisation works, as this is a known budget limitation across the sector.
· Further major works at £2,000 per property assumed from year 8 of the HRA Business Plan. 

 

5.3 This option balances the cost between FWH, i4B, the Council’s General Fund and the HRA. It also offers the minimum disruption to residents in the blocks by offering the most rapid solution to addressing the remediation works required.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that this is a reasonable way to achieve appropriate levels of different types of housing tenure in the borough.

Higgins and Brent Council celebrating the start of the current Stonebridge scheme in December 2020 (first published on Brent Council & Higgins' websites)

The elephant in the room is of course Brent Council's partner in the development Higgins and what their responsibility is regarding these very expensive defects. Higgins, who appear to go under various names - Higgins Partnership, Higgins Homes, Higgins Group, seem to be a favoured partner of the Council with a £22m contract for 73 council homes in Stonebridge signed last August and another South Kilburn development at Chippenham Gardens.

I am sure councillors on the Scrutiny Committee will be keen to find out more about the partnership and its future.

UPDATE - Comment from Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant

 First Wave Housing Ltd is the same company as Brent Housing Partnership Ltd - there was simply a change of name in 2017. It's details on the Companies House Beta website (Company No. 04533752) make for interesting reading.

The Chairman of the company appears to be Martin Smith (other details unknown), and other directors are Akintoye Durowoju (who appears to be a Chartered Surveyor and Brent Council employee), two senior Brent Officers, Phil Porter and Gail Tolley (although there is conflicting evidence about whether one or both have resigned or are still in post), and Councillor Saqib Butt (appointed in November 2020, after the previous councillor directors George Crane - to September 2020 - and James Denselow - Sept. to November 2020 - had both resigned).

The most recent accounts submitted are for the year to 31 March 2020. These include a £1.1m increase in the value of its properties, based on valuations by Jones Lang LaSalle. It will be interesting to see what their valuation is at 31 March 2021!

The balance sheet shows net assets of around £26.7m, but this includes a revaluation reserve of £15.5m. The cash flow (profit or loss) for the year showed a deficit of £264k.

There were loans of £36.8m from Brent Council, and the accounts were prepared on a going concern basis, as 'The Council has confirmed, in writing, of its intention for FWH to remain as a going concern for at least twelve months from the date of approval of the annual report and financial statements.' The financial statements were approved on 29 September 2020!

With the loss of rental income when a third of its properties are passed to Brent Council (and i4B), and the value of its Granville New Homes properties written down to NIL, but still with interest to pay on the loan from the Council to purchase those homes in 2009, there must be some doubt over whether First Wave Housing Ltd can continue as a going concern.

 First Wave Housing Ltd outstanding £17.8m loan on Granville New Homes from the Companies House Charges Register

Four of the six were 'saved' one way or another but Neasden, despite being in one of the poorest areas in the borough had no high profile backing it and is now a church. Tokyngton Library, across the River Brent from St Raphaels Estate, was sold off to an Islamic Association in which  Muhammed Butt  was alleged to have an interest. LINKOn the other hand Kensal Rise campaigners had access to a long list of celebrity authors to back their campaign.

The closures led evetually to the demise of   Council Leader Ann John, and her replacement by Muhammed Butt.  It is interesting to revisit the Open Letter that former Brent Labour councillor Graham Durham wrote to him at the time. LINK 

Brent Council began to give some tentative assistance to the volunteer libraries but with no commitment to full reinstatement of the services, signing a Memorandum of Understanding with them in 2017.  LINK

 Recently Preston Community Library after some internal disagreements, has moved to temporary premises while a block of flats is being built on the  redeveloped site with space for a volunteer library on the ground floor.

Guest post by Paul Lorber, library volunteer, Friends of Barham Library

he second week of October marks 10 years since Labour Councillors in Brent put the final nail in and closed 6 public libraries in Brent. Libraries in Barham Park, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise, Neasden, Preston and Tokyngton were closed after a long battle to save them.

There was massive opposition to the closures proposed by the Labour run Brent Council with large petitions, protests and well attended meetings. Local Campaigners raised over £30,000 and took the Council to Court and it was only after they lost their case and the Judge denied them the right to appeal that Brent Council was finally able to close the 6 public libraries for ever.

What Labour Councillors did not expect was the determination of dedicated local people to fight on and establish their own Community Libraries to continue the provision of service to the public.

They decided to close 6 local libraries (half the total) to save around £1 million. Around 80% of that cost related to staff costs. Local people asked the Council to hand over the Library buildings so that volunteers could run the Libraries instead. This offer was refused despite the fact that 3 of the Library buildings were gifts to local people - Cricklewood and Kensal Rise from All Souls College Oxford and Barham Park from Titus Barham of Express Dairies.

For 10 years dozens of local volunteers have kept the dream of local libraries alive and 4 have survived - Barham Community Library has moved around between Barham Primary School, High Road Wembley and finally Barham Park itself and has been actively providing a service for 10 years. Preston Community Library eventually fought its way back into its own building and while Kensal Rise and Cricklewood Community Libraries had their old buildings sold to developers All Souls College, to their credit, insisted that space was made available to the reborn Community Libraries. Kensal Rise has been operating for some time and Cricklewood is hoping to open soon.

While the Community Libraries cannot compete for money and resources with Brent Council funded libraries they compensate for this with the dedication of their volunteers and their ingenuity in providing a wide range of local services. Barham Community Library has put on live theatre, Preston has a Film Club while Kensal Rise has put on Author and Comedy events. They all provide the usual book lending services and a wide range of activities for people of all ages.

Some of us have been around right from the outset. Over the past 10 years hundreds of people have helped and volunteered to keep the Community Libraries and the spirit of community service alive.

I still think that Labour councillors made a big mistake in closing the public libraries and refusing to work in partnership with local people. It is for Labour Councillors to look in the mirror and admit that they made a big mistake.

Today, while remembering the battles of 2010 and 2011, I just want to pay a Tribute to all those dozens of dedicated people who recognised the importance of local libraries and would not allow them to die. And of course the best way of recognising this achievement is by paying a visit and supporting your local Community Library in Barham Park, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise and Preston is by paying a visit and borrowing a book or two.

