Brent Council's Estate Ballot Video

Dear Editor, 

South Kilburn's partitioned first Brent regeneration ballot in 2019 included only 1,000 scattered selected households, while excluding the other 3,516 households in the South Kilburn Growth Area from any ballot vote say at all in the new tall building zone (TBZ) plan. This is proving to be an unsustainable social injustice and human rights abuse i.e. the entire community complex land has become surplus brownfield land for the coloniser market.

I count as one of these 3,516 households in South Kilburn neighbourhood excluded entirely from Brent's ballot of South Kilburn 2019.  The Brent neighbourhood masterplan for South Kilburn vote in 2004 had allowed a vote say to every household in this zone regarding a future land uses neighbourhood regeneration plan (a plan which was unilaterally Brent cancelled in 2017).

Why this harsh and exclusionary change of landlord neighbourhood governance policy in SK for 2019 and harsh denial of the right to a democratic say regarding the vague new South Kilburn TBZ future towards 2041? Brent now only boasts and taunts the South Kilburn massive household majority excluded from the ballot vote about its partitioned and excluding ballot of 2019 - "And in South Kilburn where we are regenerating, we had the biggest estate regeneration resident ballot in London with a 72% turnout and 84% of people voting in favour" - this refers only to the 1000 households allowed a vote. Ignored are the 3,516 South Kilburn households excluded entirely from a ballot vote say regarding the developer-led TBZ new plan.

With the community-led neighbourhood partnership regeneration masterplan balloted 2004 unilaterally cancelled by Brent five days after the Grenfell fire in 2017, surely Brent landlords new unilateral land use TBZ plan should be put to a vote of all 4,516+ South Kilburn households in 2022- especially as Brent aims to by five times grow the SK population to over 36,000 by 2041.

I would propose a Brent ballot 2 remedy in 2022, in which all 4,516+ households in SK have a ballot vote to correct the gross injustice of 2019.This ballot 2 would force the public landlord to offer a new responsible high quality detailed, healthy, cohesive, inclusive, civil and flood attenuation aware plan for SK future land uses towards 2041 which is clearly in the best interests of all who live South Kilburn Land.

Will Brent finally listen and engage?

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

Guest post from Philip Grant

As Martin reported last month, Cllr. Shama Tatler missed the Full Council meeting on 22 November, so was not there to answer my supplementary question about the (lack of) affordable Council housing proposed for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development, on the vacant former Copland School site. I had not been satisfied with the original answer to my Public Question on the subject.

A written answer from the Lead Member for regeneration was promised, but a subsequent Member’s Question (from the Leader of the opposition), on whether the written response to me would be circulated to all members of the Council, did not appear to receive an answer. 

I have now received that written response (I will ask Martin to attach a copy below), and to ensure that all councillors do have the chance to consider it, I have circulated the document to them with the following email. I am sharing that email publicly, so that any Brent resident can ask their local councillors how they have responded to the points raised by my question, and Cllr. Tatler’s “answer” to it:-

Cllr. Tatler’s response to question on affordable Council housing at Cecil Avenue

Dear Brent Council Members,

At the Full Council meeting on 22 November, your colleague Cllr. Shama Tatler was not available to answer my supplementary Public Question about affordable Council housing at Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue development (on the vacant, Council-owned, former Copland School site in Wembley). 

I received her written response on 7 December, and as it is unclear whether this has been circulated to all members of the Council, I am sending you a copy now. I believe that this matter raises important points, and you may wish to share your views on them with the Lead Member for Regeneration.

As well as the response, it is best that you know the question that she was meant to be answering (because I do not think that they key points have been answered). This was my supplementary question: 

‘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?’

In an article published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 18 November your colleague, Cllr. Ketan Sheth, wrote:

'The value and cost of land in London is at an all time high: therefore, building on land already owned by the council means the building costs are lower and all of the new homes can be let at genuinely affordable rents.'

But under the proposals for Cecil Avenue, approved by Cabinet on 16 August, and for which Cllr. Tatler is the Lead Member, only 37 of the 250 homes will be for London Affordable Rent, and none will be for Social Rent (which the Brent Poverty Commission Report in 2020 said should be the Council’s priority for genuinelyaffordable homes).

The attached response from Cllr. Tatler makes a similar point about the importance of using Council-owned land to provide affordable homes:

‘Many of the current and planned future developments containing affordable housing will be on ‘re-purposed’ council owned sites that mean there is no acquisition cost and that because of ownership, schemes can be developed at pace.’

The ‘council owned site’ at Cecil Avenue is vacant, and full planning consent for the 250-home project was granted in February 2021. The scheme there could ‘be developed at pace’ for affordable Council homes, but under Brent’s current proposals 152 of the new homes there will be for private sale by a “developer partner”.

This is how I (and, I suspect, many other Brent residents) see the Council’s current proposals for the Cecil Avenue development:-

This image is a parody of the Council’s publicity photographs for its “New Council Homes in Brent” programme, but the point it is making is a serious one.

