South Kilburn residents were somewhat perpexed by the circular below inviting them to take a quick local walk and then go on to Central London as part of the Calton Vale Boulevard project.

 I assume that the central London section of the walk will be looking at existing design features that will be incorporated into the Boulevard. Holding it on a weekday will mean that although children under 18 will be welcome it would involved them truanting from school!  Other residents will be working.

It is worth looking at the website LINK by the Northern Ireland based designers GMDA but  I have reproduced some of the information below. The RIBA Stage 2 Cost Plan has priced the scheme at £6,960,000.

The Regeneration of South Kilburn is a fifteen year programme that is approximately half way through delivering over 2,400 new high quality homes, new and improved open spaces and public realm, retail, education and health facilities. 

The proposals for this project are for the revitalisation of Carlton Vale to create a vibrant Boulevard with improved transport links, lighting, street furniture and artwork. This green spine will focus on improving the health and well-being of residents and will also deliver improvements to air quality, sustainable drainage solutions and increased biodiversity.  Carlton Vale Boulevard will be bound by Queens Park station in the west and the junction of Kilburn Park Road on Carlton Vale in the east.

The outline timescales for the Carlton Vale Boulevard Project are as follows:

● Design Period: November 2020 - Spring 2021

  ● Consultation Events & Workshops: December 2020 - Early Summer 2021 

  ● Start on Site: Early 2022 

  ● Completion on Site: Early 2023

 Please note that these dates are indicative and subject to change

 Book the walk here: cvb@g-m-design.co.uk

  Recording of November 10th Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Commitee

The recent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee heard a heart-rending story from a local resident about her experience in the recent Kilburn floods and from Brent Council officers about the authority's responsibilities regarding flooding and fluvial and surface water occurrences. 

Unfortunately the Council's main partners, the Environment Agency and Thames Water did not attend but will do so in January 2022. The officers' Report can be found HERE.

Ruined household items after the July floods on Westminster side of Kilburn Park Road (My London News)

The importance of hearing directly from Thames Water is highlighted by this extract from the My London News coverage of the July floods LINK:

Speaking to the subcontractors working for Thames Water attempting to lower water levels in the drains next to her property, [Aimee] asked about the chances of it happening again, to which one engineer reportedly told her: “The whole system has been compromised. Of course it will happen again.”

Aimee, who is eight months pregnant, claims an engineer employed directly by Thames Water then took the subcontractors to one side in order to speak with them alone.

The following day, she says she was visited by a Thames Water employee who 'looked more senior' and told her the subcontractors 'should not have said that'.

But, when pushed, Aimee claims the engineer couldn't say the flooding would not happen again.

Post flood 'repair' photographed recently on my visit to South Kilburn Estate

As readers will know Wembley Matters has published a number of articles recently on flooding in the area in the light of the number of increased extreme weather events as a result of climate change. I posed a question to the November 22nd Full Council on this and the question and response are below:

1. Question from Martin Francis to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment

In the light of the increased prevalence of extreme weather events as a result of climate change and recent flooding in the borough, as well as a large number of new developments and increasing numbers of paved over gardens, does Brent Council:

(1) Intend to work with partners including the Environment Agency and Thames Water to review and revise Brent Council’s

(a) Flood Risk Management Strategy
(https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16406897/flood-risk-strategy-sept-2015.pdf)

(b) Surface Water Management Plan
(https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/3501160/W8.3%20Brent%20Surface%20Wate
r%20Management%20Plan.pdf)

(2) Advise property owners and developers on mitigation measures?

Response:

Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Brent Council is responsible for reducing the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses as a Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA). To continue to meet our responsibilities we:

· Develop, maintain, regularly update and apply a local Flood Risk
Management Strategy. The overarching aim of the strategy is to enable the long-term management of flooding arising from rivers, surface water and groundwater in the borough and to communicate the risks and consequences of flooding to our residents and businesses.

· Maintain a register of flood risk management assets (structures that have an effect on flood risk management). This includes all flood risk management assets such as culverts, watercourses and holding tanks. All drainage assets, including the Council maintained and maintained by Thames Water and Environment Agency are logged on Flood Station.

· Provide overall management for highway drainage (road gullies) on designated public highway. As Highway Authority, we manage the 20,700 road gullies within the borough via a cyclical cleansing regime, and also respond reactively to any defect or blockages on the network.

· Implement small scale schemes to address localised flooding problems such as broken gullies or gully pipes, or localised gully capacity problems. Larger scale capacity problems are within the remit of Thames Water who are responsible for the main drainage system.

· Respond to planning applications - As lead local flood authority, we are a statutory consultee for major developments and in accordance with the GLA plan for Sustainable drainage we ensure that a significant betterment (i.e. improved drainage arrangements) is incorporated into new developments.

This in turn reduces the risk of surface water flooding on our public highways.

· Produce and maintaining a flood risk asset register - All of our drainage assets are located on an asset register, which includes all non-tributary watercourses, culverts and attenuation tanks.

· Issue land drainage consents on ordinary watercourses and carry out enforcement - All works undertaken non-statutory main rivers must obtain consent form the council so we are able to oversee and audit all processes to ensure sustainable measure are undertaken.

· Investigate significant local flooding events - As a lead local flood authority, we investigate all major flooding incidences and record the data.

As LLFA the council works in partnership with utility companies, Environment Agency and others in order to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to mitigate flood risk. Plans are regularly reviewed and updated as risks and other factors change.

As a Category One Responder under the Civil Contingencies Act, the council has a responsibility to warn, inform and advise the public before during and after emergencies have occurred. We publicise warnings of severe weather and provide advice and information for residents on the council website to assist them prepare for potential severe weather events such as those that may cause flooding. The information provided also outlines what assistance the council is able to offer as well as measures that people can take to protect their own homes.

Brent campaigners for the NHS are being urged to support the above events by Brent Keep Our NHS Public
 

 The main modifications to the Draft Brent Local Plan have attracted little or no publicity or comment but they are of interested and can be found HERE.