Brent campaigners at a national demonstration

EDITOR'S NOTE

I would be interested in other campaigners' comments on the campaign and what has eventually transpired. 

 Note the first speaker was not using a microphone so see captions. Sound picks up after that speaker.

From:  https://check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk/target-area/062WAF38BrentBks

Flood alert for Silk Stream and the Deans, Edgware, Dollis, Mutton and Wealdstone Brooks

We have issued a Flood Alert. Rain is forecast to affect London on Monday night, 4 October into Tuesday morning, 5 October. It is currently unclear which areas will experience the heaviest rain. If the heaviest rain affects the Hendon, Wembley, Harrow, Wealdstone, Edgware or Stanmore areas there is the possibility that rivers could overtop their banks. Flooding to low lying land, roads and riverside gardens is possible on Monday night. Surface water flooding may also affect these areas. We recommend you monitor local water levels and weather conditions. Consider putting your flood plan into action. You should avoid walking, cycling or driving through flood water. We are monitoring rainfall and river levels and are checking rivers for blockages. We will update this message at 10am on Tuesday morning or earlier if the situation changes. 

UPDATE

 
The risk of flooding from the Silk Stream and the Deans, Edgware, Dollis, Mutton and Wealdstone Brooks has now reduced and levels have fallen below levels of concern. No further flooding to fields and roads is expected, however there may be standing water seen for several days

Development proposals

There are four developments proposals advancing within the Church End Area as is outlined below:

• 1 - Planning permission 13/1098
• 2 - Planning permission 13/2213
• 3 - Planning application 18/3498 

1 - Planning permission 13/1098

Decision: Grant Permission

Demolition of 205 Church Road and proposal of new market square to replace Eric Road. Demolition of 3 storey building to the rear of 203 Church Road and proposal of 34 residential dwellings and ground floor non-residential space (class A1/A3/B1/D1). Stopping up of Eric Road as revised by plans.

View the planning application details for 13/1098

Imaging showing the potential View Along High Road highlighting the corner area

2 - Planning permission 13/2213

Decision: Grant Permission

Full planning permission sought for demolition of buildings within 205 and 235 Church Road, and redevelopment of section of Church End car park site to the rear of 207-233(odds inc.) Church Road to erect a part 2,3,4,5 and 6-storey building containing 65 residential units, 298m2 (GEA) retail floorspace, together with 7 car parking spaces and associated works as revised by plans and details and subject to a Deed of Agreement dated 5 May 2017 under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

View the planning application details for 13/2213

Artist impression of redevelopment of section of Church End car park site 

3 - Planning application 18/3498

Decision: Awaiting decision

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 mixed use blocks ranging from 4 to 10 storeys plus basement levels, comprising; 245 residential units at 1st to 9th floors, and light industrial floorspace (Class B1c), food retail floorspace (supermarket) (Class A1), gym (Class D2), nursery (Class D1), commercial units (units 7 and 9) (flexible use for Class A1, A2, A3, D1 and/or B1c) and HA office (Class B1a) at basement, ground and part 1st floors, together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant room, substations, landscaping and amenity space (Amended description).

View the planning application details for 18/3498

View from High Road looking into the courtyard

 Guest post, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Entrance to the Gauntlett Court estate, Harrow Road, Sudbury, February 2015.

At the end of August, I wrote an article about Brent Council’s “secret” plans for adding more homes to some of its existing housing estates. That guest blog was mainly about estates in Fryent Ward, but I did also mention that Gauntlett Court in Sudbury was shown as a project ‘not yet in public domain’. This was on a map prepared for a Cabinet meeting in July, with a figure of 120 new homes shown beside it.

Two weeks ago, Martin published the response I’d received to that article from Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. She said that everything shown in that map ‘is not a secret’ (although Brent has done nothing to publicise it!). One of the main themes of my article was that ‘the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account.’ Commenting on that Cllr. Southwood also said:

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects,’ and, 

‘I agree that working with residents is key and this will continue to be a core part of developing any proposals for new housing, balanced with the needs of residents who are currently homeless and the requirements of planning policy.’

You can judge for yourself how far Brent Council is living up to those words, from this further information which has reached me about Gauntlett Court from various sources. I am grateful to Paul Lorber, for letting me see a reply he received from Brent’s Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, which I will quote from below.

The Strategic Director’s report to Cabinet in July 2021, about Brent’s New Affordable Homes Programme, did include Gauntlett Court in a list of sites undergoing feasibility assessment. This showed the number of predicted new homes there as 5. He has recently apologised, saying that this was an old figure, which should have been updated.

The five new homes were bungalows, proposed to be built where there are currently garages. At least until recently, this was the only “infill” housing project at Gauntlett Court which one of the backbench Sudbury Ward councillors was aware of. Martin has let me have a photograph of a similar project underway at the Council flats in Kings Drive [readers of a similar age to me may remember Pete Seeger’s 1963 song “Little Boxes”].

New Brent Council bungalows under construction at Kings Drive, Wembley Park.

The Strategic Director has now clarified the position, saying that for Gauntlett Court: 

‘the current feasibility relates to a potential 120 units on the same site as the existing Gauntlett Court. The Council is considering a mix of airspace (building over existing blocks) and infill development in and around that site.’

He made it clear that: ‘feasibility assessments for sites under consideration.  In other words, they are early assessments of what might be possible, these numbers change as projects do or don’t progress.’ Yet they are there in the report to Cabinet, as predictions of what the Council’s Housing Supply and Partnerships (“HSP”) team expects to be able to deliver.

“Airspace” may be a new term to you (it was to me!). The July report to Cabinet said that one of the methods by which the HSP team would deliver 700 new homes by 2026 (using funding from the Mayor of London’s Affordable Homes Programme) was: ‘Airspace development using an offsite Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) solution.’ This appears to mean using modules built in a specialist factory, then delivered to the site on the back of a lorry and lowered into place by crane.

