Children's messages at the Harlesden stall

Brent Friends of the Earth will be setting up their 'Messages for COP26' stall outside the Farmers' Market at Salusbury Primary School, Salusbury Road, Queens Park on Sunday from 11am to 1pm. 

This is the third stall after successful appearances in Harlesden and Wembley Central.  The bunting will be displayed outside the school before being sent to the politicians and NGOs  in Glasgow.

Paper and pens are all supplied  so pause for a few minutes to send a message, which along with thousands of others,  may save our children's future.

Wembley Matters has recently been focusing on the potential impact of severe weather events on potential flooding in the north LINK and south LINK of the borough so it is welcome to hear that neighbouring boroughs Harrow and Barnet are taking action on the Silk Stream catchment that feeds into the Welsh Harp.  Without mitigation torrential rainfall carried by the Silk Stream could have a major impact on the Welsh Harp and lead to the opening of sluices at the dam with the excess water flowing down the River Brent.

This is Thames21 account of the project and consultation:

A major six-year partnership project will work with nature to reduce the risk of flooding in the Silk Stream catchment and wider River Brent.

The Silk Stream Flood and Resilience Innovation (SSFRI)  is a partnership project, led by Harrowand Barnet Councils with involvement from Thames21, Thames Water, Environment Agency, Greater London Authority, Canal and River Trust, Brent Catchment Partnership, Friends of the Silk Stream Resident Group, Silk Stream Flood Action Group and others. The project is funded by the government’s Flood and Coastal Resilience Innovation initiative and is one of 25 related schemes across England.

The project will explore opportunities to build new wetlands, restore stretches of river and create new areas of natural drainage to increase flood resilience as well as create a host of other benefits, including improved water quality, beautiful public spaces that will boost health and wellbeing and much needed habitat for wildlife.

We need your help!

Please fill in our online survey to share your knowledge of the catchment and your ideas about how the project should develop.

To be successful we need the knowledge and insight of local people. Throughout the project there will be multiple opportunities for local people to help shape project proposals. We’ll also be creating opportunities to learn more about rivers and the wildlife they support and to get actively involved in improving rivers and building flood resilience. To find out more about our plans and how you can get involved and influence what we do, use the link below to add yourself to the project mailing list.

Join the SSFRI mailing list.

The Silk Stream Catchment

The Silk Stream is a major tributary of the River Brent, rising on the Harrow Weald and Barnet Plateau and joining the Brent at the Welsh Harp Reservoir. It has several tributaries including Burnt Oak Brook and Edgware Brook. The Silk Stream is an important resource for wildlife and, along with Burnt Oak Brook, is designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Welsh Harp Reservoir where the Silk Stream meets the Brent is a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the diversity of breeding water birds that it supports.

Flooding is a serious concern in the catchment and it’s estimated that over 1000 properties are at risk. As the catchment has become increasingly urbanised with natural vegetation replaced by hard surfaces, water is less able to soak into the ground and during intense rainfall events water levels can rise rapidly, causing flooding.

Pollution is another problem that affects the Silk Stream, coming from a variety of sources including plumbing misconnections and connectivity between the surface water and foul sewers. During high rainfall events the sewers reach capacity and these problems are intensified.

How will the project help?

Traditional approaches to managing flood risk have focused on concrete flood defences but there is a growing movement towards natural flood management (NFM) which works with nature to slow the flow of water entering rivers, create natural flood storage and reconnect rivers to their flood plains.

The project will see the creation of new wetlands in several parks in the Silk Stream catchment which will help build flood resilience, improve water quality, boost biodiversity and provide valuable blue/green spaces for people to enjoy.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) such as rain gardens will be created in the urban streetscape to help remove pollutants from road run-off and slow the flow of water entering the surface water sewer system.

The project will also enlist the help of Thames Water, using innovative ‘thermosensors’ to discover where surface water is entering the foul network as part of efforts to address sewer flooding and the serious issues pollution that affect the catchment.

By using a variety of solutions and looking at the catchment as a whole the project will create tangible environmental benefits and allow for learning that can help replicate these benefits across the broader Brent Catchment and beyond.

Get involved

Contact us at silkstream@thames21.org.uk if you have any questions to find out how you can get involved.

Brent Friends of the Earth took their stall to Queens Park today and set up outside the Farmers' Market at Salusbury Primary School.

Children and adults answered the call to send messages to the Government and the Conference on the need for urgent action to address the climate emergency.

The messages have been recorded and the pennants left hanging on the school railings for pupils, parent and staff to see tomorrow morning.

Brent Council is currently undertaking a major consultation exercise across its council estates on parking enforcement LINK. They wish to introduce a Traffic Management Order (TMO) on the estates and note 'should residents not support the proposals...an alternative enforcement service will not be available on the estate.'  In other words, according to some residents if you do not support this proposal current difficulties will continue and we will abandon you to your fate.

The parking restrictions will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year and will require residents to purchase parking permits at £50 per permit per year. Given the number of people living on all the above estates that amounts to a considerable sum, leading some people to suggest this is just a money raising venture.

A further criticism has been that this is a 'one size fits all' approach ignoring differences between estates and their proximity to Wembley Stadium, underground stations, major shopping centres etc which lead to outsiders parking on some estates but not on others.

A particular issue that has been drawn to my attention is that the consultation states that 'due to the restricted amount of parking space available on the estate and the need to provide the maximum amount of parking for residents, visitors will initially be unable to park within the estate' - this would be reviewed once the scheme is operational and the number of free spaces determined.  Given that family visiting at weekends and particularly for festivals is an important cultural tradition for many of Brent's communities this is seen  as posing a challenge for any equalities impact assessment.

Visitors parking on the estate would risk a Fixed Penalty Notice which at present is £130.

On my estate the removal of garages and a car park for 'in-fill' housing has reduced the number of parkling spaces available but will also increase the population. While wanting people to rely less on cars and use public transport instead I cannot deny the impact this has had  and will also affect other estates ear-marked for in-fill developments.

There are undoubtedly parking problems and this has meant many missed waste collections when the huge  Veolia vehicles cannot get access. There are outsiders who park cars and vans on the estate overnight with the occasional overnighter sleeping in their vehicles on the access road. 