Do you want the citizens of our borough to see the hypocrisy that the Council’s current proposals display? Perhaps ask yourself the question which I put to Cllr. Tatler:

‘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?’

If you agree that the current proposals for the Cecil Avenue site don’t seem right, please share your views on them with the Lead Member and the Strategic Director for Regeneration. Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant
(a long-time Brent resident, with no party-political allegiance)

 A “report back” blog by Philip Grant:

Some Granville New Homes images from the Ridge Report.

There was great interest in October, when Martin shared details of the scandal over Granville New Homes, where repairs to these South Kilburn flats would cost more than the blocks cost to build, only twelve years ago.

Proposals for these homes to be taken over by the Council from its company, First Wave Housing Ltd (“FWH”), were considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on 7 October. Committee members were told that the repairs would cost £18.5m, but had to rely on a report which had been prepared for a Cabinet meeting the following week, and on information and answers given to them by Council Officers and Cabinet members. 

Title page of the Ridge Report.

The committee had not been allowed to see a copy of the report by the consultants, Ridge and Partners, who had carried out a detailed survey of the Granville New Homes buildings. Martin obtained a copy of that Report from Brent Council, under the Freedom of Information Act, and published it on “Wembley Matters” in November.

When I read the Report online, there seemed to be discrepancies between some of the details it showed, and what the Scrutiny Committee, and an earlier Audit & Standards Committee meeting, had been told. I added a comment below the 11 November blog, and sent a copy of that comment in an email to the two Committee Chairs involved, to draw those “discrepancies” to their attention.

I heard nothing more about it until 7 December, when I received an email from Brent’s Legal Director, saying: ‘The councillor, the Independent Chair and the Chief Executive have asked that I consider your email and respond and I will be in contact with you as soon as possible.’ I’ve now received her response, and as my original comment is “in the public domain”, I think it only fair that Brent Council’s explanation for the “discrepancies” should also be publicly available. I will set out my original comment, and the Council’s response below.

I will not comment further on them, other than to say that when a small number Senior Council Officers and Cabinet Members have so much power, I believe that they should provide full, accurate and clear information to the elected councillors whose scrutiny of their decisions is an important safeguard on behalf of the local community. You can judge for yourselves whether they did so over Granville New homes and the Ridge Report.

My comment of 12 November 2021 (under published copy of the Ridge Report):

‘There appear to be some discrepancies between the Ridge Report above, and how it was presented to Cabinet on 11 October 2021, in a report signed off by Brent's Chief Executive.

The opening paragraph of the report to Cabinet members says:

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

This clearly states that fire safety was investigated as part of the Ridge Report; but the report itself (see bottom of page 24 of the document in the blog above) says:

'Fire safety matters, relating to the cladding have not been commented on in this report as they are excluded from the scope. From what was seen, during the opening up of the cladding, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated by a façade specialist and fire engineer. These include possible combustible insulation and seemingly a lack of cavity barriers within the cladding system. The cladding systems should be reviewed, from a fire safety perspective, as a matter of urgency.'

Page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the budget cost estimates of the work identified as a result of this consultant's investigations:

'TOTAL COSTS by block:

Granville Road East £2,185,000
Granville Road West £2,475,000
Peel Square £4,550,000
Pilgrims Corner £4,435,000

TOTAL £13,645,000'

Clearly, there is a difference between the £13.645m figure in the Ridge Report which has now been disclosed under FoI (and which was not made available to the members of the Audit or Scrutiny Committees, when they considered the problems and proposed solutions over Granville New Homes), and the £18.5m figure in the report to Cabinet.

Was there a second specialist report on the fire safety issues, with the estimated cost of that remediation making up the almost £5m difference between the two figures?

 

If not, what is the explanation for that difference?

 

And if there was a separate fire safety defects report, why was that not mentioned in the report to Cabinet, and why has that report not been disclosed to councillors, or made public?’

Relevant extracts from the Ridge Report.

Brent Council response of 9 December 2021:

‘Dear Mr Grant

Your email below was shared with David Ewart, the Independent Chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, by Cllr Lo.  It was also drawn to the attention of the Chief Executive by Cllr Sheth.  The Chief Executive, Cllrs Lo and Sheth and the Independent Chair have asked that I consider your email and respond.

Your email references reports considered by three council bodies, Audit and Standards Advisory (22 September 2021 (ASAC)) Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny (7 October 2021) and Cabinet (11 October 2021) and raises three areas of concern which I address below.

1. Commissioning of the Ridge Report

You are concerned that the Scrutiny Committee Report referred to the Ridge Report as being commissioned by First Wave Housing (FWH) while the Ridge Report itself refers to the report being commissioned by FWH and Brent Council.  You seek clarity as to who commissioned and paid for the report.