A factory building housing modules, and a module being lowered by crane. (Images from the internet)

The term “Modern Methods of Construction” covers a variety of pre-prepared materials delivered to building sites (such as panels used to clad the walls of buildings constructed on wooden, steel or concrete frames). Lowering new home units onto supports placed across the flat roofs of existing blocks appears to be the one which they have in mind for Gauntlett Court (and probably also for Campbell and Elvin Courts in Fryent Ward). 

I’m amused that this is considered a modernmethod of construction. It is what was being used to supply temporary factory-made bungalows, or “prefabs”, after the Second World War! If you’d like to discover more about local prefab homes, you can see the slides from an illustrated talk that I gave at Kingsbury Library, a couple of years ago, here.

Section of a prefab home being lowered into place by crane, 1946. (Image from the internet)

As well as “airspace” homes on the roofs of the existing 1950s brick-built three and four storey blocks, Brent’s HSP team are also looking to add “infill” homes. This would have to be on land that is currently grassy open space, with mature trees, or areas currently used for parking residents’ cars, or both.

What do the residents think?  Gauntlett Court has its own Residents’ Association, which meets regularly with local councillors and the Council’s housing management officers. One of the Association’s committee members said, as of two weeks ago, they had not been informed of or consulted about the HSP team’s proposals. Yet, a few days later, the Strategic Director wrote:

‘As I said above, these are early assessments, they will evolve as costs, site considerations and planning issues emerge.   All of this work will be done with local residents and councillors.’

I don’t think that it is right for such schemes to be kept “secret” until Council Officers have decided what they propose to do, in terms of method and numbers, on existing Council-owned estates. If they are to prepare plans that ‘work for everyone’ (to quote Cllr. Southwood’s promise to residents objecting to the plans for Kilburn Square), they need to discuss what could be acceptable at Gauntlett Court, or any other estate they are considering, from a very early stage. Surely they can see that, from the storm they caused at Kilburn Square, when they ploughed on with unacceptable plans for nearly a year before being willing to listen to what residents were telling them!

Harrow Road blocks on the Gauntlett Court estate, with a central green space beyond, February 2015.

The residents at Gauntlett Court are not all Council tenants. One estimate I’ve seen puts the number of leaseholders at around 50%, as a result of “right to buy”. You probably think that this was a “Thatcher-years” policy from the 1980s, but Winston Churchill’s Conservative government introduced a similar scheme in the 1950s. The Borough of Wembley Municipal Housing Handbook for 1960 records that this ‘Sale of Council Houses” scheme had caused them to sell 318 homes since December 1952.

Will these leaseholders want their green space built over, or new Council homes put on their roofs (with the associated building work and potential effect on the value of their own property)? What if there are subsequently problems with defects to these new homes - will they be indemnified from having to meet a share of the costs of remediation work? Such defects problems are not unknown, as we’ve seen very recently! Or will Brent Council, as freeholder, just ignore their concerns, or over-ride their “third party rights”? I sincerely hope not. 

Brent Council’s HSP team should let all the residents at Gauntlet Court know, in writing and without delay, what their current thoughts are about how the estate might be altered to provide more of the Council homes which the borough undoubtedly needs. It should then begin meetings with them, to discuss those ideas, and listen to the thoughts and ideas of the residents, to seek a reasonable compromise about plans going forward.

That is only fair and reasonable. It is also what Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, and Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, appear to have said is the Council’s approach. The Council Officers actually dealing with these matters, day-to-day, need to put that “workingwithresidents” approach into practice. 

Philip Grant.

The Brent Pension Fund Sub-Committee last night decided to invite the London CIV to its next meeting to discuss moves towards its Zero Carbon commitment.  The London CIV (Common Investment Vehicle) is a private limited company that handles £11bn investments from 32 London borough pension funds including Brent.  The boroughs are shareholders in the London CIV as well as its clients. There are some funds outside of the CIV held directly by the Brent Local Government Pension Fund but the proportion is diminishing.

Therefore the emphasis must be on moving the CIV towards low and net  zero carbon investments.  Last night Cllr McLennan reminded the Committee that Brent has been instrumental in persuading the CIV to appoint a sustainability officer. However the meeting recognised that the CIV's 2040 target for  Net Zero carbon investments did not match Brent's own target of 2030 and that it would not satisfy members of the public pushing for rapid action in the face of the climate emergency.

The 'Roadmap' approved last night was a work in progress with much research and discussion still to take place. The Brent Local Government Pension Fund currently stands at £1,032m (20/21) compared with £835 the previous year. The rise is attributed to the bounce back in economic activity after the worse period of Covid. The fund received £61m in contributions, compared with £60m the previous year.  Readers will be aware from past articles on Wembley Matters that the percentage contribution made by Brent employers is the highest of our neighbouring boroughs and is especially noteworthy in the context of school budgets where most employees (apart from teachers who have a separate scheme) are members of the Fund.

The aim is to protect and maximise those pensions whilst also moving away from fossil fuel and other investments that contribute to climate change. Brent will invest another tranche of £30m into BlackRock Low Carbon Fund  a total 6% of its funds. 

The officers' Roadmap concluded:

We have set out below some potential targets for further consideration. The interim targets represent significant milestones towards the longer term net zero target. 

 

Review rationale for continuing with 5% UK equity allocation (10% of overall equities). An outcome here could be to consolidate into global strategies to bring UK allocation into line with its share of global markets (5%).

Following on from the above, actions can be taken to increase allocation to appropriate Paris aligned mandates (either active or passive depending on outcome of belief exercise) capable of achieving carbon reduction targets. A shortlist of options available to the Fund are shown below: 

o Reduce carbon intensity as measured by Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (WACI) by X% by 2030 versus 2021 base year

o Reduce total/potential emissions from fossil fuel reserves by X% by 2030 versus 2021 base year

o Invest at least X% of Fund’s portfolio in climate solutions (e.g. renewable infrastructure, green bonds, companies with >90% revenues from climate change activities) by 2030

o Percentage of portfolio with net zero targets to be at least X% by 2030 

 

Growth structure (developed market equities) 

 

 

Review rationale for continuing with 5% UK equity allocation (10% of overall equities). An outcome here could be to consolidate into global strategies to bring UK allocation into line with its share of global markets (5%). 