 The maps produced for the consultation appear to indicate fewer parking bays than are currently available. On this plan for Kings Drive, Wembley, you can see that there are 17 blocks each with 10 households. The number of parking bays is indicated in green.

A key question, given previous problems with enforcement by Brent Council, is will this mean anything if enforcement is not effective? Look again at all the estates affected and the ground that has to be covered.

Engagement sessions have been organised as part of the consultation, many of which have already taken place DETAILS

 The consultation closes on November 4th at 23.59

BRENT COUNCIL'S REASONS FOR THE CHANGE

Why do we need to make these changes?

Vehicles parking in an unsafe and inconsiderate way blocks roads and pavements, and are making it difficult and unsafe for residents to move around their estates, as well as hindering access for the Council’s refuse collection vehicles. Residents on the estates are also finding it more and more difficult to find a space to park their car. More seriously, unsafe parking can prevent fire engines and ambulances from getting to the estates for emergencies.

How do the new controls work differently to the current ones?

Under the current system, Wing Parking (enforcement agents) are not legally allowed to access DVLA information, meaning they can only ever enforce against estates residents, not those parking there without permission. The new system will make it easier for the Council to enforce against vehicles parked poorly or inconsiderately which cause problems in the estates. These stricter controls have been proven to deter nuisance estate parking when used by other London authorities.

What are the benefits of these changes?

• Residents should find it easier to access a suitable parking space.
• There should be less disruption to emergency service vehicles, allowing them to respond more rapidly to issues on the estates.
• Unauthorised vehicles will be deterred from entering the estates and parking in resident bays, which will increase parking availability for estate residents.
• Unobstructed footways will improve parking accessibility and safety for pedestrians, the mobility impaired and pedestrians with pushchairs.
• There should be an improvement in access for Council services, including a reduction in missed waste collections.

AFTER

Following concerns registered by Wembley Matters and other Brent residents,  the issue of pedestrian safety at the junction of the New North End Road extension and Bridge Road was taken up by local councillor Gaynor Lloyd.

Now bollards have replaced some of the Hostile Vehicle Measures (HMVs) blocks that were on both sides of North End Road.  The remaining blocks on the west side were moved back this weekend giving better access to the tactile dropped kerb to wheelchair users, people with buggies and the sight impaired.

It is a slight improvement but there is an urgent need for pedestrian controlled lights and signal improvement for vehicles and cyclists.

Photo op for Cllr Butt and Cllr Krupa Sheth outside improved public toilet  in Alperton - improvements  that Cllr Georgiou (Lib Dem) instigated

Philip Grant, a regular contributor to Wembley Matters, responded to a comment on the recent article on Council estate parking LINK. The commenter wondered if Brent Labour councillors really wished to lose their seats or were advised by officers who wanted a new administration LINK. 

Philip's reply is his personal view and publication does not indicate endorsement by Wembley Matters or Brent Green Party (of which, incidentally, I am no longer the Coordinator) but merits publication in its own right.

Martin Francis (Editor)

I can understand some (but certainly not agree with all) of what Anonymous (18 October at 20:18) has said, but I don’t think that unpopular policies, such as the one being “consulted” on here, are going to cause Labour councillors to lose their seats in next May’s local elections.

I’ll explain why, and what I think will be needed to change the imbalance of power at the Civic Centre. But I do so as a political independent, and not as a member or direct supporter of any party. 

I’m not in a position to change anything myself, but I can ask you to think about what I’ve written below, please, and to see if it makes any sense to you.

The Labour Party in Brent, and Cllr. Butt because of the strong hold he appears to have over it, have built up a large majority of seats on the Council over the previous two elections (2014 and 2018). They will be difficult to displace, and it will need a big effort from ALL those opposed to them, even to gain enough seats to form a strong opposition, let alone to win a majority.

The idea that Officers may be trying ‘to get a new Administration’ is at best wishful thinking. They are, “of course”, politically neutral, and will not attempt to change the status quo. 

Because Cllr. Butt has been Chair of the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee for most of the past ten years, he has picked the top Officers who suit him. Even if they are not his supporters, they will do nothing to oppose him – especially as they usually get the policies they propose agreed by the Leader and his Cabinet!

As I’ve said in other comments recently, the Council’s own publicity material only puts out positive stories. These often include quotes from, and photos of, the Leader and his closest Cabinet colleagues. This gives the impression that all is well in Brent, and that this is a result of the efforts of Cllrs. Butt, Tatler, Krupa Sheth, Southwood etc. It also gives an unfair advantage to those currently in power, who just happen to be Labour councillors.

It is only the efforts of blog sites such as “Wembley Matters”, “Life in Kilburn” LINK  and others, and some reports in the “Kilburn Times” etc., that give a more realistic view of what is going on in our borough. But what proportion of Brent’s voters are regular readers of these sources?

What can those who feel that change is needed at Brent Council do about it, particularly during the next six months running up to nominations for the May 2022 Council elections?

Labour candidates received more than 50% of the total votes cast at the 2018 local elections, but that was on a turnout of only (if I remember correctly) about 37% of those who could have voted. Some of those who turned out to vote Labour may change their minds in 2022, but any swing back towards a more balanced Council will need a higher turnout of people voting for other candidates.

There are some very good Labour councillors, so residents can cast one of their votes for a serving councillor who has represented them, and their Ward, well. But they could also use one (or two, if it is a Ward with three seats) votes for a candidate from another group, whose policies or personality make them appear a good choice.

As voting is on a “first past the post” system, the best chance of displacing Labour candidates you don’t wish to see elected will be through sensible voting. 

I believe it would make sense for “opposition” parties to work together, if they wish to get councillors who are not “Labour” elected. This could be by openly not standing in particular Wards, and recommending that their supporters use their votes for the potentially strongest “opposition” candidates in that Ward. 

Or it could be through an understanding between them, that they will just put one candidate forward (say, in a 3 seat Ward, one each from Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Green). They would all encourage their supporters to vote for those “opposition” candidates, and promise that ALL of the councillors elected for those parties would work together co-operatively for the next four years. This would either be in government, if enough are elected, or to provide a strong opposition to hold the Labour majority to account.