Of particularly interest to me are the impact of some of the development plans for Wembley (including KwikFit/Asda,Torch; Stadium Retail Park, McDonalds,Fountain Studios;  Premier Inn, Brook Avenue) in terms of infrastucture improvments needed for waste water and flood mitigation. The Wealdstone Brook flows through this area so some of it is susceptible to fluvial (river) flooding as well as surface water flooding.

These are some of the modifications that have been made (March 2020) regarding infrastructure and indicate a substantial amount of work to de done with Thames Water and developers, as well as the Environment Agency.

Thames Water has indicated the local water network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Upgrades to the wastewater network are likely to be required. Thames Water will need to be engaged at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan to ensure essential infrastructure is delivered prior to the development creating identified additional capacity requirements.

 

Waste water facilities enhancement Thames Water has indicated the scale of development is likely to require upgrades to the wastewater network. Thames Water will need to be engaged at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan to ensure essential infrastructure is delivered prior to the development creating identified additional capacity requirements.

 

Thames Water has indicated the local water network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Upgrades to the wastewater network are likely to be required. Thames Water will need to be engaged at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan to ensure essentialinfrastructure is delivered prior to the development creating identified additional capacity requirements. Public sewers cross or are close to the site. The risk of damage during construction must be minimised. It must be ensured that development doesn't inhibit access for maintenance or the services in any other way

 

A critical trunk sewer runs through this site which would need to be considered.

Thames Water has indicated the local water network capacity in this area may be unable to support the demand anticipated from this development. Upgrades to the wastewater network are likely to be required. Thames Water will need to be engaged at the earliest opportunity to agree a housing and infrastructure phasing plan to ensure essential infrastructure is delivered prior to the development creating identified additional capacity requirements. Risk of damage to the trunk sewer during construction must be minimised. It must be ensured that development doesn't inhibit access for maintenance or the services in any other way. 

 

The site is located within an area which is susceptible to groundwater flooding. There are also small areas within the site which are susceptible to surface water flooding. The majority of the site is located within an area which is susceptible to sewer flooding. A flood risk assessment will need to address how development satisfactorily addresses these matters.

  

Wembley Brook and River Brent are potential sources of flooding and the majority of the site is within Flood Zone 3. Part of the site is within including extensive flood zone 3b (functional floodplain). Development, other than water compatible uses, will not be acceptable within functional floodplain. Any flood modelling from applicants which seeks to justify a revision to the functional floodplain boundary will need to be agreed by the Environment Agency.

More vulnerable uses should be restricted to areas of lowest flood risk and on upper floors. Ground floors should be designed to be resistant and resilient to flood risk. Basement dwellings will not be acceptable on the site. Development must be informed by a detail Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, reduce flood risk overall and not increase the risk of flooding on adjoining sites. Development must be consistent with the recommendations of the Brent Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2.

 

 Of course there are also issues in other parts of Brent such as Stonebridge (Argenta House, Wembley Point), Neasden Stations, Growth Area, South Kilburn & Alperton).

The document below (March 2020) provides detailed assessments for Stonebridge Park/Unisys (p17) Coombe Road (p23), Watkin Road (p30), Argenta House/Wembley Point (p37), Brooke Avenue (p44), College of NW London - Wembley Campus (p51), Turpins Yard (p58), Park Avenue Garage (p64) Hereford & Exeter House (p70), Neasden Station Growth Area 1(p76), 2 (p82), 3 (p88), Neasden Lane (Press Rd) p94, Stadium Retails Park/Fountain Studios (p100) and Queensbury LSIS/Morrisons (p108)

A summary of all schemes is provided at the end of the report.

Click bottom right corner to enlarge:

Locals and football fans will be disappointed to hear that the owners of the 'Wok 'n' Roe' in Bridge Road  have sold up and will be vacating the popular Chinese, fish and chicken takeway after more than 30 years, in three week's time.

They certainly deserve a break and I understand that the sale has nothing to do with  competition from the plethora of takeways that have opened in the area.

They will be sadly missed - I wonder if the name will survive?

Meanwhile members of the Facebook 'You know you come from Wembley if...' have been  reminiscing about their youth in the Wembley Park Wimpy Bar.  Some were amazed that it was still open and even more  so that you could still get a glass of wine with your wimpy! It has kept up with the times by servving a vegan burger.

Wine on the top shelf

If anyone knows when the two establishments first opened please comment below.

 Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has announced on Twitter that he will miss tonight's Full Council meeting after testing positive on an LFT Covid test.

He must self isolate pending the result of a PCR test.

 Good idea under threat

Cycling instructors in Brent are without a job, and children wanting to learn to ride a bike safely are without instruction, following reduced and intermittent funding from Transport for London for the Bikeability scheme.

Brent Council has asked the administrators to postpone the bulk of the training that was to take place in November and December until the New Year when the sums available will become clearer.

One of the Brent instructors has writtent to Brent councillors to ask them to consider topping up the cycling funding to allow the scheme to continue:

Dear Councillors,

I’m writing as a Brent cycling instructor to ask for your support in addressing the fact that funding for cycle training in Brent has been drastically slashed.

Bikeability funding has been put on hold beyond November 2021. The last payment to boroughs was half the planned amount. This means that schools will not be able to plan or book courses for the Spring term. The consequence of this is that no courses can be booked for 2022.

The extent of the cut means that courses that had already been booked with school children and adults have subsequently been cancelled with no prospect of rescheduling. This affects school courses, adult group courses and one-to-one sessions. Also, the instructors are out of work with zero compensation.

Considering there are approximately 100 schools in Brent, plus many more adults are now wanting training post pandemic, the financial figures allocated have effectively killed cycle training in Brent.

According to the National Child Measurement Programme, Brent has among the worst childhood obesity rates in England.