 

Following on from the above, actions can be taken to increase allocation to appropriate Paris aligned mandates (either active or passive depending on outcome of belief exercise) capable of achieving carbon reduction targets. A shortlist of options available to the Fund are shown below: 

 ·

·        

o LCIV RBC Sustainable Equity Fund (active)
o LCIV RBS Sustainable Equity Exclusion Fund (active)
o LCIV Low Carbon Passive Equity Fund (to be launched)
o LCIV Paris Aligned Active Equity Fund (to be launched) LINK
o BlackRock ACS World Low Carbon Equity Tracker Fund
o LGIM Future World Range (a number of options within this) 

 

 After the meeting Simon Erskine of the Divest Brent group said:

In the struggle to achieve Net Zero (i.e. carbon emissions created from transport, power, agriculture etc. being balanced by carbon absorbed through growing trees, direct air capture of CO2 etc.) companies need to play a key role in reducing emissions from their activities. Switching investments from companies responsible for large emissions to companies with low or negative emissions encourages the transition to Net Zero.

One of the biggest classes of investors is pension funds – for example Brent Council’s Pension Fund owns investments in excess of £1 billion. For 5 years Divest Brent has been campaigning for the Council to sell its investments in (“divest from”) fossil fuel companies. Following the presentation to the Council of a divestment petition with nearly 1,400 signatures the Council agreed to draw up a roadmap to this goal. 

On 5^th October the Pension Fund Sub-committee considered the “Net Zero Transition Roadmap”. It was acknowledged that the Roadmap was a start – the Pension Fund needed to agree a target date for achieving Net Zero and then draw up interim targets e.g. a 2030 Net Zero target with interim targets of 40% emissions reductions by 2024 and 70% by 2027. The Paris Agreement of 2016 calls for a maximum average global temperature increase of 2 degrees Centigrade compared to pre-industrial levels, with a target of 1.5 degrees (compared to the current increase of 1.1 degrees). 

According to the UN’s climate change scientific body, the IPCC, in a 2018 report, that means Net Zero by 2050 with a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030. Since that report was issued the pace of climate change has dramatically increased with massive wildfires, record hurricanes and typhoons, lethal heatwaves, floods (including flooding in Brent itself) and so on. Furthermore, in declaring a Climate and Ecological Emergency in 2019, the Council agreed a Net Zero Target of 2030. Councillors at the Pension Fund Sub-committee spoke out against the Pension Fund adopting a 2050 Net Zero target and asked about the impact of a 2030 target – in line with the Council’s own position.

Officers pointed out that the London Collective Investment Vehicle, which managed many investments of London local authority pension funds, including much of Brent’s, has adopted a 2040 date and suggested it may be appropriate for Brent’s Pension Fund to follow suit.

We welcome the Roadmap as a first step towards decarbonising the Brent Pension Fund. Choosing a responsible Net Zero target date is crucial. Some people are saying that the many extreme climate events, which are already responsible for huge loss of life, homelessness and damage to property – along with species disappearing at an alarming rate (around 50% over the last 50 years) – demonstrate that we need to achieve Net Zero by 2025. The Council itself has agreed on a 2030 target and in our view that should apply to the Pension Fund too unless there is clear evidence that it would damage the Fund.”

Following approval of the report the Council will now work hard evaluating the effect of different targets, both for Net Zero and for interim emission reductions. These will be considered at the next meeting of the Pension Fund Sub-committee in February 2022.

 Full Roadmap below. Click bottom right for full page version.

Bookshop Day is one-day nationwide celebration of all high street bookshops including independent bookshops like Book & Kulture, based at The Grange, Neasden.

The campaign aims to highlight the cultural importance of books and bookshops, and celebrate the people that bring the two together! 

Bookshop Day happens annually in October and will take place on Saturday 9 October 2021. 

Bookshop Day first launched in 2013 and is run by the Booksellers Association to encourage book lovers, like you, to shop at their local bookshop. 

Book & Kulture are collaborating with Black Wall Street London to create a more diverse #bookshopday this year. They’ll be taking over the basement to bring a host of diverse titles to Camden at their shop at 279 Camden High Street, London NW1 7BX from 10am on Saturday until 7pm.

This flagship Afrocentric store, exists to showcase high quality under-represented Black owned businesses. Curated by founder, Natasha Vigille her aim is to provide an accessible and affordable business trading space and provide solutions for the 'Strategic Challenges' experienced by Black African Caribbean entrepreneurs.

As well as exhibiting an amazing array of diverse books; a number of authors will be visiting throughout the day to sign books and meet the public. They include Kandace Chimbiri, author of newly released ‘The Story Of Afro Hair’, Venessa Taylor, author of Baller Boys and Wendy Shearer, author of African and Caribbean Folktales, Myths and Legends & Bedtime Stories: Beautiful Black Tales from the Past.

A limited number of exclusive tote bags designed by Dapo Adeola will also be available to purchase on the day.

Founder, Vanessa La Rose comments:

We’re excited to be in the heart of Camden. A place that celebrates diversity and standing firm in who you are. We’ve collaborated with a brilliant store that is focused on inclusion and representation....perfect for Black History Month. We welcome and encourage the community to join us.

 A guest post from Philip Grant

I’ve heard from my friends at Brent Culture Service (that’s Libraries, Arts & Heritage) about their autumn programme. There is a whole range of events, both online and “live”, that will appeal to people of all ages, from activities to talks, theatre, music and film, and most of them are free! You can check out the details here, but there are a couple which are particularly interesting to me.

A black British sailor at the Battle of Trafalgar, 1805.

You may think that Black History Month is nothing to do with you, or that it’s just for “black” people to learn about “their own” history. If so, I hope you will change your mind. In history at secondary school in the 1960s, it was never mentioned that the sailors involved in famous battles won by the British navy were not all white. Over the past decade, since retiring, I’ve discovered some amazing stories of the part played by people of colour in “British” history, and there is still more that I can learn. That’s why I’ve signed up for these two online talks.

Arthur and Frederick in their navy uniforms, 1918.