It need not be just formal political parties involved in such arrangements. If there is a strong residents’ group in a particular area, willing to put forward one or more candidates (such as Keep Willesden Green in 2014), they could also be part of the “opposition”.

If this sort of approach is to have any chance of success, the parties (or groups) need to start working together very soon, and agree their strategy. They also need to publicise what they are doing, and why they are doing it, as widely as possible. Social media will need to be a big part of this, because the word can be spread and spread again, to reach as many potential voters as possible. 

Brent Labour has a big “war chest” of money for leaflets and publicity in the run up to May 2022 (funded mainly, if my information on this is still correct, out of the 10% of the Members Allowances which their councillors are expected to donate to the local Party – so as the allowances come out of out Council Tax, funded by us). No single “opposition” party, or even all of them together, is likely to be able to match their printed efforts.

If I’m an independent, why am I writing all this?

Because I’m a citizen of Brent who believes that the almost “one party state” in our borough, which we’ve seen emerge over the past few years, it is unhealthy for our democracy. Too much power is in the hands of too few people (albeit people elected through our democratic system).

We need more people to vote, and a broader range of representatives, who are able to question and scrutinise those making the decisions which affect our lives far better than seems possible at the moment. That’s my view – please feel free to add your own!

Work will start on Monday on improvements to Wembley High Road and is organised in four phases. The first 3 phases are expected to be completed in April 2022 but depending on delivery of materials:

This is the document sent to local residents and businesses:

In an email update sent yesterday, Brent Council said:

We do understand there is some concern and confusion around these works so hopefully the following information can help clear up any confusion

 

The purpose of these works is to improve the look and feel of the Wembley High Road area to help encourage more shoppers into the locale and thereby help businesses. Please click on the following link to learn more -  Brent Council - Revitalising our high streets

 

As with any town centre improvement works, there will be some disruption however, we can confirm that steps will be taken to ensure any disruption is kept to a minimum and that your business can continue to operate in a ‘Business As Usual’ manner. FM Conway, the contractors conducting these works on our behalf will ensure that:

 

Loading bays

Although some loading bays may need to be suspended during the works in that specific location, the site team will ensure that you will still be able to receive deliveries so your business remains unaffected. Any loading bay closure will be kept to a minimum and be re-opened once the work in that specific location has been completed. FM Conway have a Business/Residents Liaison Officer employed on the scheme. She will keep you updated on the works and work with you regarding any specific delivery requirements. Her contact details are:

Cate Green Catherine.Green@fmconway.co.uk telephone number 07443 077444.

Should you have any further questions relating to this information or the scheme in general please do not hesitate to contact her.

 

Business As Usual

All customers will continue to access your business during the works. The site  teams will NOT block entrances to business premises during opening hours. Direct access into properties might not always be possible, however. This is to enable larger sections of sett laying/paving to be completed, without too much stone cutting, but more importantly, to provide a safe width of footpath for pedestrians. 

 

In addition, where premises have larger entrances, half the access may be worked on during working hours. For those businesses that have more than one entrance it may only be possible to retain one point of access or egress during opening hours.

 

Fencing will be erected to ensure any dust and debris from the works is kept to a minimum. We will attach boards onto the fencing so anyone passing through the area will know your business is still open during the works.

 

 

Businesses With Private Forecourts

We are aware that some businesses have a private forecourt. If you do have a Private Forecourt and you would like your forecourt upgraded in keeping with the wider works this can be done free of charge. There is a twelve month defect period during which time, any issues relating to the surface will be repaired by Brent Council, however after this period, any future maintenance will revert back to the landowner. This is standard practise and is currently the case for Wembley and other town centres across Brent and London. 

 

Will junctions be closed?

All junctions will remain open, however St Johns Road will be closed so materials and equipment needed for the works can be stored, however it will remain open for emergency vehicles to have access and for delivery vehicles that use this location to make deliveries to businesses in this location.

 

 

As mentioned previously, FM Conway have a Business/Residents Liaison Officer employed on this scheme. Please do not hesitate to contact Cate Green via email on Catherine.Green@fmconway.co.uk or by phone on 07443 077444 should you have any further questions relating to this information or the scheme in general.

It certainly seems to be so from this letter circulated to Brent Councillors the Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods:

Dear Councillors,

 

You may be aware of a consultation launch by the Project Centre on behalf of Brent Housing Management to introduce off street controlled parking to all Brent Council Estates. 

 

I firstly want to apologise for the breakdown in communication between yourselves and us. I understand this must make it particularly difficult when residents come to you for information and briefing should have been sent to you ahead of the consultation launching.

 

Additionally, there has been interest from the local press and I am working with the communications team on this. A key concern raised via the local media outlets is whether this is a scheme to make money. Please see the link to the Cabinet report and supporting documents:  LINK which includes the financial information associated with this project.

 

I have attached a briefing outlining the key points on the introduction of off street controlled parking and the motivations for this proposed change.

 

All residents have been posted a hard copy of a leaflet (see appendix 1), have the opportunity to attend a face to face meeting and / or submit their comments online. We will be extending the consultation to the end of November to ensure everyone has the opportunity to express their views. We will also be organising a members specific briefing session with our consultants and details for this will follow shortly.

 It appears that the not univerally respected Serco will be enforcing the new arrangements. The briefing indicates that Wing Parking was contracted to undertake parking enforcement in 2012 but then (highlighted in yellow) says Wing is not taking any enforcement action. I wonder how much that lack of action is costing?

Off street controlled parking on Brent Council Estates – Councillor Briefing

Introduction

Prior to transferring back to the Council, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) contracted Wing Parking to undertake enforcement action on council owned housing estates and this has been in operation since August 2012. In 2012, the government introduced The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which reduced Wing Parking’s ability to take any meaningful and effective enforcement action. The Act stopped Wing Parking from accessing information from the Driving Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and as such, any parking tickets issued cannot be pursued unless driver’s details are already known. This has made it difficult to control parking from non-residents on council owned housing estates. This means that, perversely, Wings can only enforce parking tickets against the residents who have purchased permits. The system is therefore only punishing those it was meant to protect.