Brent has some of the worst pollution levels in the country. (Link to news report)

Brent Council has declared a climate emergency, with added attention through the COP26 conference. Cycling is recognised for helping with overcoming depression, anxiety, obesity levels and enhancing general wellbeing, independence and empowerment.

Having lived and worked in Brent all my life, I personally have seen firsthand what cycling can achieve. Through my instructing work, I’ve seen the delight on a child’s face in that first moment they learn to ride a bike. An adult empowered to cycle on the road and be less dependent on driving.

Brent Council have done very well to train many people in Brent in recent years. Last year alone 2,942 children and 553 adults received free cycle training in Brent. All this will be sadly lost if this funding situation is not addressed.

Other boroughs including Haringey when hearing funding had been cut added money to the cycling fund I’m hoping Brent might consider this.

Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Regeneration, Property and Planning was unable to attend last night's Council Meeting as she had been close to Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt, who had to self-isolate after a positive LFT Covid test.

This meant that she was unable to answer Philip Grant's Supplementary Question on the planned hosuing on the former Copland Hugh School site LINK.

For the record this is the question that should now be answered in written form:

Brent urgently needs more affordable Council homes, and it could be building 250 of these at Cecil Avenue now.

But only 37 of the 250 in your plans will be for affordable rent, while 152 will be for private sale by a developer.

Some of the £111million GLA grant could be used to provide social rent housing there. 

Instead, you plan to use it for infill schemes on existing Council estates, which may be years away.

What justification will you give for these plans, when asked by families who’ll have to wait much longer for a decent home, and existing residents who’ll lose the green spaces on their estates?

Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for Environment, was present but was unable to answer my supplementary question on the spot and will supply a written answer in due course:

My question on a review has not been directly answered, fortunately a council officer told Scrutiny on November 10^th said that a review of the 2015 Flood Risk Management Strategy is required and context should include real focus around climate change (for example the forecast 59% increase in winter rainfall) as well as the necessary local mitigation.

 

1.    Can you give us the timetable for the review and the partnership members who will be involved?

 

 

2.   Will, as the West London Flood Risk Management Strategic Partnership has recommended, the accumulativeimpact of developments on flooding and drainage infrastructure systems, be assessed?

 An update post by David Walton of FLASK

Brent used to have more River Westbourne flood defences but still has some, publicly owned natural parkland flood defences throughout South Kilburn Vale, that were built in the 1950's and 1960's. These flood defences have been incrementally built on since 2000 and the impacts are already being felt.  The new intention is to establish this as a tall building zone as set out in the Brent Local Plan to 2041 which awaits final approval.  Population growth is planned to rise from 6,000 in 2000 to 36,000 by 2041. Brent has no plan to mitigate growing flood risk which is exacerbated yet further by excavating giant underground car parks. A mainline electrified railway luckily severs South Kilburn Vale from the rest of Brent.

For its River Westbourne flood defences, the City of Westminster uses complex and expensively engineered solutions built inside its borough boundary, but it also ( cf July 2021 major Incident) clearly relies on Brent playing its full part in the  flood defence of the City of Westminster upstream of the River Westbourne.

Westminster has the Carlton Hill natural hill (pending new developments area) which drains down onto the Brent floodplain vale, with Kilburn Park Road on the east bank of the River Westbourne (Westminster) relying on Brent's depleting natural parkland flood defences for safety. Then at the main borough boundary at Shirland Road, Westminster engineered flood defences start and which though of considerable scale failed in July 2021 and will with certainty fail again unless Westminster and agencies look at the bigger River Westbourne flood attenuation cross borough boundary picture. (See key Kilburn Park Road flood defences already removed like the 40 veteran trees roundabout flood defence or the Granville Road park flood defence three-quarters removed).

New map fragments recently obtained from Thames Water show how the culvert straightened high speed River Westbourne takes a dramatic giant sweeping curve from Kilburn Park Road into Shirland Road, and at this point (underneath the zebra crossing) also connects to the North West Storm Relief Sewer which heads west down to the River Thames at Hammersmith, while the Mid Level 2 Interceptor Sewer which heads east to Beckon Sewage Works connects to the River Westbourne nearby at the south east end of Shirland Road. Flood protection support is also supplied by two new large flood storage reservoirs underneath Tiverton Gardens and Westbourne Green. Both are rivers connected and were built in 2016 at a cost of £22 million. To quote from this new project’s 2012 description:

"The Sewer Flooding History Database (SFHD) lists 105 properties that have a flooding category of either AI or BI; however, it is knownthat the flooding issues affect many more properties in the area. Optimise (the contractor) are targeted with removing 177 properties from the SFHD flooding registerand contracted to remove a minimum of 147 properties.

 

Primarily, the identified flooding areas are located around Formosa Streetand Shirland Road. Prior to 2005 the problem was much smaller with farfewer properties affected; however there have been severe flooding eventsin 2005, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In both areas the flooding occurs incommercial and residential property basements.

 

Having considered a number of options, the preferred option proposed by Optimise is to construct a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in WestbourneGreen. From this a 3m dia tunnel will be driven to a 7.5m dia receptionshaft in Formosa Street. In conjunction with managing flows at the Kings Scholar’s Pond and at a number of bifurcations in the Formosa Street areathis will effectively resolve the flooding issues at Formosa Street. Flows from the shaft in Westbourne Green will be returned to the Ranelagh sewer (River Westbourne) by means of a pumping station with a return pump rate of 400 l/s. TheShirland Road flooding will be resolved by diverting more flow to theMid-Level 2 sewer and constructing a 20m dia, 20m deep storage shaft in Chippenham Gardens.

 

In order to remove properties from the SFHD it has also to be proven thatthe properties flood due sewer surcharge / local incapacity. Thisinformation was collated through existing databases already connected tothe properties, and via interviews with current residents in the area. There wasan initial reluctance to complete the survey by residents and this was fora number of reasons, including many residents were not living at the properties at the time of the flooding events and property owners do notwant their property on a flooding register.  As such, the verified modelhas and will continue to be used to validate the number of properties thatsuffer from flooding".