I have an interest in naval history, partly because my grandad and his brother Fred were both in the Royal Navy during the First World War. The free online talk, “Uncovering the History of Black British Mariners”, on Tuesday 19 October at 6.30pm, is one I’m looking forward to. I never realised that some of their shipmates may have been “Black British Mariners”, but the faces below make that a possibility.

Some faces from the “Black Poppies” talk.

The First World War is still producing some stories we didn’t learn at school, even over 100 years since it ended. I’m sure that “Black Poppies – Britain’s Black Community and the Great War”, another free online talk, on Armistice Day, Thursday 11 November at 6.30pm, will add some fascinating details to that list.

Although I don’t know who most of the people shown in the image above are, I do recognise the face of Sergeant William Robinson Clarke (bottom right). He got his pilot’s licence and “wings” in the Royal Flying Corps (soon to become the RAF) in 1917, and I found out about him some years ago at a Wembley History Society talk, “Pilots of the Caribbean”, and an RAF Museum exhibition of the same name.

William Robinson Clarke’s Royal Flying Corps pilot’s licence record card, April 1917.

Our WHS talk was by Mark Johnson, and I’m surprised that Brent Libraries don’t seem to have a copy of his book, “Caribbean Volunteers at War” – I hope they get one soon! As well as this WW1 pilot, there were around 500 “Pilots of the Caribbean” who flew in the RAF during the Second World War. One of them has a Wembley connection, because it was here, in 1948, that he won Jamaica’s first Olympic Games gold medal! You can read his story here.

Another First World War hero, with a Wembley connection, who I first came across while researching for the British Empire Exhibition’s 90^th anniversary, was a Nigerian. You can read about Sergeant-Major Belo Akure’s bravery here.

I hope I’ve whetted your appetite for some of the events that Brent Culture Service have organised for all of us to enjoy this autumn. Please take a look at the programme, to see which ones you and your family fancy, and sign up for the ones that interest you!

A Willesden author, Odette Elliott, is reaching out across the generations in her latest book Abigay's Farm, which reflects modern family life and age-old principles of standing up for what you value.

Odette who is 82 says:

I live in Willesden. I was living in Primrose Hill when my picture books and others were published but have now lived in Willesden for 29 years.  

I would like to tell local children about my children’s novel and it would be great if somehow I could get some publicity in our area. I am having a book launch at Belsize Community Library in November and it would be wonderful if I could have a similar event at one of Brent's community libraries.

 The book is being self-published - actually “assisted” self-publishing, even though I have had 8 books traditionally published - see my website.

It looked as if Brent Scrutiny Committee was going to get down to the nitty gritty of the housing scandal that saw Brent Council paying £17.5m for the Granville New Housing in South Kilburn and now having to fork out £18.5m to remedy all the defects. A further issue is that Higgins the builder that built the faulty development is currently building more homes for Brent Council in Stonebridge.

After some excellent questioning from the chair, Cllr Ketan Sheth, Cllr Gaynor Lloyd and Cllr Mary Daly, officers were sent out so that the Committee could discuss their recommendations to Cabinet, who meet to discuss the issue on Monday morning.

Except that the public could not hear the discussion on the recommendations because the live feed to the meeting was abruptly cut off!

In the circumstances it is right that we should be suspicious.

There was much prevarication about when the defects had first been noticed and which part of the council they had been reported to.  Residents have told Wembley Matters they have been reporting defects in the housing built in 2009 for a long time but officers claimed that they had become aware only after post Grenfell surveys and a full intrusive survey involving taking out windows and cutting into walls

This meant that they were not 'fully aware' until May of this year.  The seriousness of the issues had not been picked up by Brent Housing Partnership, Brent Housing Management, First Wave Housing, Brent Council as Guarantor of the original loan or the Audit Committee. Cllr Kasangra who sits on Audit said they have been given the impression that 'everything was rosy.' They had been assured that the issues that came up in Croydon were not relevant to Brent - 'now we know that First Wave could have gone into liquidation!'

Cllr Lloyd challenged these expressions of ignorance quoting Cllr Janice Long as remarking that she felt guilty because 'we were always hearing about problems at these blocks.' Tenants had been complaining for a long time and it was nonsense for First Wave Housing to say that they didn't know.

In response to questions First Wave said they had had no discussions with Higgins about the defects since they had been discovered. They had been advised that there was no possibility of redress due to the passage of time.  Cllr Sheth asked why there had been no dialogue with Higgins given that they were still Brent Council's partner and even more important, why were they still a partner? 

First Wave said they couldn't comment. 

The officer responsible for Brent's actions as Guarantor was asked if he had received any complaints about Higgins and he replied that nothing had been brought to his attention.

Sheth said that the Council needed to think about how to get assurances from Higgins about their work. Cllr Lloyd asked if during the procurement process the past record of the company was taken into account before awarding the Stonebridge contract, for example.  The officer said that he couldn't provide an answer now but would provide a written answer.

First Wave were asked about consultation with residents. They had been told about the need for a waking watch at the time of the fire survey but only a few turned up to a zoom meeting, he added 'There hasn’t been too much response from residents.'

The head of housing said that even if residents did not attend meeting they were engaged with and they said they were very happy with their homes. He claimed that normally in such a situation residents would be at the meeting protesting but none had turned up tonight so this showed they were content.

The comment at the top of the page from a resident speaks for itself. 

The report and Scrutiny recommendations will be discussed at Brent Council's Cabinet on Monday morning at 11am. LINK

Older readers mat recall the Tony Hancock sketch 'The Last Page' where he engaged fully with a crime novel with all its plot twists only to be frustrated at the end when he found the last page torn out.

Well, last night's Scrutiny Committee was rather like that with the live feed ended just when the Committee had sent out officers and were about to discuss their recommendations.

This morning the recording of the meeting was published by Brent Council with a minute added when the clerk read out the recommendations for confirmation.  However, the section of the meeting where the Committee discussed their reactions to the officers' answers and their subsequent recommendation was not included in the published recording.

These are the recommendations as read out by the clerk but the wording is likely to be tidied up before they are formally minuted.*

• For officers to give assurances to the Committee of the commissioning of these contracts.
• For officers to give assurances to the Committee that the Council has undertaken due diligence for subsidiary bodies including that they are financially sound and the potential reputational risk to the Council.
• That external written legal and tax advice is sought on the options presenrted and tht all contracts and procurement include a review of past deliveries of any potential contractors.