Following on-going complaints from residents, Councillors and emergency services regarding obstructive and inconsiderate parking by both residents and non-residents of the estates, BHM set out to review alternative options for parking enforcement on Council housing sites and it was approved in July 2020 for Brent Housing Management to proceed with introducing Traffic Management Orders (TMO) across all Brent Council Estates subject to consultation with residents.

BHM has to date piloted this approach on five Council Estates and implementation on these estate is now underway.

Key points to note

•   Under the existing Wing Parking arrangement, residents pay £10 per year for a parking permit. Under the new proposal, residents will pay £50 per year for a parking permit. Whilst this is a increase compared to £10 per year, Brent Housing Management negotiated a reduced rate for residents living on Brent Council estates.

•   Currently under the existing arrangement with Wing there is no enforcement that takes place, whilst the signage and presences of Wing Parking officers does act as a deterrent, the effectiveness is limited and has resulted in continued complaints from residents affected by unauthorised parking on estate. The new arrangement will be managed by the Councils contractor Serco and deliver effective enforcement on estates and tackle abandoned vehicles and anti-social behaviour linked to non-residents vehicles on estates.

•   An example of the consultation leaflet sent to each of the residents accompanies this briefing (see appendix 1) and the contractors carrying out the consultation are called the Project Centre (link to FAQs is prepared by The Project Centre) https://consultprojectcentre.co.uk/brenthousingestateparking/widgets/18431/faqs).

•   This leaflet outlines the position on visitors, as implementation must firstly prioritise residents living on the estate. This means visitors in the short term will not be able to park on the estate but it will be reviewed once the scheme is live and availability can be reassessed.

•   Through discussions with Wing Parking, it is apparent that the legislation has affected their financial viability for the type of contract with Brent Housing Management. Brent Housing Management currently subsidises that lack of income generated through penalty charges. Wing Parking have also confirmed that due to further upcoming Government changes current schemes would become inoperable. If residents choose not to go ahead with the new parking controls on their estate it is not possible to continue offering Wing Parking as an alternative.

 Through the consultation, residents do have an opportunity to influence whether and how the traffic management order is applied. Statutory stakeholders such as the emergency services also have an opportunity to comment. We encourage ward members to submit their views via the following link Project: Brent Housing Estates (pclengagement-hub.co.uk).

Communications going forward

•   All Councillors will be notified of the outcome of the consultation for each estate within their Ward prior to any communication going out to residents. Should Councillors wish to attend, the dates of face to face meetings with residents are available Project: Brent Housing Estates (pclengagement- hub.co.uk)

•   Questions can be sent directly to Estate.Parking@brent.gov.uk this applies to both residents and Councillors. 

 Guest post by Philip Grant

“Altamira”, through the trees of the Community Garden, December 2020. (Photo by Irina Porter)

It’s a couple of months since I wrote my previous guest blog about “Altamira”, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge which Brent Council wants to demolish. This beautiful heritage asset was restored in 1994, and is home to the Brent Start adult education college.

In August, I asked ‘when (if ever) will Brent’s redevelopment happen?’ This followed a previous guest blog in June, when I revealed how the Council’s failure to take action, over a risk they had been warned about in December 2018, meant that their 1 Morland Gardens project would be delayed.

As mentioned in comments under those blogs, I sent copies of those articles to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, pointing out the knock-on effect the delays were having on another (and better) Brent Council housing project at Twybridge Way, further down Hillside. They forwarded my emails and articles to Council Officers for a response. This was finally received in mid-October, and I would like to thank Councillors Ernest Ezeajughi and Promise Knight for their efforts to get that response.

I believe that, as well as letting councillors and Council Officers know what we think about matters that are important to us, we should also consider their views. Here is the full text of the Council’s response:-

RE: Proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10

Thank you for your email of 30 September 2021 regarding the proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10. I am responding to yourself in the first instance so that you may share this with the resident and I have copied in the other Ward Councillors to this response.

As per the January 2020 Cabinet report, the former Stonebridge School Annexe site (“the Annexe”) was identified as temporary site for Brent Start whilst the development at 1 Morland Gardens proceeds. In order to deliver the full benefits of the 1 Morland Gardens development, the site requires vacant possession and so during the initial tender for the development, the Council needed to start works on the Annexe site so that Brent Start have their temporary location in place prior to any demolition works at Morland Gardens. 

Whilst the delays to the development at 1 Morland Gardens means that the Annexe will be used for longer than first proposed and beyond that of its current planning permission, this will not change the Council’s intentions for the Annexe site. Furthermore, not using the site for Brent Start would mean a significant reduction to the service which provides a vital service to Brent residents. Therefore, once the Morland Gardens moves forward under its current proposed trajectory, the Council will recommence project delivery on the Annexe site to deliver the required homes and NAIL accommodation as soon as it is practical to do so.

The Council continues to deliver its new Council Homes Programme across a number of sites in the borough. The Council shares the frustration that the original tender process did not yield the desired outcome which has caused some of time difference between the programme submitted to Cabinet in January 2020 and the current programme as per the report in August 2021. Nevertheless, officers are working to deliver the scheme and its benefits for the local community, this includes working on the planning strategy.

Kind regards

Operational Director – Property and Assets

The ‘former Stonebridge School Annexe site’ is properly known in Brent Council’s new homes programme as Twybridge Way. It is meant to provide 14 family-sized houses (with gardens), 13 smaller flats for people on the Council's waiting list, and 40 1-bedroom flats for supported living. This is what it would look like:-

Site plan for the Twybridge Way development (This and image below from planning application documents)

Though I am ready to consider the Council’s position, I have to consider it critically (that’s what scrutiny is meant to be about!). Having done so, this is the reply I have sent to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, with copy to the Lead Members and Council Officers involved:-

1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way - my answer to the Council's response

Thank you for your email of 15 October, and for obtaining and forwarding a response from Brent’s Property and Assets section about the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens.