 

The sheer scale of the City of Westminster's engineered flood defences that are place and   being rapidly extended  indicate that the wild River Westbourne is a major environmental risk to lives and property for this entire area of London. Yet this river is deregulated from Environment Agency responsibility and often commercially driven boroughs so Thames Water must work out what to do in an ad hoc and uncoordinated way instead. 

The City of Westminster does seem at least to be trying seriously to take mitigating actions to protect its own residents and businesses on a borough boundary frontline siege basis, but these actions have clearly failed to accept this area’s wider geography and factor in the housing infrastructure in Brent’s urban growth zone.  Brent seems to think that leaseholders and tenants in Brent and City of Westminster should 'learn to live with' traumatic flood risk escalation  and then pay the costs created by its tall buildings growth area, built on a flood plain.

Liability is being cleverly being passed entirely to leaseholders and tenants for the moment, as this area’s big freeholder housing block owners will just make sure that flood repairs are actioned in a timely manner and that costs are then fully recovered from block leaseholders and tenants. They will be  paying literally forever for the extreme over development of this floodplain. This, when natural parkland flood defences (that Brent is destroying) had proved excellent in protecting South Kilburn and North Westminster for decades.

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

The Euro House site (before development)

 Tomorrow's Planning Committee will consider a huge development on the site of Euro House Car Parts  in Fulton Road, Wembley Park. A former 2 storey building will be replaced by five tower blocks of up to 23 storeys. The site if of particular interest due to its proximity to the Wealdstone Brook and as usual issues around the amount of truly affordable housing. It has beenre-named 'Waterside'.

Development summary:

Demolition and redevelopment of the site to provide erection of five buildings ranging from ground plus 14 to 23 storeys; comprising up to 759 residential units, retail floorspace and workspace / storage floorspace, private and communal amenity space, car parking, cycle parking, ancillary space, mechanical plant, landscaping and other associated works.

The image below puts the site (outlined in red) in the context of the high rise developments in the area - built, near completion and planned. The proposal marks a further extension of the replacement of light industrial buildings by high rise residential.

The proportion of proposed housing that is truly affordable remains an issue for many memberts of the Planning Committee. Officers continue to include Shared Ownership under affordable although this is disputed by many regarding its affordability for the average Brent resident looking for housing. Removing Shared Ownership would make only 142 of the 759 units affordable.

*Affordable rents secured with a cap at the lower of (a) 65% of the open market rent and (b) the LocalHousing Allowance. This is significantly more affordable than the base definition of the product, which caps rents at up to 80% of the open market rent.

 

80 units for affordable rent (at London Affordable Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rightson first lets and 75% nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council)

62 units for affordable rent (at no more than 65% of open market rents, inclusive of service charges, and capped at Local Housing Allowance rates), disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with theCouncil, securing 100% nomination rights for the Council on initial lets and 75% nomination rights for the Council on subsequent lets)

76 units for Shared Ownership (as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008,subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that target a gross household income of up to £90,000 per annum, where net annual household income should not exceed 70% of gross income, andwhere total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider

We should add for comparison:

 541 units at market rates.

 Officers note:

The scheme would provide a total of 218 affordable units (29 % by units and 35% by Habitable room), of which 80 would be low-cost homes provided at a London Affordable Rent. Although this is below both Brent and London Plan threshold targets, it has been demonstrated by a financial viability appraisal to exceed the maximum amount of affordable housing which can viably be provided on site, and therefore is policy compliant.

 Officers support the number of units proposed despite it being  higher than that recommended for the site:

However, it should be noted that the site capacities within policies are only indicative and the scheme would deliver a significant number of homes which would make a significant contribution towards identified housing needfor both private and affordable homes. The increase in the number of new homes, above the indicative capacity within the allocation is therefore considered to be a benefit of the scheme and supported in principle subject to the consideration of the remainder of the material planning considerations.

Officers also support replacement of employment space (research & development, light industrial) on the site at only 50% of that which  it displaces.

The site is next to a bend in the Wealdstone Brook and so both fluvial (river based) and surface water flooding are relant. The proposed development is kept 10 metres from the brook. The officers' report outlines the SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Strategy for the site):

At present the site discharges unrestricted into Wealdstone Brook. The proposed development will also discharge to this same location via the existing outlet. The proposal is to provide attenuation totalling 1000m3, designed to a 1:100-year storm event + 40% for climate change, and the discharge into Wealdstone Brook would be restricted to 6 litres per second, similar to greenfield runoff rates. The site has been assessed for sustainability based on the Drainage Hierarchy.

The SuDS strategy is as follows:

 All of the buildings to discharge to a single below ground attenuation crate tank system located to the east of Block E.
·The podium decking above the parking will be planted out with a dense green/blue roof providing further attenuation storage in these zones.
·All buildings will incorporate rainwater harvesting as much as possible.
·Wherever possible hard surface areas will be formed using permeable paving and voided aggregate subbase.
·All tree pits and planting will be directly linked to the voided aggregate subbase to provide irrigation forthe planting.
·The landscaping scheme includes rain gardens/swales along the northern boundary adjacent to the watercourse.

The planning application contains pretty illustrations of how the brook and a footpath alongside will be incorporated into the scheme. Experience demonstrates these often do not match the post-development reality but let us hope that the developers are held to their promise. The bank of ther brook is quite steep and this presents a challenge. On other developments promised public access has not materialised. However, it should not be hard to improve on the present:

Job Centre Plus site  in St Johns Road, Wembley Central

Network Home's CGI of proposal

Network Homes issued a press release yesterday on its planned development of the Job Centre Plus site in St Johns Road, off the High Road, Wembley Central:

We're really pleased to have put in a planning application for 79 new homes in Wembley High Road.