The Full Recording of the meeting is below and worth viewing for the evasions and unanswered questions.

*The 'tidying up' has been extensive see https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/10/full-scrutiny-recommendations-to-brent.html

The full recommendations to the Cabinet from Brent Scrutiny Committee after their meeting last night have now been published as a Supplementary report on the agenda of Monday's 10am Cabinet meeting. LINK

Supplementary Paper – Cabinet: 11 October 2021

Agenda Item 9 (Proposals for ownership & refurbishment of Granville New Homes Blocks)

Scrutiny of implications for BHM (Brent Housing Management) and HRA (Housing Revenue Account) of proposals for ownership and refurbishment of Granville New Homes blocks undertaken by Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on Thursday 7 October 21

Scrutiny Committee recommendations to Cabinet:

· That the officers give assurance that the council has undertaken due diligence reviews of its subsidiary bodies, including governance, fitness for purpose, financial soundness and reputational risk. 

· That the officers ensure the Ridge report is made available to the scrutiny committee and audit committee. 

· That the officers review arrangements for entering into contracts of this kind, in particular to ensure adequate arrangements are made to ensure appropriate design/build quality – and that the council has appropriate recourse where latent defects are later identified. 

· That the officers ensure all potential contractors are made aware of the standards expected by the council – and to ensure these are met before buildings are formally accepted by the council. 

· That the council provide written assurance that it has taken or will take independent legal and financial advice (including tax) regarding the proposals and next steps. 

· That all contracts procured by the council and its subsidiaries include a review of past delivery of any potential contractors. 

· That the council ensures where issues are evident in a particular project, all remaining projects by the same contractor are reviewed as a matter of urgency. 

· That the officers review the steps that make-up the procurement, commissioning and contract monitoring system to identify any gaps especially in relation to risk and review aspects. Where these are identified that immediate action is taken. 

· That the council put in place arrangements to ensure learning about this case – and any others raising issues of similar significance – is shared across the council as well as with existing and potential future partners/contractors. 

· That the officers establish and publish a comprehensive plan for ongoing engagement with residents.

The memorial outside Lloyds of London

From  Coal Action Network

Today, protesters from Coal Action Network set up a climate justice memorial at Lloyd’s of London HQ (1 Lyme Street). The climate memorial was set up to remember communities on the front lines of climate breakdown who are directly impacted by harmful projects and climate impacts. 

The memorial involved hundreds of flowers and floral wreaths (following the visual theme of REMEMBER - RISE - RESIST), being laid outside the HQ. Testaments from communities on the front lines of fossil fuel projects and climate impacts were read out and delivered to staff in the building.

Elara from Coal Action Network said:

 

 Through the memorial we will bring to life the memories of every person harmed by the injustices of the climate crisis. We’ve laid wreaths naming climate wrecking projects we want Lloyd’s to rule out underwriting today, and help to prevent billions of lives being destroyed by climate impacts.

Flowers with over 600 individual messages from people across the UK were handed out to staff going in and out of the Lloyd’s building. Staff were asked to speak to senior management in Lloyd’s about ruling out insuring all fossil fuels, as well as, various fossil fuel projects including the Adani Coal mine, tar sands TransMountain pipeline, West Cumbria coal mine, and the Cambo oilfields. The group also called for Lloyd’s to pay compensation for climate impacts. 

Elara from Coal Action Network said:

The climate crisis is harming the poorest and least responsible of us first and worst. The blame falls squarely at the feet of executives at corporations like Lloyd’s of London. Day after day they decide to profit from death and chaos, by underwriting projects that will lead to climate breakdown, while refusing to insure everyday people against the floods and wildfires they are helping to create.

From the Guardian

Five education unions have written to the Secretary of State for Education, Nadhim Zahawi, asking him to urgently reconsider the reintroduction of additional safety measures in schools, given the rising rates of Covid infection and absence among school students.

The five unions – GMB, NASUWT, NEU, UNISON and UNITE – will also be writing to all local authorities and directors of public health asking them to consider measures in their local areas.

The unions have pointed to measures now being readopted in several local authority areas in response to rising cases, including social distancing measures, reintroduction of bubbles, avoidance of large gatherings such as assemblies and meetings, and reintroduction of face coverings in secondary schools.

The unions have warned that without such measures, students’ education and the health of students, their families and school staff will all be damaged unnecessarily.

Avril Chambers, GMB National Officer, said: "Yet again we appear to have denial of the facts from this Government. Covid cases among school pupils are growing exponentially and it is clear further mitigation measures are needed immediately. School staff have kept our schools open throughout the pandemic: they deserve to stay safe and our children deserve not to have their education interrupted any more than it already has been. The minister needs to act now."

Patrick Roach, General Secretary, NASUWT said: “As cases rise, ministers need to look again at supporting schools with onsite testing into the spring term, rather than relying on home testing, which is less effective. There is an urgent need for the Government to consider reinstating the requirement for pupils to self-isolate if they are in close contact with someone who has tested positive. Proportionate safety measures and appropriate support for schools are essential in breaking the continuing chain of virus transmission.”

Kevin Courtney, Joint General Secretary, National Education Union, said: ‘We are concerned that the Government is standing by while COVID cases surge across schools. It is evident that more needs to be done, and sooner rather than later, to prevent further massive disruption to children’s education, caused either by children contracting covid-19 or covid-related staff absence. The most effective way of keeping children in educatiois to do more now to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in schools.’

Jon Richards, UNISON assistant general secretary, said: “Ministers must do all they can to stop continued disruption to classroom learning as infections rise. To offer pupils and staff greater protection, face masks must return right away, along with school bubbles and other sensible precautions that were ditched. Air filters are also key to limiting the virus spread and ensuring pupils have a more stable academic year.”

Jim Kennedy, Unite national officer for education, said: “Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has a great opportunity to reset the safety agenda for schools, following the departure of Gavin Williamson. With winter fast approaching and with Covid still rampant the whole range of measures to keep school children safe needs to be deployed – the rising level of infections in schools demand it.”