The letter you received on 12 October, in response to the points I raised with you on 14 August, concentrates on the need to use “the Annexe” as a temporary home for Brent Start while the site at 1 Morland Gardens is being redeveloped. It sidesteps the two main issues:

1.    The catalogue of mistakes over the 1 Morland Gardens scheme, which has resulted in ever-increasing delays to that ill-conceived project.

2.   The effect this is having on the Council’s plans for the Twybridge Way site (originally the Stonebridge Health Centre, now known as the former Stonebridge School Annexe, or “the Annexe”).

I will deal with the second point first.

The plans for affordable housing at the Twybridge Way site are Phase 2 of Brent Council’s Stonebridge Redevelopment project. This was meant to be completed by 2021, and if work had got underway promptly after the revised scheme for this site had received full planning permission in May 2020 (three months before the flawed 1 Morland Gardens application), completion would only be a few months later than that.

As it is, the Twybridge Way scheme, including its 40 “NAIL” independent living flats, cannot even begin before the summer of 2024 at the earliest, IF the Annexe has to be tied up for use as a decant site for Brent Start.

The 1 Morland Gardens project got off to a good start, in the summer of 2018, when CLTH architects submitted a winning tender for the design work. Their outline scheme would have retained the locally listed Victorian villa, and provided a new college and some housing on the site, without the need for Brent Start to be decanted.

Things started to go wrong towards the end of 2018, when the architects were pressed to maximise the number of new homes that 1 Morland Gardens (together with the community garden in front of it) could deliver.

 The delays have got worse ever since then.

·      The architect’s January 2019 Stage 1 report said that 89 homes could be delivered, as well as the new adult education college on the ground floor and some affordable workspace. At that stage, construction was anticipated to begin around September 2019, but it would need Brent Start to vacate the site.

·      That was the prospect which was given to a group of Cabinet members (the Leader, Deputy Leader and Lead Members for Housing and Education) in February 2019.

·      However, when the project was put to a full Cabinet meeting in January 2020 for approval, the number of new homes had reduced to 65, and they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and should be completed by July 2022.

·      By August 2021, when proposals to re-tender for the project were approved, even if everything with this process runs smoothly (and that is far from certain), the best that the Council can hope for is that work on site will begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete.

Because the Twybridge Way scheme has been shackled to the 1 Morland Gardens project, its delivery is being delayed by at least 3-4 years. I put it to you, and to Council Officers, that the sooner Twybridge Way is freed from that link, the better for new Council housing delivery in Stonebridge.

Yes, Brent Start does need more modern facilities, and Brent Council has agreed to ring-fence £15.2m of the Strategic CIL funds which it already holds to pay for those. They don’t need to be delivered through the current plans for 1 Morland Gardens. They could be provided at another site locally (such as the Bridge Park / Unisys redevelopment), or as part of a revised scheme for 1 Morland Gardens, which would not require a decant to the Annexe.

 
I believe the reason that the present ridiculous situation is being allowed to continue is that Council Officers are afraid to admit their mistakes over 1 Morland Gardens. The project has become a Juggernaut, which they insist must be driven forward, even though it means sacrificing the timely delivery of the Twybridge Way homes, and the beautiful heritage villa, under its wheels.

I hope you can understand why I feel the need to use such strong language. Please do your best to persuade your fellow councillors, Cabinet members and Council Officers to seek a better way over 1 Morland Gardens. Thank you. Best wishes,

P.S. I will be putting the texts of the Council's response letter (copy attached for ease of reference) and my email above into the public domain. This is too important a matter to be "swept under the carpet". 

If you have any (printable!) thoughts on this situation, or any suggestions on ‘a better way over 1 Morland Gardens’, please add a comment below.

Philip Grant.

Statement from Metropolitan Police

 

The long establised Barn Hill Conservation Group were put out when they saw a tweet from Veolia congratulating themselves and Brent Council for a London in Bloom Gold Winners award to Roe Green Walled Garden in Kingsbury for the best Small Conservation Area.

In fact the Garden is wholly maintained by the volunteers who work there on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturday - Veolia has no involvement.

A volunteer commented that there are two questions: 

 

Why did London in Bloom send the certificate ( on the right  in photograph above) to Veolia rather than to Barn Hill Conservation Group? 

 

Why did Veolia not only accept a certificate for something to which they were not entitled  but then publicise it?

The Conservation Group do an amazing job in the garden, as the photographsbelow shows, and have been doing so for far longer than Veolia has managed the parks contract.

Roe Green Walled Garden

The Conservation Group also does immensely valuable voluntary conservation work in the vast Fryent Country Park every Sunday: 

 

I hope Veolia have the grace to tweet an apology.

Shortly after this story was published Veolia apologised. Thank you.

The bungalows on the former garage and car park site

Dawn Condouriodise,  a long-term resident of the Kings Drive council estate has turned to Brent North MP Barry Gardiner, in a desperate attempt to draw attention to the problems posed, especially for the elderly and lone women, by the removal of parking places on the estate:

 You may remember back in 2017, myself and all the residents here opposing Brent Council’s plan to demolish our garages and car park (Your ref. MB/ZA23665), to replace them with ‘affordable bungalows’, although when my neighbour enquired about putting her name on the list for one at a Brent Housing Partnership meeting, she was told by a representative, that she couldn’t afford one.

Firstly, they sold our Grade II Listed Town Hall to the French school at the bottom of what was our relatively quiet road, and Kings Drive has been lined with parked cars connected to it ever since.  Despite the council’s own parking survey confirming 100% occupancy, and a petition signed by all the residents (council and private), they went ahead and bungalows (with parking and gardens) are now being completed.

I was evicted from my garage of 15 years and 6 weeks later, after parking my car where Brent Council suggested; Greenhill, a quiet turning off Kings Drive, and where a man was previously found shot dead in his car, my car was stolen, and I’m forced to continue parking there every night when I return from visiting my mother in a nursing home, as there is no space closer to home.

All the residents here are resigned to the fact that Brent Council has no concern for residents but what they are planning to inflict on us this time, is the most stress inducing yet.