The council provides housing management services to FWH.  Therefore, FWH asked the council to commission the report on its behalf and the cost will be borne by FWH.

2. Ambit of the Ridge Report

You refer to the first paragraph of the Cabinet report, part of which reads: 
“commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues”and to the Ridge Report which refers to: “Fire safety matters relating to the cladding” being excluded from its commission. 

The paragraph you refer to in the Cabinet report is a summary paragraph and the detail behind that summary appears later in the report.  Paragraph 3.6 of the Cabinet report refers to the council’s own Housing Property Services presenting the result of fire risk assessments and intrusive investigations into fire safety concerns and to Ridge presenting the result of intrusive investigation into water penetration, cladding and window issues.   I consider this corrects any misunderstanding as to the scope of the investigations commissioned from Ridge that the summary paragraph may have led to. 

Further, the Ridge Report, makes reference to fire safety issues which happened to be observed during Ridge’s investigations and suggests that cladding systems be reviewed from a fire safety perspective as a matter of urgency.  The review had effectively already been undertaken following the Fire Brigade Improvement Notice and therefore included in the presentation by Housing Property Services referred to in the report.

3. Discrepancy in figures given for estimated costs of repairs

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

Although these elements are not explicitly referred to in paragraph 3.4 of the Scrutiny report, the Cabinet report was in the papers presented to the Scrutiny Committee and did contain this information.  This level of detail was not in the report to the ASAC, but as the report was a general update report of which this particular issue was only one element and pre-dated the matter being put to Cabinet as the decision maker, this is unsurprising.

At the time when Ridge were commissioned, they were aware of the fire safety issues identified through fire notices and the test results of the combustibility of the external wall system which had been carried out previously.  The Ridge Report and their cost estimate included the work to remediate these issues. The report of the test results does not include any costs.

In light of the above, I do not consider there is any reason to fear that members were misled by the reports as to the essential issues.  These were that the estimated costs to FWH of dealing with the issues identified in relation to Granville New Homes would render the company’s business plan unviable and an assessment of options for dealing with the situation was required as set out in the report. 

Best wishes

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations’

Prepared on behalf of: 

The mural  is on the wall of the steps and ramp beside Number 1 Olympic Way, the office block that has been converted into accommodation.

I checked with Brent Council today after the Kilburn Times wrote that Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader, was taking over Cllr Mili Patel's portfolio.  Patel stepped down from her role on Monday. I had been told something different by a usually reliable source at the council:

Could you clarify the details of which Cabinet members are taking over/sharing Cllr Patel’s portfolio as clearly Safeguarding is extremely importance as highlighted by the recent child murder case. The Kilburn Times has quoted Cllr McLennan as taking over the entire portfolio while I understood from my sources that it was shared between Cllr Stephens and Cllr Farbi.

I suspect it has been split between them and if so could you say who is responsible for each aspect.

Brent Council replied that they stood by their previous statement:

"Councillor Mili Patel has stepped down from her cabinet role to take time out. Deputy Leader, Councillor Margaret McLennan, will take over the portfolio.”

This give me cause for concern, not because I doubt Cllr McLennan's commitment and ability regarding safeguarding, but because of the responsibilities she already has, particularly at a time when she is working on the Council's budget for 2022-21.

This is now her portfolio with Cllr Patel's responsibilities added:

• Finance / HR
• IT / Digital transformation
• Council Tax
• Business Rates
• Customer Services
• Citizenship &Registration
• Community Hubs
• Legal
• Performance
• Members Enquiries / FOI / Complaints
• Social Value
• Equalities
• Procurement
• Safeguarding & Looked After Children / YOT
• Social Work Teams
• Early Help & Children’s Centres
• Youth Service & Connexions
• Troubled Families
• Safeguarding in Schools
• Corporate Parenting
• SEND Pupil Referral Units
• Alternative Education
• Youth Parliament

 The case of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes highlighted not just the dramatic impact of lockdown on family life and the impact of the loss of the usual monitoring by schools of vulnerable children, but also the years of cuts and under-investment in children's services.

These are dangerous times for children and could be a life and death matter. In Brent we have to remember the case of Victoria Climbie LINK and ensure that such a case does not happen again.

Over my career in education I have been responsibile both as a teacher and a governor for Safeguarding, Child Protection and Looked After Children. I thought that the splitting of responsibilities, that complemented existing ones held by Cllr Thomas and Farbi, was a sensible idea if it was not practical to appoint a replacement for Cllr Patel.

We do not know what the winter holds in terms of further lockdowns and potential school closures, but things do not look good. I urge Council leader Muhammed Butt to think again for the sake of our children.

Philip Grant continues his Guest series.

 Welcome back to this story of an Indian solicitor who lived in Wembley around 90 years ago. If you missed Part 1, you can find it here. 

We left Ram Singh Nehra when he was standing as a Labour candidate for Fryent Ward, in elections for the new Wembley Council in March 1934. I asked: ‘would the people of Wembley in the 1930s vote for a man who wasn’t white?’ The answer was “yes”, but not quite enough of them to win him a seat on the Council. Whether his colour meant that he didn’t receive the small number of extra votes which would have seen him elected is something we will never know.

The Fryent Ward election result, from the “Wembley News”, 30 March 1934. (Brent Archives)

The Fryent Ward count, at Wembley Council’s Park Lane School on the evening of the election, must have been a tense affair. The result was very close, with only 35 votes separating Mr Crook, who topped the poll, from his fellow Labour candidate, Mr Nehra, at the foot of the list. In between were the two representatives of the Ratepayers’ Association, both existing Kingsbury councillors. Mr Ashman, who’d been Chairman of Kingsbury U.D.C., was so shocked to lose his seat that he demanded a recount!

The “Wembley News” report about Labour’s 1934 Fryent Ward election campaign.

(From the local newspaper microfilms at Brent Archives)

The newspaper report above shows how good canvassing in Fryent Ward beforehand had helped the Labour Party to win a local Council seat in Kingsbury for the very first time. This enabled them to ensure that all their likely supporters, who might not have been able to get to the polling station at Fryent School without assistance, were taken there by motor car to vote! 

You might not expect that a “working class” party in 1934 could muster ‘a fleet of cars’ on polling day, but that is where Mr Nehra and his wide circle of friends played their part. Imagine the surprise of some residents, when a chauffeur driven limousine, with a coat of arms on its side, drew up outside their home to take them to the polling station! It had been loaned for the day by the Saudi Arabian Ambassador.

Sheikh Hafiz Wahba (and his limousine) in 1930. (Image from the internet)

Sheikh Hafiz Wahba was the Saudi Ambassador to the UK from 1930 until 1956. You may remember that he was one of the VIP guests at the Nehra’s Garden Party in July 1934, and he had come to know Ram Singh Nehra quite well. This was partly because Nehra’s Central Hindu Society saw Hinduism as a cultural identity much as a religion, and was keen on promoting Hindu-Muslim co-operation.

There is evidence of this from a 1935 report in “The Indian”, headed “Prophet’s Birthday”:

‘The Muslim Society in Great Britain held a reception on Wednesday, the 12th of June, at 8 p.m., at Portman Rooms, Baker Street, to celebrate the Birthday of the Holy Prophet Mohammad. His Excellency Sheikh Hafiz Wahba, the Saudi Arabian Minister to the Court of St. James’s, was in the chair. 

Proceedings began with a recitation from the Qoran. Before starting further proceedings, the following message from Mr. R. S. Nehra, the President of the Hindu Society, was read — To the President, British Muslim Society, London: 

Dear Sir,

Hearty congratulations on the celebration of the birthday of the Holy Prophet. His example is a beacon guidance to all human beings of the necessity, practicability and virtues of democracy in daily life. 

Sorry my wife’s serious illness prevents me from joining you all this evening.’

Sir Abdul Qadir in 1935. (Image from the internet)

Sir Abdul Qadir was a leading member of The Muslim Society at the time, and like Nehra was also born in Ludhiana. Nehra’s good relations with the Muslim community may well date back to his childhood. Although Ludhiana was in the 

Punjab, when Nehra was growing up there in the early 20^th century only around 5% of its citizens were Sikhs. Of the rest, about two-thirds were Muslims and one-third Hindus. It is sad that Nehra’s good relationship with fellow Indians of a different religion was not widely reflected among the people of the sub-continent, when independence from Britain was achieved in 1947, and partition led to sectarian violence.

In a biographical article in “The Indian”, about ‘the editor’, Nehra described himself as ‘a man of very abstemious habits.’ He disliked smoking and drinking, and preferred lemonade to tea. Of his daily routine he wrote:

‘Even though he has been away from India for so many years, yet he is an early riser and starts work at six and never misses his morning bath. He takes pleasure in his work and that is why he works for 14 hours and sleeps for 8 and the rest of the time he employs in attending to daily needs and a little relaxation between the hours of 8 and 9 in the evening.’

He believed in devoting 10% of his profits and 5% of his time to charitable work and institutions. His hobbies were ‘building, books, journalism and social gatherings’, and his sporting interests were ‘swimming, tennis and driving.’ Both Mr and Mrs Nehra were keen tennis players (perhaps that is how they met, in Mombasa), and as the “Metroland” homes in Chalkhill Road were builton large plots, some would have had a tennis court in their back garden.

Aerial view of the Chalkhill and Barn Hill estates, March 1939, with “The Shalimar” arrowed.
(Source: Brent Archives)

Although Nehra claimed in his biographical note that ‘by temperament he is always cheerful and hospitable’, and that he did not‘indulge in anger or fiery outbursts’, he was not afraid to express his views quite forcefully. One regular feature of “The Indian” was his “Open Letters for the Public Good”, and he wrote them ‘without fear, favour or malice’. 