The full text of the letter is as follows:

The Rt Hon Nadhim Zahawi MP

Secretary of State for Education

Department for Education

20 Great Smith Street

London

SW1P 3BT 8 October 2021

 

Dear Secretary of State

 

We are writing as unions representing school leaders, teachers and support staff to urge you to give all education settings the guidance and resources they need to keep pupils safely learning for the rest of this term. We began this term hoping for better times and a more normal feel across the education system but, as the weeks have gone by it has become clear that the DfE guidance published on 23 August requires urgent updating.

 

Thresholds in the DfE contingency framework for even seeking advice following cases are set too high; meaning that cases can already be spreading across a school before additional measures are considered.

 

Government data shows that confirmed Covid-19 cases amongst school-aged children surged to 102,000 on 30 September, a 67 per cent rise since 16 September. Over 204,000 pupils were absent from school on 30 September for covid-related reasons. Staff absence is also impacting on education with some children suffering disruption as a result of staff absence, and staff and leaders under enormous strain as a result.

 

It is unclear when the impact of the vaccination programme for 12- to 15-year-olds will begin to be felt and so in the meantime more needs to be done to prevent the spread.

 

Many other countries in Europe that have kept in place proportionate mitigation measures in schools, such as face coverings and quarantine of close contacts whilst rolling out a vaccination programme, and have not experienced the back-to-school surge in cases that we have seen in England.

 

In addition, a growing number of councils are now using the freedoms they have under the Department for Education guidance to bring in additional mitigations in schools. This reflects their responsibilities for public health, and also under health and safety legislation.

 

Staffordshire County Council for example is encouraging all schools to introduce a range of measures including to stop whole-school assemblies and bring back classroom bubbles and face coverings; all close contacts to get a PCR test; and reintroduction of staggered start, finish and lunch times because it is "time to be proactive" about rising cases.

 

Additional mitigations have been recommended in areas including Cambridgeshire, City of Wolverhampton Council, Cumbria County Council and in some London boroughs. For example, in Cumbria, siblings of children diagnosed with Covid should be kept at home until their test comes back negative.

 

These are all important measures that we believe need to be implemented across all schools. Combined with a relentless focus on ventilation, with use of HEPA filters where ventilation cannot be improved in any other way (a focus which will reap benefits far beyond the end of the pandemic) these measures could make a real difference in England.

 

Without a change of direction, we risk damaging the education of thousands of children at some point before Christmas. The health of some children, but particularly that of vulnerable staff, parents or grandparents, could be compromised.

 

This is an urgent problem, and we look forward to your swift response. We would also welcome the opportunity for an urgent meeting with you to discuss these matters further.

 Jenny Cooper, Co-Secretary of Brent National Education Union told Wembley Matters:

 We asked Brent Council officers to bring in additional measures in schools that reach the DfE threshold. But they appear to be toeing the government line of minimum disruption to schools so no return to bubbles etc. However we know from our members that in the long term such an approach causes more disruption.

 Public toilet in Wembley Park

London is open - but what about its toilets? There are just 3 weeks left to complete this important survey on public toilet provision. The survey is part of the London Assembly Health Committee’s investigation on Access to public toilets 

Public toilets in London - Introduction

The London Assembly represents the interests of Londoners and holds the Mayor to account. Your opinions will help the London Assembly with its research. We can share your experiences and inform the Mayor of your views on public toilets in London. This survey will be included in a report which we hope will provide a snapshot of public toilet provision in London and inform us about what needs to happen next.

By ‘public toilet’, we mean any toilet that is publicly accessible. This could be a toilet run by a local council (in a park, for example), a toilet available to use in a public building such as a library, or toilets in a privately run space but available to any member of the public, such as a shopping centre. Also included are toilets in places such as cafés and shops when they are part of a scheme (such as a Community Toilet Scheme) which means they are specifically open to non-customers (i.e. you don’t have to purchase something to use the toilet).

You don’t have to answer all the questions if you don’t feel like it. Here’s what this survey is about:

 
In part 1, we’re asking some questions to understand your experiences of using public toilets in London.
In part 2, we’d like to know a little bit about you.
It will take 10-15 minutes to complete.


The details...
All responses will be treated confidentially. Answers will be grouped together, and no individual will be identified in any publications.

The GDPR bit...
You are in control of any personal data that you have provided to us in your response. You can contact us at any time to have your information changed or deleted. Please contact  daniel.tattersall@london.gov.uk.

We are undertaking this survey to aid the London Assembly to support and represent Londoners.

https://survey.alchemer.eu/s3/90382235/Public-toilets-in-London

 These are the questions that a Granville New Homes residentr was unable to put to Scrutiny Committee.  I felt it important to publish them to counter the claim that the residents are happy.

These are the following bullet points that I would like Brent Council to answer..
* why were we robbed of the property that was promised to us when the first regeneration was taken place and told that the property that was shown to us was what we viewed in the first place ( first lie ).
* why were we  lied to in the past that is still continuing  up to the present date.
* why were we shown a derelict property in order to  force us to move.
* why were we not  one of the first tenants be rehoused and left to the last and still awaiting 
* why has seven different housing office discussed moving then vanished
* why have all our complaints been ignored
* why were we threaten to be thrown out on the streets
* why was a eviction  notice served by Brent 
* why were we being bullied 
* why have we got seven fire alarm in the property that are faulty of late
* why are we constantly being  threaten to be taken to court and were taken to court.
* why are we forced to live in a property that is a danger to our health 
* why are we being forced to leave the area as it has clearly been stated the reason why we should remain in the area 
* why has Brent not  recognised the stress that these actions has caused and is still ongoing
* why have certain members of Brent staff  proved to be untrustworthy 
* why is a certain member of Brent staff blocking the process of us being moved
* And the list goes on these are a few things that I would like to be resolved

The resident has sent photographs (below) of the state of the building - built in 2009 for £17.5m.

 Recording of the Granville New Homes item at Cabinet this morning.

Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of Brent Coucil and lead on Finance, told colleagues at today's Brent Council Cabinet that the poor build of the Granville New Homes back in 2009 would not happen today because the council has improved robust procurement procedures in place and the present council   would not tolerate such poor workmanship.

McLennan did not directly address the fact that the project was built by Higgins who are currently building for the council in Stonebridge, but at the same time said that the recommendations from Scrutiny were 'pertinent and valid' and would ensure that such an issue would not occur again. LINK

However Scrutiny's recommendations were not put to a formal Cabinet vote so their status is unclear.

Cabinet agreed to transfer 84 social housing units to the Housing Revenue Account  and 25 intermediate units to i4B and refinance the debt after consultation with those residents involved. Details of the consultation were not given, nor consideration of what would happen if they did not agree with the option the council put forward.

Cllr McLennan said that financial issues aside the first and foremost concern of the Council was to make sure tenants were safe. 

It is worth noting that in 2019 in a guest post on Wembley Matters, Pete Firmin raised issues about building quality in another South Kilburn development LINK illustrated with this photograph.

 Cambridge Gardens, Kilburn July 2021 (Kilburn Times)

The Westbourne 1790

 

Sign in the former Bird In Hand Pub, West End Lane
 

Guest blog by David Walton of FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn. The views expressed are those of the author.

The raw sewage river flooding 'major incident' of July 2021 in  South Kilburn and North Westminster, has meant that scores of residents are still housed in temporary accommodation, claims are being made and homes are being dried-out and repaired. Why did this happened? Who pays now and for future major floods?

Householders should beware that new experiments, regressions, crisis and disruptions  are being knowingly allowed in specific new city zonings. In starting to examine this 'major incident' covering Environment Agency policies, unsound growth area, tall buildings, very large site zonings, local flood authority responsibilities, planning law and emergency planning,  a complex picture of government and political indifference  emerges with baked-in environment/ climate denial in regard to the South Kilburn Estate version of 'build back better' where five times the number of homes it had in the year 2000 are being towered, forced and packed onto the River Westbourne's flood plain by year 2041.

The key strategic decision change seems to have been around 20 years ago when the Environment Agency chose, as does the Greater London Authority and Brent Council, that developers could totally deny the existence of the River Westbourne and its tributaries running underneath South Kilburn. Note that South Kilburn's river delta shape is still apparent today and also how early nineteenth century maps of South Kilburn show these rivers set in dairy farm fields, rivers which though in culverts for over 100 years now are natural and still very much here, live and ever present however much denied by government, agencies and politicians.

Taking the Environment Agencies lead and despite all too apparent on site water facts, for Brent Local Flood Authority the River Westbourne and its tributaries simply do not exist anymore (see clause 6.55 Brent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2007). A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment process is meant in law to be a 'live' document yet seems to have been rather abandoned at Brent Civic Centre. How 'live' these rivers become in the major incident investigation of 2021 for South Kilburn 'very large site' will be public knowledge soon.

For example, of neighbouring local authorities: Kensington and Chelsea Strategic Flood Risk Assessment highlights the River Westbourne as its second major flood risk after the River Thames and marks the entire river course and tributaries from Hampstead Heath down to the Thames at Chelsea. Camden Strategic Flood Risk Assessment map helpfully indicates historic flooding of South Kilburn and maps how the south west of Camden drains down into South Kilburn vale in Brent. The City of Westminster Strategic Flood Risk Assessment map helpfully indicates historic flooding of Chippenham Gardens, South Kilburn located north of the Westminster boundary.

Since first being built on in the mid nineteenth century South Kilburn was notorious for its flood risk to homes and this kept the area unpopular with new houses being difficult to sell and poverty  concentrated there. This memory of urban trauma inspired progressive architects and planners post World War 2 to protect and transform this flood risk and literally bad land by building a new public owned estate of housing for 6,000 people, with social and health infrastructure set in an impressive recreational parkland of public owned flood defences where flood water could stand, pool and be absorbed by woodland environments naturally- a major London success much celebrated at that time.

The protection/ sustainability long-term problem for this massive public investment however was that all public owned estate community new diverse specific land uses were and remain unregistered at the UK Land Registry and later 1970's phase built large panel blocks were unmortgageable as they had catastrophic build defects baked-in.

From year 2010 the South Kilburn Growth Area with its green parkland public flood defences total removal policies and resultant ever increased flood risk being manufactured, led to a deal being struck with Westminster. The then City of Westminster Plan highlighted the South Kilburn Growth Area policy as being a major risk to its residents. 

So, to protect Maida Vale/ North Westminster in 2015 a £17.5 million flood defence mitigation scheme was built by Thames Water in the form of two large underground rivers flood sewage storage reservoirs sited within North Westminster. However, July 2021, one month’s worth of rain fell in one hour and the River Westbourne and its tributaries sewage waters rose above ground on to streets and flowed into ever reduced flood protections South Kilburn and then horror on into £17.5 million extra flood protection designed North Westminster homes as well! South Kilburn is become a sinking sink and is now proof positive that rivers sewage flood risk, crisis impact and misery can't be neatly corporate zoned in by design anymore.

Government responsibility finally has to be taken and the River Westbourne and its tributaries need to be recognised as existing acknowledged as a real problem again for politicians, public servants, shell company freeholders and developers. Often already off-shored and hard to trace new owners of South Kilburn enclosures/ towers built on former public owned flood defences already will certainly not accept responsibility for the massive costs involved in totally predictable and accelerating future major flood incidents. After all the Environment Agency ‘disappeared’ the River Westbourne and its tributaries in South Kilburn, so that is the current 'live' get out of jail free card/loophole still in place legally for South Kilburn developers. Instead help-to-buy and affordable rent families will have to pay government backed massive repairs loans and forced to pay increased charges. The parallels here with the ongoing inflammable building materials crisis facing leaseholders and tenants since the Grenfell fire disaster are remarkable - a predatory political forward strategy of government by debt in South Kilburn tall building zone? Build back inflammable, build back no health and social wellbeing infrastructure to be retained and build back wetter!

Granville New Homes was built on Granville Road Public Open Space which was designed  as a major South Kilburn flood defence and Higgins are building at Chippenham Gardens in 2021, taking part of another flood fence open space.