Kings Drive parking spaces marked in green

All Kings Drive residents have received a letter informing us that, not content with taking away our main car park, Brent Council now intend painting double yellow ‘no waiting at any time’ lines throughout the area, which according to their plan will leave approximately 12-14 parking spaces for 114 flats. Their letter also states that there will be no parking for visitors. Of course, that will include carers, district nurses, deliveries, services. The list goes on, and would halt visits to elderly or disabled who rely on their children to take them out. Those that do drive will be hesitant to venture out because they won’t be able to park when they return, which would force them into isolation. I wouldn’t even be able to stop outside to bring bags of shopping up, before driving back out into the night in search of somewhere to park, so would have to carry it all back, and I don’t know if I could with my painful arthritic hips.

You may remember I previously mentioned that we live at the top of one of the steepest hills in Wembley with our closest public transport a long steep hill down one side to the main road, and a steep walk the other side down to the end of this large cul-de-sac and a quiet bus stop, where residents don’t like to go because of previous muggings there; and at one end of Fryent Country Park, where 2 sisters were found murdered last year.

As you can imagine, everyone here is shocked and worried, because if this plan goes ahead, it will leave all of us (but 12-14) forced out onto the streets beyond to search for somewhere to park (where most streets already have yellow lines).  We have all seen the horror stories on TV News and in the newspapers about women being attacked walking home at night. Being forced to park away from home would put our safety at risk, and mine already is.

Brent Council have brought more traffic here and the residents, some who have lived here for over 50 years like me, are suffering as more and more space is taken away.

Apparently, they are engaging with a parking enforcement agency in order to fine us if we do park on the yellow lines and plan to charge us for parking permits for 12-14 spaces?  If they want to fine people for parking irresponsibly, then so be it, but to even consider forcing residents (many of them elderly) and myself, a lone woman, out into the abyss to search for a place to park without a yellow line is despicable.

We could get another petition opposing this plan signed by everyone here, although we know from past experience that it would be completely ignored by Brent Council. They will go through the motions of surveys and consultations, but residents know that they have no interest in our views, will overrule any opposition, and it seems, will go to any lengths to build and increase the coffers, despite the consequences and safety of the residents they are supposed to be responsible to/for.

Is this what we pay Council tax for? To make our lives as miserable as possible?

 

 Readers will have seen the Kilburn Times report LINK on the case where Brent Council has been ordered to pay £27,000 to a wheelchair user who had to crawl up the stairs in unsuitable temporary accommodation over a period of 8 years. The case was brought by Harrow Law Centre and shows how important such agencies are to achieve social justice for the vulnerable.

I thought it would be useful to publish the full report from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Harrow Law Centre hope the findings will set a precedent for others in similar situations. In particular I draw your attention to Brent Council's initial response to Mr X's Stage One complaint in May 2020 (Para 22).

Yesterday Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, tweeted that his Committee would be examining the findings.

The Ombudsman's final decision: 

Summary: The Council has failed to provide Mr X and his family with suitable temporary accommodation since 2012. This is fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay the family £27,000 for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1.    Mr X complains that he and his family have been in unsuitable temporary accommodation since 2012. He says the Council has failed to move the family to suitable accommodation after a review in October 2019 found the accommodation unsuitable.

2.   This causes particular injustice to Mr X’s son, whom I shall refer to as Mr Y. Mr Y has a disability which affects his mobility and the property does not meet his needs

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3.   We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)

4.   We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

5.    If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

How I considered this complaint

6.   I spoke to Mr X’s representatives about the complaint and considered the information they provided.

7.    I considered the information provided by the Council along with relevant law and guidance.

8.   I referred to the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, a copy of which can be found on our website.

9.   Mr X, via his representatives, and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

What I found

Temporary accommodation

10.                  Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (the Code) set out councils’ powers and duties to people who are homeless or threatened with homelessness.

11.If a council is satisfied an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance, and has a priority need the council has a duty to secure that accommodation is available for their occupation. This is called the main duty. (Housing Act 1996, section 193)

12.The law says councils must ensure all accommodation provided to homeless applicants is suitable for the needs of the applicant and members of his or her household.  This duty applies to interim accommodation and accommodation provided under the main homelessness duty.  (Housing Act 1996, section 206 and Homelessness Code of Guidance 17.2)

Background

13.Mr X and his family are homeless. In 2012, the Council accepted they were not homeless intentionally and had a priority need. This means the Council had a duty to secure accommodation for them.

14.The Council placed Mr X and his family in self-contained temporary accommodation. It is a three-storey house which the Council leases from a private landlord to use as temporary accommodation for homeless families.

15.Mr Y has a disability which affects his mobility. He was a child in 2012 when the family moved into the accommodation. At that time he could not walk.

16.In 2015 and 2016 Mr Y had surgeries to improve his mobility. He can now mobilise with crutches over short distances indoors. He needs a wheelchair outdoors. He is now an adult but continues to need daily care and support, which his parents provide.

What happened

17.In 2010, an Occupational Therapist recommended the family live in a wheelchair accessible premises with level access facilities.

18.                  In 2012, the Council’s District Medical Officer (DMO) recommended “relocation to mobility two accommodation and ground floor or lifted accommodation”. ‘Mobility two’ refers to how the Council classifies the different levels of adaptation to properties. Mobility two is the description for properties with adaptations for people who cannot manage steps or stairs and may use a wheelchair for all or part of the day.

19.In October 2019, the Council reviewed the suitability of the accommodation. It found that the accommodation was not suitable for the family. In response to Mr X’s complaint, the Council apologised for the delay completing the review and offered a payment of £2000 as a remedy.

20.                 To date, the family remain in this accommodation. In December 2020, the Council’s Allocations Panel put Mr X’s application to the housing register in Band A. This is the highest priority band. Before this, the application was in Band C until September 2020, when the Allocations Panel increased it to Band B.

21.In its referral to the Allocations Panel, the Council said: 

“A review has found that the current property is not suitable and does not meet the applicant’s son’s needs. The review was completed in October 2019. However prior to this, the DMO and the OT made recommendations in 2012 that show the accommodation as being unsuitable.”

And then goes on to say:

“The property is not suitable for the needs of the household; they have been residing in unsuitable accommodation since 2012.”