Being free to speak truth to power is an important part of any good democracy. One of his letters was to the newly appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies, in Stanley Baldwin’s National Government of June 1935. After giving ‘hearty congratulations on your appointment’, he encouraged the Minister to ‘follow the spirit expressed by His Royal Majesty the King in his memorable Jubilee message’, and respect the rights of all people of different classes, colour, creed and countries. He went on:

‘You know, Indians form a larger majority of immigrants in the Colonies than any other race. Owing to the peace-loving disposition of Indians, their legitimate rights and interests have so far not been well protected in any of the Colonies. The local white immigrants out of sheer short-sightedness and selfishness are ill-treating the British Indians in nearly all the Colonies. The local Governors often yield to the local influence of the white agitation and pressure. It is for you to keep the balance and assist or direct, as the case may be, the local governors to treat Indians justly and fairly. Remember that the interests of the Empire and world peace are more important and vital than the interests of a handful of Englishmen or Europeans in a Colony.’

Nehra was well aware of the injustices which could occur in the Colonies, because he was a Privy Council agent. That meant he could act as a legal representative, on behalf of people or companies appealing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. This acted as the Court of Appeal for cases decided in High Courts across the British Empire. 

“The Indian” included a section devoted to reports of Privy Council hearings. One interesting case was an appeal by a lawyer and a newspaper editor, seeking to overturn a judgement against them by the Allahabad High Court for contempt of court. Their “contempt” was publicly alleging that inferior judges had been appointed to the Allahabad High Court, and that better qualified candidates had been overlooked, because of their caste.

R. Nehra & Co are shown as the agent in a number of cases. In one, Nehra represented the respondent in an appeal by the Bombay Commissioner of Income Tax, against a judgement of the High Court in Bombay (Mumbai), where the point at issue was ‘whether the rights of a woman under a family settlement have been forfeited owing to unchastity.’

Through his magazine, Nehra published the results of all Indian students who had come to England to study law, as well as giving the overall results for Bar exams. One example from 1935 was: ‘Examined, 223; Passed,154 (Indians, 44)’. He also gave advice to Indians coming to here to study:

‘Do not buy or bring many suits with you from India, because they will not be used in England owing to their inferior cut and poor material. One or two pairs of shoes would be sufficient until your arrival in England. If possible, wait until you arrive here before you purchase your overcoat.’

As “The Indian” had a wide circulation among not just the worldwide Indian community, but also people in Britain with an interest in the sub-continent, it often carried “small ads”. Here are just a couple of typical examples:

INDIAN LADY medical student requires board lodging with a private family, 2 years’ course or more. Give full particulars. — Box 454, c/o The Indian. 

CEYLON STUDENT wants boarding house near a tennis club. — Write Box 458, c/o The Indian.

Nehra welcomed new Indian students to London with a reception at Veeraswamy’s in Regent Street. This was the capital’s first Indian restaurant, and had introduced Indian food to this country in the Indian Pavilion at the British Empire Exhibition, held at Wembley in 1924/25.

Veeraswamy’s Restaurant, in a BEE advertisement and at Regent Street. (Images from the internet)

This was Nehra’s advice on food to Indians coming here:

‘You may find some difficulty regarding food. There are many Indian Restaurants and Hostels that cater for Indians. At the beginning it will be of great help if you make use of these establishments, till you slowly get thoroughly accustomed to the western tasteless foods.’

As well as all of his other interests, Ram Singh Nehra still had political ambitions. This paragraph appeared in a newspaper in April 1936:

(Image from the internet)

Did Nehra stand for election to Parliament, and what other twists and turns did his life take in the late 1930s? Please join me next weekend, for the concluding part of his story.


Philip Grant,
December 2021.

 Readers may remember a “Who’s Who” Picture Quiz last December. As Wembley History Society is still not able to meet again in person, Philip Grant has prepared another picture quiz for Christmas 2021. You are invited to have a go as well!

There are ten old photographs from around the Wembley area, and two questions with each of them. See how many you know the answers to, either just for fun or to see how you score when the answers are published next Sunday.

There are no prizes, but the bonus is that the fewer you know, the more about Wembley you’ll find out next weekend!

 Save Bridge Park Appeal - Court Hearing Details:

The hearing on 14th, 15th and 16th Dec 2021 - will now be made available through Live YouTube streaming to the Community and Public - see link below:


https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/the-court-of-appeal-civil-division-live-streaming-of-court-hearings/

- or on the day click

Court Room 74:
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCn_a8COiB_KbaEvXKFk7lng?view_as=subscriber

RCJ Appeal Court - Strand, London WC2A 2LL

The case in the Appeal Court for Appellant 1, Leonard Johnson was declined this morning by the Appeal Court Justices.

The case for Appellant 2, Stonebridge Community Trust began this afternoon and will continue tomorrow from10.30am. 