Located on the site of a former office block, the development will be 100% affordable with 49 homes for social rent, 39 for shared ownership and the remaining eight for London Living Rent, a scheme which offers Londoners the chance to save for a deposit to buy shares in their home.

The development would form part of the Wembley Housing Zone which is part of the Mayor of London’s plan help unlock new development opportunities and accelerate the delivery of affordable housing in Brent.

Brent Council will consider the application in spring 2022 and if granted residents could be moving in from summer 2024.

Readers will not need reminding of current concerns over the viability of  shared ownership.  The CGIs only show the lower floors of the tallest block but a tall building on what amounts to a side road (the main building is not actually on Wembley High Road as the PR claims but along St Johns Road and the corner of Elm Road)  will be a concern. It is likely that the proximity  of the  'Twin Towers, the Uncle building, on Park Lane, will be cited as a precedent.

 A pre-application presentation was made to Brent Planning Committee in 2017 LINK and the housing breakdown then included private housing.

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1bed
19x 2bed
10x 3bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

 So the proposed mix will be seen as an improvement.

The planning officers' report of the time said:

In seeking tojustify the height,the applicant points to local precedents including King Edward Court (03/3727) which forms a similar bookend at the opposite end of Elm Road.The difference with this site is that it frontsaprincipal movement corridorin the area andthe application site does not.It is recognised that the corner location of the site does helpsupport a taller buildingbut it is considered that the height as proposedis too high. The development is not considered to not reflectlower order role of St John’s Roadand existing 2 storey housingin the immediate locality. Italso noted that there has been no character and context analysis performed in line with the GLA’s SPD and London Plan Policy.

Now of course the Uncle building is part of the landscape.

The 2017 pre-application map (note the proposal then was to preserve the Boots frontage on the High Road)

Barn Hill today

Wembley Matters has been covering the so-called 'pavement wars' for sometime with various community groups opposing Brent Council's replacement of paving stones by asphalt on aesthetic and environmental grounds, while others feel asphalt presents less of a tripping hazard.

Residents have been puzzled over the policy of replacing paving with asphalt as it does not seem to be applied uniformly across the borough.  Indeed the redesign of Wembley High Road includes some quite expensive and painstaking paving work.

 Old paving discarded

Today I saw 'three men and a wheel barrow' team installing new paving along the length of Barn Hill. Is it the steep gradient that makes paving slabs the preferred option, conservation area status, or something else?

As it happens Cllr Kansagra asked about the paving policy at the recent Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny;

OPTION 1

OPTION 2

OPTION 3

Brent Parks service are currently looking at a number of options to improve the playground within the park. Three companies have been approached to develop plans for what they would do with the space, all working to a similar budget. 

Please take a look at the three options and let us know your preferred option and any comments you may have.  

The deadline for comments is Sunday 12 December 2021.

 You can express your preference and make a comment HERE

Planned and in progress tall buildings in Alperton with number of storeys (Alperton station and school bottom right)

 The Committee does not believe that tall buildings are the answer to London’s housing needs and should not be encouraged outside of a few designated and carefully managed areas.

 Letter to councillors from Chair of the  GLA Planning nd Regeneration Committee

Cllr Anton Georgiou (Alperton), frustrated by the failure of Cllr Shama Tatler to deliver a response to his question at Full Council in September on the Council's response to the  GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee's report on tall buildings, instead addressed his question to Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member on environment) at Monday's Full Council.

Citing the Council's declaration of a climate emergency and claiming that studies showed that the Council's 'obsession' with tall buildings was detrimental to the environment he asked:

What steps will be taken to acknowledge and act on the warning  outlined in the report into tall buildings that we all received from the GLA Planning and Regeneration Committee? Does this Council plan to continue ignoring local residents' views, and will the adminstration commit to undertake a full environmental assessment by an independent party of each planning application for a tall building before steam-rolling through approval?

'I will ensure someone from Planning Department will respond back to you.'

It is likely that the Planning Department it its reply will cite the independence of the Planning Committee from the political process. The chair at each meeting reminds the Committee that it is a non-political quasi-judicial committee bound by the national policy framework, the London Plan, Brent's Core Strategy, the emerging Local Plan, development management policies and other planning guidance. They are also reminded that there is a national housing shortage and targets have been set for the borough.

 Occasionally they are reminded that if they go against officers' recommendations on a particular application, developers may make a legal challenge at great cost to the Council.  In addition we know that at least one Labour councillor who has exercised independence on the planning committee has been removed subsequently. LINK

There is more on probity in planning decisons from the Local Government Association HERE

All this means that the Committee operates within narrow official and unofficial limits and it is the above-mentioned policies that need to be considered when challenging officers'  recommendations, particularly when they recommend approval even when the application does not comply with guidance on issues such as amount of amenity space, access to daylight, density etc. In the final analysis it may be that the policy needs to be changed - particularly in the Local Plan that, after consultation, is on the brink of final approval.

Another approach would be Scrutiny Committee considering the issue of tall buildings in the context of the Report and inviting the Chair of the GLA Committee to attend, give evidence and answer questions. 

 This is the GLA Planning and Regeneration Chair's letter sent to all councillors and referenced by Cllr Georgiou. Click bottom right for full page version.

Local newspapers can provide a lively forum for residents to express their views and contribute to local democracy.  Unfortunately the Kilburn Times with its diminishing number of pages carries only two or three letters a week, in stark contrast to the Camden New Journal that has 4 or 5 pages of letters.

Brent has at least as many local issues as Camden so I will be welcoming Letters to the Editor from  residents who would like to air their views.

 In a mainly one party borough we need to increase the number and variety  of voices. I recognise that WM can in no way replace a good local newspaper letters page but perhaps, in a very modest way, can contribute to a livelier public discourse.

Letters will reflect the writer's view and not that of Wembley Matters and should be accompanied by the name of the writer which they can withold if they wish. I will reserve the right to edit as appropriate and recommend a word limit of 1,000 words but shorter will be appreciated.

Send letters to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com 

 Metropolitan Police Statement regarding the police officers who shared pictures of the bodies of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman taken at the murder scene in Fryent Country Park.

A police constable has been dismissed without notice and another would have been dismissed had he still been a serving officer for taking inappropriate photographs at the scene of a double murder in Wembley.

An accelerated misconduct hearing was held for PC Jamie Lewis and former PC Deniz Jaffer, who has resigned, following their guilty pleas at the Old Bailey on Tuesday, 2 November to misconduct in public office.

The hearing was to determine allegations their actions breached the standards of professional behaviour in relation to discreditable conduct, honesty and integrity, equality and diversity, authority, respect and courtesy, duties and responsibilities, confidentiality and challenging and reporting improper conduct.

The allegations were all found proven.

Both officers, who were based at the North East Command Unit, will be added to the Barred List held by the College of Policing. Those appearing on the list cannot be employed by police, local policing bodies (PCCs), the Independent Office for Police Conduct or Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services.

The hearing was chaired by Assistant Commissioner Helen Ball on Wednesday, 24 November.

AC Ball said: “The behaviour of PCs Lewis and Jaffer that day was shameful and fell very far below the standards we expect of all our officers. We do not want officers who act in such an unprofessional and disrespectful manner to be part of the Metropolitan Police Service.

“Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman and we deeply regret the additional distress this matter has caused them. I am profoundly sorry, both personally and on behalf of the Met.

“The behaviour of PCs Lewis and Jaffer initially came to light because someone had concerns and anonymously reported them. I thank them for doing the right thing; we encourage all our officers and staff, and indeed members of the public, to report wrong-doing and we will act on those reports.”

On Wednesday, 17 June 2020 the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards was informed of allegations that non-official and inappropriate photographs had been taken by police at the crime scene in Fryent Country Park, Wembley, in relation to the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. The sisters were killed in the early hours of Saturday, 6 June 2020 with their bodies found the following day.

During the early hours of 8 June 2020, PC Jaffer and PC Lewis were placed on the cordon to protect the crime scene. They left their posts to take pictures on their mobile phones of the victims and the crime scene. They shared the images with other officers and, in PC Jaffer’s case, with members of the public via WhatsApp.

Both officers used the disrespectful and derogatory term “dead birds” to describe the victims while sharing the images.

In an unconnected matter PC Jaffer used a racially derogatory term in a message to members of the public about a policing activity. PC Lewis responded with approval to another officer who used the same term and did not challenge or report it. That other officer will also face a gross misconduct hearing in due course.

Following the allegation about the photos taken in Wembley, the MPS made a referral to the IOPC, which launched an independent investigation. PC Jaffer and PC Lewis were arrested on Monday, 22 June 2020 by the IOPC on suspicion of misconduct in public office and subsequently released under investigation.

A file was referred by the IOPC to the CPS and both officers were charged on Wednesday, 28 April 2021. They will be sentenced on Monday, 6 December at the Old Bailey.

Following their arrest, the officers were suspended from duty. Former PC Jaffer resigned and left the Met on Wednesday, 18 August. Under the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020, serving officers are able to resign or retire without requiring permission but can still face misconduct proceedings. This ensures that if allegations are proven and they are dismissed, their names are added to the Barred List.

+ We're working hard to raise standards in the Met and have commissioned an independent review by Baroness Louise Casey to examine our culture and standards of behaviour. 

Every Met employee is being spoken to about adhering to professional boundaries, their use of social media and their responsibility to challenge inappropriate behaviour. 

 

 

The Cabinet will be asked to approve consultation on a draft pre-election budget LINK  for 2022-23 at their meeting on Monday December 6th (10am).  The budget includes a 3% increase in Council Tax for the Brent segment with an as yet unspecified amount for the GLA precept to be added, and an average 4.1% increase in  Council rents, an increase which is expected to be repeated in the next controlled 3 year period.  The budget gap of £2.7m will be reduced through cuts and savings already agreed of £2.7m. LINK

In discussing the background to the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) officers note:

It should be recognised, however, that forecasting over the medium term has been, and continues to be, extremely difficult. There is a high level of uncertainty over the medium term due to the delays in funding reforms, the continuing impacts of COVID-19 on residents and businesses in the borough and the impact of BREXIT. The significance of the financial challenge cannot be underestimated, however the measures outlined in this report aim to ensure that the Council continues to operate in a financially sustainable and resilient way.

If unforseen demands are made on the budget, further cuts are likely.

Key features of draft budget are:

• A council tax increase of 3%, making a Band D council tax of £1,419.48 (for  Brent element). The GLA precept, which typically makes up 20% of the overall bill, is currently unknown and is subject to their own decision making. (Removing the funding for the social care reforms, the increase is actually 1.8% compared to 3.3% for the average government department. Nevertheless, while the additional funding announced for Local Government is welcome, the precise outcome for individual authorities will not be known until the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, usually announced in mid-December.)

• Budget savings proposals (all of which were considered by Council in February 2021) with an aggregate value of £2.7m, as summarised in Appendix A

• Consultation on a rent increase of 4.1% (CPI + 1%) for the 2022/23 Housing Revenue Account budget.

 

The report notes:

Although growth has been built into the MTFS to help alleviate some of these pressures, they continue to present a significant budget risk, particularly in respect of the demographic and contractual pressures.

For example:

• The impact of COVID-19 is not fully known or how the pandemic will play out for the remainder of the year. Therefore, there is a level of risk when setting the budget that the Council may be exposed to unfunded financial pressures in-year.
• The new income loss compensation scheme announced for Council Tax and Business Rates does not fully cover the losses the Council is estimating and only applies to losses incurred in 2020/21. The ending of the furlough scheme in September, the tapering of business rates reliefs and the ending of business support grants are likely to have a continuing impact on business rates income. Other income losses will be dependent on the pace at which the economy recovers. Overall, income losses can pose a considerable budget pressure.
• The level of ‘scarring’ that has occurred, for example pent up demand in children’s social care, long Covid and the mental health impact on adult social care. In addition, the extent to which current circumstances will become the ‘new normal’, for example greater domestic waste if more people continue to work from home and a larger role for Public Health.

If these were to transpire, without any further government support, they could expose the Council to a liability that may require it to put in place further savings and/or expenditure reductions in order to balance the overall budget and MTFS.

 

COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT

Nationally, there has been a significant increase in the number working age people claiming Council Tax Support. In Brent, this number has increased by 4.9% bringing the total number of working age people claiming CTS to 19,338.

 

The total cost of providing CTS has increased from £28.4m at the start of the pandemic to £30.7m as at November 2021, an increase of £2.3m. This is important because an increase in CTS expenditure reduces the amount of Council Tax that is able to be collected.

 

SCHOOL FUNDING AND DEDICATED SCHOOLS GRANT

School budgets are under considerable strain from a number of factors that include reduced pupil numbers (particularly in some primary schools - funding is per pupil), increased national insurance costs, covid, and lack of funding for special needs pupils in the mainstream. Brent's overall education funding will be reduced as we move to the National Funding Formula and the Schools Forum has agreed a gradual move to the NFF that will mean a 10% reduction in 2022-23 only part of which will be made up by some short-term funding. The Report discuss the issues:

 

The Council will continue to set a local funding formula for mainstream schools in 2022/23, although the total funding available will be determined by the National Funding Formula (NFF). The provisional Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) block allocations announced show that the Council will receive a minimal increase in mainstream pupil funding of £1.8 million which represents an overall 0.71% increase. This is lower than the national percentage increase of 2.9% and lower than the average of 1.7% for Local Authorities in London. The lower overall increase is due to factors such as: varying per-pupil funding levels across local authorities in London which are higher than the NFF 2022/23 minimum per pupil rate, and the impact of decreases in primary pupil numbers.

The Spending Review 2021 confirms a £4.7 billion growth by 2024/25 for the core schools budget in England. This growth includes: funding to cover the cost of a temporary increase in National Insurance Contributions (NIC) of 1.25% for 2022/23 from April 2023 to be replaced by the Health and Social Care Levy. The funding would also be used to increase teacher starting salaries to £30,000.

The Spending Review also confirms a £1 billion Recovery Premium for the next two academic years for schools. This funding is based on pupil premium eligibility. Primary schools will continue to benefit from an additional £145 per eligible pupil, but it is expected that the funding for secondary schools will nearly double which may be close to the £290 rate for pupils in Special Schools, Alternative Provision & Pupil Referral units. Additional funding was also announced of £324 million in 2024/25 for additional learning hours for 16-19 year olds. This funding increases the average hours funded in 16-19 education by 40 hours. Further details are expected in the coming weeks detailing how the funding will be allocated.

The High Needs block (HNB) of the DSG for 2022/23 will increase by £5.3 million representing an 8% increase in the HNB income. This is below the London average of 8.21% and the national average of 8.84% due to London experiencing the lowest increase in the funding floor factor as a result of reduction in pupil numbers, and the lowest increase in 3 out of the 6 Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index (IDACI) bandings.

There are pressures against the HNB block due to increased demand for Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and this is a national issue. Despite the additional funds, the demand pressures continue to grow and to set a balanced DSG budget in 2022/23 the Council will request via the Schools Forum a 0.5% transfer from the Schools Block. The pressure in the HNB has led to the DSG being in a £10.5 million deficit carried forward from 2020/21 and further forecast pressures of £4.4 million in 2021/22 will increase the deficit position to £14.9 million.

The DfE require local authorities with an overall DSG deficit to have management plan to recover the deficit over a number of financial years. The Schools Forum have been presented with actions being taken to manage demand, improve sufficiency of places and financial management to recover the deficit in the medium to long term. These include: establishing more SEND provision in the borough as part of the School Place Planning Strategy 2019-23 Refresh paper including developing new Additionally Resourced Provisions (ARPs); ensuring there is full cost recovery from other local authorities that place pupils in Brent special schools including administration and other specific costs; a review of the DSG funded SEN support services; continued central government lobbying. The Deputy Leader of the Council is actively part of the lobbying process.

The key principle of allocating the funding for the Early Years Block remains the same i.e. 95% of funding received is allocated directly to providers with the remaining 5% or £1m retained for central services. Funding arrangements for the Early Years Block have not yet been published but following the Spending Review 2021, the DfE confirmed that nationally, the block will receive additional funding worth £160 million in 2022/23, £180 million in 2023/24 and £170 million  by 2024/25 to enable local authorities to increase hourly rates paid to providers for childcare entitlement offers which reflects the costs of inflation and national living wage increases. An Early Years funding report for 2022/23 will be presented at the Schools Forum in January 2022 detailing the revised funding rates.

 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

 The Report sets out the arguments for a rent increase: 

The Housing Revenue Account budget setting from 2016/17 to 2019/20 was principally directed by the Welfare Reform Act 2016, which imposed a 1% rent reduction for four years. This has resulted in a reduction of rental income and bottom line surpluses previously assumed in the business plan. The resulting £23m loss of income, along with increased capital expenditure on major works, has led to the full utilisation of the major repairs reserve to finance investment in the existing housing stock.

Efficiency savings targets are incorporated into the budget setting process. From 2021/22 onwards, this is a 2% target across management and repairs costs, which equates to £0.5m per annum.

From 2020/21, the Council has the power to increase rents annually up to a maximum of CPI plus 1% for a period of five years. For 2022/23, CPI plus 1% equates to 4.1%, allowing the potential to increase rental income by £2m, and up to £6m over the remaining three-year rent control period.