22.                  This internal document contradicts what the Council said in its response to Mr X’s complaint. In its stage one response in May 2020, the Council said:

“Despite the DMOs initial recommendation in November 2012, I am not satisfied that Mr [X’s] accommodation was unsuitable from 2012.”

Findings

23.                  The law says temporary accommodation must be suitable. The Council’s review found that it is not. The Council therefore has a legal duty to secure alternative accommodation for the family. It has not done so. This is fault.

24.                 The Council’s referral to the allocations panel in September 2020 shows it considers the accommodation never to have been suitable. Although this contradicts its complaint response to Mr X, I find it more likely this internal document records the Council’s current position. It was written more recently and so I take it to supersede the previous statement.

25.                  Therefore, the Council’s records show it accepts the property was never suitable for the family. This means Mr X and his family have lived in unsuitable temporary accommodation for over 8 years.

Injustice

26.                 Mr Y says the lack of independence in his daily living is humiliating and frustrating. He finds climbing or crawling up the stairs painful. He does not have the space needed to do the exercises recommended by his physiotherapist.

27.                  Mr X and the rest of family find living in the accommodation distressing because they are worried about Mr Y. Mr X is also suffering from back pain because he often has to carry Mr Y up the stairs to access a bathroom and toilet.

28.                 Our Guidance on Remedies says we should consider the complainants own actions when assessing injustice. Therefore, I have considered whether Mr X could or should have complained sooner. However, the Council did not tell Mr X he could review the suitability of the property. Given this and his family circumstances, it was only when he got a representative that he was able to escalate his complaint.

29.                 Prior to his surgeries, Mr Y was entirely unable to walk. The downstairs toilet is not wide enough to accommodate his wheelchair. If his father was not at home to carry him, Mr Y says he had to drag himself upstairs to the bathroom. He describes how humiliating this was, and that he did not always make it in time. This is a significant injustice to Mr Y.

30.                 In 2016, Mr Y had surgery to improve his ability to mobilise. This should have been the point at which his independence increased. Instead, it continued to be impeded by his accommodation. The OT report shows he cannot safely access the downstairs toilet in the property. Climbing the stairs is a slow and painful process. Mr Y says he has fallen on the stairs several times. This is also an injustice to Mr Y.

31.Since October 2019, the Council has tried to find alternative accommodation that will meet Mr Y’s needs. The family need a four-bedroom property that is, or can be, adapted to be wheelchair accessible or provide step-free access. These properties are scarce. Nevertheless, the family remains in unsuitable accommodation. This is an injustice to Mr X, Mr Y, and the rest of the family.

Agreed action

32.                  The Council has agreed to apologise in writing to Mr X and to Mr Y.

33.                  The Council offered Mr X £2000 as a remedy for its delay completing the suitability review. I do not consider £2000 to be an adequate remedy for the injustice to Mr X, his family, and in particular Mr Y, of spending over 8 years in unsuitable accommodation.

34.                  The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends a payment of £150 to £350 per month spent in unsuitable accommodation.

35.                  I have calculated a recommended financial remedy in the following way to reflect the level of injustice:

o   £300 a month from November 2012 to June 2016 for a total of £13,200

o   £250 a month from July 2016 to October 2019 for a total of £10,000

o   £200 a month from November 2019 to the present for a total of £3,800

36.                  This should be paid to Mr Y, as he has suffered the most injustice as a result of the Council’s fault.

37.                  In addition to the £27,000 for the injustice to date, the Council should continue to pay Mr Y £200 a month until it secures suitable temporary accommodation or ends its s193 duty.

38.                 The Council should liaise with Mr X, Mr Y, and their representatives to agree a method of payment which does not impact on entitlement to any welfare benefits or otherwise disadvantage them.

39.                  The Council should take this action within six weeks of my final decision.

Final decision

40.                 I have completed my investigation. The Council is at fault. The action I have recommended is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

 Brent Council Press Release

Statement from Cllr Promise Knight, Lead Member for Community Safety & Engagement at Brent Council

We offer our condolences to Mina Smallman and her family following the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s report. An apology from the Police is due, but it is no substitute for action.

As a Council, we are committed to highlighting the experience of women and girls in conversations with partners, and to do our part to make addressing the underlying problems in the system a priority.

One issue we want to highlight, in the wake of this news, is reporting. Clearly, recent events are unlikely to inspire confidence in the women and girls of this borough who may be considering coming forward, and especially Black and Asian women. But I urge you not to be discouraged.

We know that sexual crimes, from cat-calling and unwanted touching, to rape, are vastly under-reported. And yet it is so important if we are to build a clearer picture of perpetrators. Those reports also help us make the argument for investing in the public services needed to address these issues in a meaningful way. In an emergency, always dial 999, or you can get in touch with the Police’s non-emergency service by calling 101 or reporting online.

For our part, we would like to develop better ways for the community to anonymously report places where they feel unsafe in the borough to the council. We are currently consulting with partners about the best way of doing this, so that we can understand and address high risk areas.   

We are also planning a community forum to coincide with the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence in November, giving local women and girls a chance to share their views and experiences. There will be other activities during the 16 Days and more information will be published on our website shortly.

You can view our latest Community Safety Strategy, which has more detail on how we are working to address Violence Against Women and Girls in Brent, here: www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/about-brent-council/council-structure-and-how-we-work/strategies-and-plans/community-safety-strategy

 
To attend register HERE

This online event will follow the BBC Question Time format, but all questions will be about the climate and the environment. Ollie More from Sustrans and Ian Saville from Brent Friends of the Earth will join Cllr Krupa Sheth (Leadmember for the Environment, Labour Party), Cllr Kansagra (Conservative Party), and Cllr Georgiou (Liberal Democrats) to form a panel to discuss environmental issues raised by you. Register via Eventbrite (linked
provided above) and submit a question by emailing localdemocracyweek@brent.gov.uk

 The session will be split into 4 key themes:

• Consumptions and waste
• Transport
• Homes and buildings
• How you can get involved
  

This is the first production at Preston Community Library since its temporary move to Ashley Gardens while its orginal building is being redeveloped.