To request to attend the virtual hearing apply to:  katie.patel@justice.gov.uk

 At yesterday's Appeal Court hearing the case of Appellant 1, Leonard Johnson, against the findings of the High Court in the case of Bridge Park versus Brent Council was dismissed as having no legal basis.

The case of the second Appellant, Stonebridge Community Trust, began in the afternoon and continues this morning. It is based on the case made at the original hearing.

In the video above Jay Mastin, of Stonebridge Community Trust, laments the failure of attempts to get the two appellants to work together but urges the community to get behind the Trusts's case.

The hearing continutes at 10.30am this morning.  To attend the hearing virtually apply to katie.patel@justice.gov.uk

https://www.met.police.uk/e-scooters

E-scooters are controversial in Brent and have even been the subject of a Conservative Group motion at a Full Council meeting.

Some see them as dangerous to pedestrians, particularly the young and the elderly, when used on the pavement, and a menace to driver safety when used on the road.

Others cite their potential in reducing car use, particularly the single driver taking up a lot of space on the road, and in reducing the pollution and fossil fuel use that would otherwise be caused if the scooter rider was driving a vehicle.

The police have taken the opportunity, ahead of Christmas purchases, to remind the public of their legal status and the Fixed Penalty Notices applicable for misuse.

As always, given limited police resources, there is the question of enforcement.

BREAKING:  After a discussion which focused on  the  foul water surface water flooding danger - of the Lidding Road site and immense concern that Thames Water had not addressed the long-standing issue, the Planning Committee decided tonight to defer a decision on the planning application.

Committee members wanted assurances that the sewage pipes, descibed as 'broken, damaged and collapsing' by John Poole making representations on behalf of residents, would be repaired, replaced and upgraded, otherwise the new development would exacerbate the problem.

Thames Water had said that the system had capacity for the new development but councillors were sceptical and did not appear to be reassured by the statement. 

Some members also wanted a construction vehicle management plan give the nature of the local road,

The development site from planning report (outlined in red)

Satellite view

Wembley Matters has been been covering concerns over fluvial (river) flooding and surface water flooding in the borough in the wake of climate change. Local residents are usually better informed about the history of such events than planning officers, but this local knowledge is often dismissed and plans go ahead.

Tonight's Planning Committee will be discussing a Brent Council in-fill development at Lidding Road, Kenton,  which residents say will exacerbate flooding problems from the Wealdstone Brook and current sewage draining problems. Trees and some green space will also be lost according to objectors.

This is what Friends of Woodcock Park had to say:

 The site is totally unsuitable. It is in Flood risk 3 area. Flooding in this area is a problem as is water run off.

On the opposite side of the Brook the grounds of the Kenton Synagogue are constantly flooded by rainwater run off. This development will only increase the problem of rainwater run off.


Sewer pipes are shown running directly under the proposed development. Plot 5 has been designed with a manhole underneath it. This is contrary to Thames Water's policy of building over sewers. Thames sewers are constantly being blocked and require access to clear the problem.

Only yesterday  (September 28^th) work was being carried out to clear a blockage in this sewer which runs from Woodgrange Close across the Park to Brookfield Crescent. These are old sewers which are prone to collapse, which has happened several times within the park itself and at the end of Lidding Road. The ground at Lidding Road is now sinking because of these problems.

The Wealdstone Brook is blighted by sewage, due largely to the infrastructure of dual manholes. We are in constant discussions with Thames Water, but this has been an ongoing problem for decades and will not be completely eradicated until the sewage system is rebuilt. This area is also plagued by rats which run along the Wealdstone Brook and there is often a foul smell of sewage. Who would want to live near an open sewer, liable to flood, where you are unable to open your windows.

To site properties so close to the Wealdstone Brook is contrary to NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE GUIDANCE, Chapter 11, making effective use of the land, sets out how the planning system should promote use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. Councillors would be failing in their duty to provide safe and healthy living conditions.


The land at the end of Lidding Road is a greenfield site. maintained by Brent Parks department, at the entrance to Woodcock Park. The loss of green space in Brent, which is already short of green spaces, should not be permitted.


The properties are situated too close to the SINC site, also known as the Wealdstone Brook Wildlife corridor.

Bats: A significant amount of foraging activity was recorded around the dense scrub and scattered trees in the southern portion of the site, and some commuting over this area. In accordance with best practice guidance relating to lighting and biodiversity (Miles et al, 2018; Gunnell et al, 2012), It is essential that any new lighting should be carefully designed to minimise potential disturbance and fragmentation impacts on sensitive receptors, such as bat species. Examples of good practice include:

- Avoiding the installation of new lighting in proximity to key ecological features, such as hedgerows and woodland edges.


The parking spaces allocated next to the Wealdstone Brook will create light disturbance from the headlights of the cars. In addition what guarantees are there that residents of these properties don't add their own external security lighting.


Security is a big issue in this area. Anti-social behaviour continues to be problem in and around Woodcock Park, we have drug dealing and have even had a stabbing in the Park. The footpath between Lidding Road and Shaftesbury Avenue across the Wealdstone Brook needs to have clear sight lines. The area should be kept open, with space either side of the footpath. The development should not go right up to the footpath.

Visualisation next to Wealdstone Brook

The officers report LINK  argues that the disbenefits are outweighed  by the benefit of supplying 8 housing units, 5 of which are family sized at London Affordable Rent and that the plans will actually improve drainage and mitigate the risk of flooding. Some failures to meet amenity space guidelines are said to be made up for by the proximity of Woodcock Park.

On the sewer over-load issue  the report airily hands over responsibility to Thames Water:

Concerns have been raised that the development would be impacted by on increase these issues. The local sewers are owned and maintained by Thames Water and as such Thames Water is responsible for the maintenance of this system.

 This is a common feature in many planning applications. 

LIVESTREAM 6pm HERE

 I was unable to attend today because I had to impersonate a mythical person in connection with an imminent festival.

Thanks to an attendee who was able to provide this summary.

The hearing commenced at 10:30 with Katherine Holland, QC, for Brent Council summarising her final legal arguments begun yesterday.  Lord Justice Lewinson questioned her on the issues of the the deeds for the land being dated some 6 weeks after the transfer documents dated May 5^th 1982,  when the sale was executed.  Neither Katherine Holland,  or her assistant Matthew Smith were able to provide answers to points raised.

There were further discussions on whether the real estate was at Brent’s free disposal, on legalities related to the deeds and to the matter of charitable trust.

Peter Crampin, QC, for Stonebridge Community Trist ended the legal arguments with,

“The question still remains ….a fiduciary obligation…owed to the public in Brent being the beneficiaries of a charitable trust…..something for the community in Brent to achieve…very ambitious political objectives, which the GLC had in mind”.

Lord Justice Lewinson ended the hearing at 11:43.

“Thank you for your interesting submissions…a lot of public interest seen by the attendance of a number of participants following remotely”.

The draft Order will be available in due course.

About this event

Pfizer vaccination event Wembley Stadium

You can choose a booking in an allocated time slot. If there are no tickets left, then we will also be allowing walk-ins ( but bookings are prioritized )

12-15 year olds: First dose ( must be accompanied by an adult )

16-17 year olds: First dose and second dose ( 12 weeks after first )

18+: First dose, second dose ( eight weeks after first ) and boosters ( 3 months after second dose)

TICKETS CLICK HERE

 Guest post from Philip Grant in personal capacity

Despite being given many good reasons why they should not go ahead with their proposed redevelopment of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, the current home of the Brent Start adult education college, notice has appeared on the Council’s website of the intention to award a contract for the work.

I have responded to that by sending an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, who can authorise that award, and to the Lead Member for Education, who should be consulted before that decision is made. I have asked Martin to publish my open letter, so that Brent’s residents are aware of the reasons why that contract should not be awarded:-

To: Alan Lunt, Strategic Director (Regeneration)
      Cllr. Thomas Stephens (Lead Member for Education)   

       From Philp Grant

      (copy to Neil Martin, Schools Capital Programme Team)

This is an Open Letter

                                                                                                              16 December 2021

Dear Mr Lunt and Councillor Stephens,

Proposed award of a Design and Build contract for work at 1 Morland Gardens NW10

I note from Brent Council’s website that Mr Lunt will be requested to decide, on 4 January 2022, to approve the award of ‘a contract to enter into a Two Stage D&B JCT Contract’ in respect of the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.

There are a number of reasons why no such contract should be entered into, at least until several outstanding matters have been resolved. I would set these out as follows:

1. Stopping-up of highway and/or footpath:

There has been previous correspondence, and Freedom of Information Act requests, about this issue, yet Brent Council has still not sought to obtain a stopping-up order for the highway or footpath which runs in front of 1 Morland Gardens. Unless or until such an order is obtained, the land which that right of way runs across cannot be built over or obstructed with hoardings around a construction site.

This was confirmed by Brent’s Development Management Manager in an FoI response of 25 May 2021, when he said:

‘An application to formally stop up the highway has not yet been received. This would need to be submitted and approved prior to any development taking place on the areas that are currently adopted highway. Until the stopping-up process has been completed under S247 of the Town & Country Act 1990, works will not be able to start on the development insofar as it affects highway land.’

As the proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens is dependent on that highway / footpath being available to be built over, it seems reckless to award a contract for that development until it is clear that it is legally permissible to do that.

2. Appropriation of Land for Planning Purposes:

As with 1 above, it does not appear that either of the two parcels of land required for the proposed redevelopment have been appropriated for planning purposes.

The land and buildings at 1 Morland Gardens itself are currently used for educational purposes. That may well need to be appropriated for a mixed-use development to take place on the site.

The land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, as well as the highway / footpath, is open space used for a community garden. Its trees and gardens (although the Council has allowed them to fall into some disrepair) still provide an area of peace for residents, shielded from the busy traffic of Hillside and Brentfield Road, and a haven for wildlife. In a time of climate emergency, they also help to deal with air pollution and CO2 emissions. 

Can you honestly say that this land is no longer required for those purposes? If not, it cannot be appropriated for planning purposes. And as the plans for which the Council received approval depend on building over that land, the redevelopment could not proceed without appropriation, so awarding a contract for that work would be pointless (and costly).

3. Legal pre-requisites:

Both the stopping-up and the appropriation are legal requirements before the Council’s plans can go ahead. I would remind Mr Lunt of what he wrote in an email to me on 2 June 2021:

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

The demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa, originally “Altamira” and now the Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens, is required if the proposed new development is to be built. If that cannot be demolished (and as a heritage asset, Brent’s own adopted policies should mean that it is not demolished!), there is no sense in awarding a contract reliant on that demolition.

4. Effect of the proposed demolition on Climate:

It is now well established that demolition and rebuilding on the same site emits far more CO2 than simply refurbishing an existing building, and the difference between the two figures is very large. Brent Council, having declared a Climate Emergency, should not be embarking on projects which contribute more to the harmful effects of Climate Change than is necessary.

I have argued before, and still believe, that Brent Start would be better served by building a new college facility as part of another redevelopment (such as that at Unisys / Bridge Park). That would mean the college only has to move once, and 1 Morland Gardens could them be the subject of a sympathetic redevelopment for social housing, which retains the historic parts of “Altamira”, and only demolishes the later additions. 

As well as being better for the climate, Brent’s acceptance of my proposed option would free up the Twybridge Way site, so that Phase 2 of Brent Council’s new housing plans for Stonebridge (including family houses and the much-needed independent living flats) can go ahead, rather than delayed for years by being tied to your flawed Morland Gardens plans.

Again, entering into the proposed contract would commit Brent to the current scheme, or incur substantial costs in getting out of it.

5. Design and Build contract:

In the “Authority to Re-tender Report” last summer, this type of contract was described as follows:

‘With a two-stage D&B contract, the first stage is the Pre-Construction Services Agreement (PCSA). The PCSA will define the services that are required of the contractor during the pre-construction phase and is generally similar to a consultancy agreement. It will make clear the contractor is undertaking design work, the design liability and what will happen to this liability if they are not appointed for the second stage. If the contractor operates within the GMP and approved budget, the Council triggers the second stage by entering into the D&B Contract and the building works then commence.’

Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head? That design was given an award in September 2020. 

The approved and award-winning design would have a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (and be one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding. If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price (“GMP”) for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work. 

That appears to be what happened over another award-winning innovative design, for the 2009 development called Granville New Homes in South Kilburn. You are (or should be) well aware of the problems and additional costs to Brent Council which that has caused! Awarding the proposed D&B contract for 1 Morland Gardens could well lead to similar results, and you should reconsider the situation very carefully before doing so.

6. Water Main:

Although the Officer Report to Planning Committee glossed over this point, Thames Water pointed out that because the footprint of the proposed building would take it within 5 metres of major water mains along Hillside and Brentfield Road, construction should not take place. This was “dealt with” by including a condition (No. 44) in the formal planning consent:

‘No construction shall take place within 5m of the water main. Information detailing how the developer intends to divert the asset / align the development, so as to prevent the potential for damage to subsurface potable water infrastructure, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any construction must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved information. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for the maintenance and repair of the asset during and after the construction works.’

In other words, the water main under these roads, and at a very busy junction, must be “diverted” before any construction on the site can take place. Has this major work been done, or has Brent Council set aside the money for this work? If not, there is again a built-in delay before any construction could take place at 1 Morland Gardens. No contract should be awarded until that matter has been resolved.

I hope that you, Mr Lunt, and Cllr. Stephens (who should be consulted as Lead Member on this project), will consider the points I have raised very carefully, before reaching a decision on whether to award the proposed Design & Build contract for 1 Morland Gardens. 

If you feel that the reasons I have given, for not awarding the contract, should be ignored, I would be grateful if you would write to me to explain why. Thank you.

Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

 The not terribly clear Kilburn Neighbourhood Area map on the council website

Brent and Camden residents have until 5pm this afternoon to respond to the consultation on the re-designation of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum for another 5 years.  This will allow the Forum to go ahead with its Neighbourhood Plan.

South Kilburn was originally part of the Forum but was withdrawn after intervention of the South Kilburn Trust. This is rather puzzling given the number of planning issues on the estate covered in this blog, including open spaces and flooding concerns.

Redrawing of the area covered by the Forum is not part of this consultation.

From Brent Council Website LINK

Kilburn Neighbourhood Area and Forum