The average rent in 2021/22 is £118.74 per week. A 4.1% increase would equate to an average rent of £123.61 per week in 2022/23, an increase of £4.87 per week when compared to the current rent levels. The increase is required for inflation led growth and to ensure sufficient continued capital investment in the Council’s existing housing stock.

Alternative scenarios of a 3.1% increase or a rent freeze were considered and rejected as leaving the account in deficit:

Therefore, Brent, and all local authorities, who had similar agreements with regional water companies, will need to reimburse all social housing tenants for any overcharged amounts. Brent had two such water collection agreements in respect of water charges, one with Thames Water and another with Affinity Water (formerly Three Valleys).

As these sums were received into each authorities’ Housing Revenue Account, the money for these reimbursements will need to come out of local authorities’ Housing Revenue Accounts as well. For Brent, the cost of refund is estimated to be £7.2m. Brent have set aside provisions for this in the accounts.

 

CAPITAL PROGRAMME

 

 This is the first Letter to the Editor to be published. Send your letters to wembleymatters@virginmedia.com with your name (tell me if you do not want you name  published). Maximum 1000 words - shorter preferred). I reserve the right to edit the letter and not to publish if I deem it unsuitable for publication.

Dear Editor,

This month Brent Council is again tasked with considering a planning application for a commercial 3G artificial grass floodlit football pitch development. But will this finally be the last of its kind?

We have seen these applications several times before, and they almost read the same. This time it is by Queens Park Community School (QPCS) in Brondesbury (Ref 20/1411) [1]. Like its predecessors, QPCS wants to replace its natural grass playing fields with artificial 3G rubber surfaces, complete with state-of-the-art floodlights and commercial football hiring until 9 pm. As is the case with many other schools in London, QPCS is located in the midst of a quiet residential area.

The arguments remain the same. 3G rubber crumbs are invariably bad for the environment and players' health. 3G pitches are banned in parts of the EU as a result. These operations tend to be very noisy. And, the commercial hiring aspect routinely draws in large numbers of visitors from further afield that will be using private transport because the site is not well connected to the public transport network.

On the other end, the school is citing the desperate need for an all-year football pitch because the grass surface becomes difficult to play on during the winter months.

The Head of QPCS recently took her cause to the Brent & Kilburn Times stating that 'QPCS has produced "outstanding top-flight footballers"' before naming a few [2]. This is, undoubtedly, a remarkable record, but it also begs the question that if QPCS can 'produce outstanding top-flight footballers' on its natural grass playing fields, then why does it even need to replace Nature with artificial grass with all the dire consequences this development would bring?

But there is another question. How much should we be focussing on producing more professional football players? Only a tiny fraction of players will ever make it to a level where they can support themselves following this elusive dream. And, it is often a rather short dream due to the immense physical strain players are under. For some, it is over as quickly as a flight into suborbital space.

As a nation, we are under immense pressure to solve the many complex problems we are faced with today. We are battling a global pandemic. We are battling Climate Change. We are battling social injustice, an ageing community and a looming care crisis.

 
We are in desperate need of healthcare professionals, doctors, engineers, scientists and leaders that can help us get through these challenges. Our Government has failed to attract a single applicant to its fast track Global Talent visa scheme.
Therefore, should our schools in Brent not be focussing on producing the skills and expertise that we so desperately need? Should our role models not include Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, or the many unsung heroes of our time who develop vaccines against Covid or work to solve our growing need for renewable energies?

This particular planning application is additionally facing serious ecological challenges. There is anecdotal evidence of there being colonies of bats at the site which is adjacent to Tiverton Green. Yet, when QPCS presented its initial plans in 2020 and when it resubmitted these plans in 2021 it did not commission or present a single bat survey as would be customary in these situations. This has taken many observers by surprise. However, due to the efforts of the Brondesbury Park Residents Association who privately commissioned a professional 'Bat Activity Survey', we finally have clarity on this point. There are indeed two species of roosting and foraging bats in the immediate vicinity of the site.

 
This 'Bat Activity Survey' was uploaded to the Brent Planning Portal only hours before the end of the consultation. Unfortunately, this has meant that the public, including pupils, their parents, neighbours, and everyone who has commented on this application, did not have the benefit of this important evidence and information.

 
I suspect that further bat surveys will now be required covering all of the proposed site and its surroundings. This would need to be done before this application could possibly be resubmitted in the form of a revised application if this should even still be deemed viable.

 
I feel that QPCS and its management has let down the public and its supporters by resisting to undertake professional bat surveys right from the start. It would also seem inconceivable that anyone would be tempted to continue pursuing a planning application when it stands to contravene the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017).

Moreover, there appears to be an important lesson for all when it comes to schools wanting to replace their natural grass playing fields with artificial materials such as 3G rubber surfaces.

As the many detailed responses to these planning applications repeatedly show, the impacts these have on the natural environment stand in no comparison to the perceived incremental benefits these might offer.

If we are to learn from past mistakes, we need to change how we go about our natural resources. If COP26 in Glasgow has taught us anything then we need to change now. We cannot afford to further destroy our local natural habitats and let a commercial undertaking benefit from its demise.

If Brent Council and its Members are serious about the Climate and Ecology Emergency it had called in 2019, and if they are serious about the Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy 2021-2030, they must act firmly and call time on these ill-conceived developments that harm our fragile biodiversity.

Brent Council should also make it clear that these types of developments will no longer be considered in future.

Daniel Hulsmann
Brent Resident

[1] https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_149939

[2] https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/queens-park-community-school-3g-pitch-8472588

I have not forgiven Muhammed Butt and co for the loss of the fabulous Stonebridge Adventure Plaground.

Just look at the video above to see what our Brent children are missing out on as a result of the Council's action in removing the grant and earmarking the site for development.

London Play are running a survey aimed mainly at people (adults and children)  living on estates, or high density housing areas to try to ascertain the changing face of our communities with reference to children’s play.

To take part in the survey follow these links: 

Children and young people survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LondonPlayCYP2021

Adults survey link: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LondonPlayAdults2021