BOOKING
 

Parking on Saltcroft Close, Wembley

Paul Lorber, of Brent Liberal Democrats, has written to Brent Council calling for the current consultation on council estate parking to be withdrawn. Wembley Matters is aware of discontent at various estates across the borough which often centre on out of date information contained in the consultation, inaccurate maps, and as Lorber says an apparent threat that if residents do not agree with the proposal no alternative arrangements will be considered. This is compounded by the fact that some residents who have attempted to respond on-line find that their area, such as Saltcroft Close (above), is not listed on the consultation website.

Once again a ham-fisted approach undermines finding a solution to what is for some a very real problem.

Paul Lorber’s letter to Brent Council.

 I have been contacted by residents from Gauntlett Court, Barham Court and Elms Gardens and have seen the consultation document sent to Gauntlett Court.

You will be aware that the Council proposal have not been well received. 

Residents of Gauntlett Court agreed to the Wing service some years ago with a permit charge of £10 per car. They were also entitled to a visitor permit.

The inclusion of the sentence “Please note that should residents not support the proposal to introduce a TMO an alternative service will not be available on the estate” was a mistake by the Council. To make this statement or even to take this position makes it look as if the residents views do not count and the so called consultation is not sincere and therefore pointless.

I think, that in view of the above, the current consultation should be withdrawn and a new consultation letter sent out making it clear that local residents views do matter and that any parking scheme is intended to provide a better parking scheme for residents and not simply make money for the Council.

The following specific points apply to all 3 Estates:

1. The residents find the £50 charge excessive compared to the £10 before. They also do not trust the present Council about future rises as they are aware that CPZ charges have been raised astronomically since those schemes were introduced.

2. All the estates contain elderly residents many of whom need care and therefor visitors (either family members or agency carers). Without visitor permits those visits will be difficult as nearby parking outside the Estates is limited or covered by other CPZs.

3. Visitor Permits are also needed for trades people - plumbers, electricians etc - who also need to bring their tools and materials and need visitor permits. If visitor permits are not available - or arrangements not possible for pre registered number plates - the repair people will avoid the Estates.

4. Spaces (despite what is said about double yellow lines) need also to be highlighted for delivery vehicles (of which there are many more since the start of the pandemic).

5. There is concern about loss of parking spaces - as none of the 3 Estates suffer from pavement parking or major obstruction.

6. There is no information at all about the expected number of enforcement visits in a typical day or if special visits can be arrangements when parking from outsiders is anticipated.

7. There is also no information about exceptional arrangements for parking during funerals, weddings etc

Without concessions in all these areas I expect the Council proposals to be overwhelmingly rejected at the statutory consultation stage.

I also make the following general points:

1. The Elms Gardens block of 16 flats is exclusively for elderly or disabled residents. Many need visitors and therefore visitor permits are essential. 

2. Gauntlett Court has currently around 65 parking spaces for the 100 flats which seems sufficient for the Estate even with visitor permits. The Estate road is wide enough. There does not seem a need for extending existing double yellow lines in a way that would take away any parking.

3. Barham Court seems to get some commercial vehicle parking but otherwise there seem to be sufficient number of spaces.

Conclusion:

1. The proposed £50 permit charge needs to be substantially reduced.
2. Visitor permits must be offered - or an affordable system to order (similar to the Ringo system) made available for family, carers or trade visitors.
3. Loss of parking spaces needs to be avoided.
4. There has to be flexibility and circumstances of each estate and nature of residents considered.
5. Likely frequency of Enforcement visits needs to be confirmed or whether Camera type control systems may be introduced explained. (If people become aware that no visits take place after 6pm the reference to 24hour controls will be fairly pointless).

I trust that my comments will be considered seriously and hopefully acted upon.

From Brent Council (The curtain raiser event, Brent Climate Question Time, attracted around 50 people but unfortunately was not  recorded). 

Brent’s Climate Festival (1-12 November) is an exciting two-week long programme of activities and events which aims to raise awareness and inspire action on climate change.

The festival is a local reflection of the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, which is taking place over the same time period.

Brent Council is committed to tackling the climate emergency, and we are working together with residents to make Brent a carbon neutral borough by 2030.

Climate change affects every single one of us, and we need to take action as a community. Many of the changes we must make will not only protect our planet, they can also save you money, improve air quality and help you feel healthier.

We are bringing communities together to learn about climate change, provide helpful tips on reducing our carbon emissions and showcase the good work already happening.

We can all start making a difference by taking a pledge for climate change. Make your voice heard via the ‘Count us in’ pledge pages. LINK

Programme of events

We have a variety of in-person and online activities which everyone can take part in.

As well as council-led events, we are working alongside local groups, businesses, libraries and other partners.

Get involved

If you have any questions about the Brent Climate Festival or the Climate Emergency in Brent, you can contact us:

Email: climateemergency@brent.gov.uk

The HS2 project and its impact on South Kilburn residents is a sensitive issue to say the least and good communication from the project essential.

However, residents were perplexted to received the communication below.  It refers residents to the HS2  Ealing  page rather than Brent but the link actuall leads to the Camden page.

Dear Residents

HS2 Works: Utility drainage surveys on Rupert Road, Denmark Road and residential compounds 

We recently wrote to you regarding drainage surveys in your local area. We would like to inform you that we will be carrying out further surveys on Rupert Road, Denmark Road and in the grounds of Walbrook Court and Winterleys residential properties. These surveys will help us to understand the condition of the drainage system in the area and how best to protect it during construction of the railway. We will investigate the condition of the sewer system using a camera and may need to flush the system if any blockages are found. Your utility services will not be affected during these works.

You can find out more about the works from our recent notification. 

For more information about HS2 in Ealing, please see the Ealing page of our website.

If you have a question about HS2 or our works, please contact our HS2 Helpdesk team on 08081 434 434 or email hs2enquiries@hs2.org.uk.  

Brent Friends of the Earth will be demonstrating alongside other activists outside Barclays Bank, Cricklewood tomorrow in opposition to the bank's investments in fossil fuels.

On its Facebook page Brent FoE say: