Dear Editor,

We own a company supplying packaging to the jewellery and gift trade, which has been successfully trading for over 65 years.

For many years we were happily situated in our own approximately 20,000sq ft warehouse and factory in Highbury, Islington.

Then one day in 2000 we were presented with a proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) to make way for the new Emirates Arsenal stadium and luxury flats. Arsenal working together with Islington Council decided they needed our premises and from that time on they made our lives a living hell. Eventually the CPO came through in 2005 and the offer of compensation and help they were obliged to offer, was derisory and to finally get a settlement cost hundreds of thousands fighting in court. We knew we could not fight Arsenal, especially with the Emirates and Islington council behind them. All we wanted was a fair deal to help us move and to compensate us for all the troubles, which unfortunately we did not get. The grief and heartache that went together with this episode is unforgettable and definitely took years off the Directors’ lives.

However, in 2007 having no option and with limited funds, we moved to much smaller premises in Wembley, Middlesex. This time we were renting commercial offices and warehouse from old business friends who were downsizing their business. We had a good relationship with them for many years and were offered favourable terms to stay. We had a solid business plan in place based on our income and expenditure, taking inflation into account on a yearly basis and we were all happy and contented.

Imagine our surprise when in 2019/2020 we were once again presented with a CPO situation. This time it was CBRE / St George who working with the local Brent council had bought up huge tracts of land in Beresford Avenue to redevelop for housing.

This means that we are once again confronted with a situation where we are going to be evicted from our premises with no recourse to help or assistance from the local council or CBRE.

Whilst we have no argument with the council for trying to put more family housing in place, we really feel that we should be compensated for, and in a correct manner. This means that we require realistic financial help to move to suitable premises that fit our requirements, and so far, this does not appear forthcoming, and all our requests have been refused.

It therefore appears that, to our shock and disgust, we will have to move shortly from our current premises and fund most of the move ourselves. The amounts on offer are derisive and are nowhere near enough to move comfortably and set ourselves up once again.

Whilst it is incumbent by law for CBRE to find us alternative premises, very little suitable places have been offered to us. Furthermore, any comparable premises that we have found suitable, are higher in costs than we have been paying and continue to pay currently and are rejected out of hand as ‘being too expensive’.

When we enquired why the financial offer re moving did not include help to meet these ‘forced on us’ increased costs, like higher rents and rates etc, for similar size area, we were basically advised that either you take our offer or suffer in silence!

This we feel is extremely unfair and definitely not what we require or wish to hear.

Financial blackmail is sickeningly ugly, and we who are the ‘piggy in the middle’ have no say whatsoever.

We cannot believe that in the 21st Century – a private company in bed with local government can run roughshod over a small company, that has been trading for many years and that offers employment to local people, and they can just push us out with no real recompense.

We are currently at a standstill.

We have a really sinking feeling that this is going the way of our previous CPO with no one to address these venture capitalists who can run roughshod over people with absolutely no comeback.

Finer Packaging

Lilia House

14 Beresford Avenue

Wembley Middlesex

HA0 1YP

UK Health Security Agency Omicron cases in Brent amd Harrow as of December 13th

 FROM harrow.gov.uk

The Head of the UK Health Security Agency has called the Omicron variant “probably the most significant threat” since the start of the pandemic.

 Philip Grant concludes his fascinating series on a pioneering Indian in Wembley

Thank you for joining me for this final part of Ram Singh Nehra’s story. If you missed Part 2, you can find it here. At the end of that episode, I asked: ‘Did Nehra stand for election to Parliament?’

Ram Singh Nehra in the 1930s. (Extract from a family photograph, courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

I’ve not been able to find out whether Nehra was chosen as a possible Labour Party candidate for the Commons, but the records of by-elections from 1936 to 1938 make no mention of him. I wonder whether his view of British politicians would have changed, if he had been elected, from that in his report on Parliament’s consideration of the India Bill, in the autumn of 1935:

‘Politicians are wonderful people. Their power of speech knows no limits of any kind. They wield such magic through their words that listeners often wonder if the world is fast approaching its end or the millennium is just about to dawn. The press is usually an obedient mistress of the clever politicians. Very few English people know the real facts and circumstances in their proper prospective.’

There was some happy news for Nehra and his wife in June 1936, when their third child, Brian, was born (the birth again being recorded in the Hendon Registration District, which included Wembley). However, by 1938, Nehra was making the news for the wrong reasons. The headline on a report about him in January read: “SOLICITOR FINED £100” (which may not seem much now, but would be about six months’ starting salary for an ordinary local government employee then). 

A disciplinary committee, ‘sitting in public in the Court Room, Carey-street, London, W.C.’, had found him guilty of breaching the Solicitors’ Practice Rules. His crime? ‘That he had done or permitted in the carrying on of his practice acts and things which could reasonably be regarded as touting or advertising or as calculated to attract business unfairly.’ Solicitors were not allowed to advertise! Was this an advertisement, in his magazine: ‘If you have any just cause or grievance and have no medium of expression, write to the Editor of “The Indian”’?

Local newspaper cutting from April 1938. (Image from the internet)

A few months later, another newspaper report records that ‘Mr R. Nehra, of Chalk Hill Road, Wembley,’ had knocked down an elderly lady in Dartmouth Road, Willesden, with his car. I don’t know whether any action was taken against him following this accident, but by that time Nehra had other activities that he was pursuing.

I referred previously to Nehra writing that his hobbies were ‘building, books, journalism and social gatherings’. I’ve recently learned that he had “The Shalimar” built for him and his family on a plot of land he’d bought in Chalkhill Road, but I don’t know whether he did any other building in the Wembley area. In 1937, however, he bought a block of land on the coast near Eastbourne. Mr and Mrs Nehra became directors of Pevensey Beach Buildings Ltd, and their company began developing an estate of seaside bungalow homes on the East Sussex coast.

A Pevensey Beach Buildings Ltd compliments slip. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

The Martello Estate was on a block of land between the main coast road and the beach. Near the seaward end was a Martello Tower, one of 103 small round stone forts built along the south-east coast of England in the early 19^th century, to defend against a possible invasion by Napoleon’s French army. The company built two streets of bungalows there, between 1937 and 1939. At first, Nehra drove down from London a couple of times a week, to check on progress. Later, the family moved down to a rented home at Westham Drive, Pevensey Bay.

Nehra found himself in trouble again, and in December 1938 he was in court, defending his company against a prosecution brought by Hailsham Rural District Council. Hailsham Petty Sessions (the local magistrates) heard that the company had connected the drains from its estate to the local Council’s sewers. However, it had failed to notify the Council that it was doing so, or to provide plans showing what it proposed to do, so was in breach of the Public Health Act, 1936!

Headline from “The Sussex Agricultural Express”, 23 December 1938. (Image from the internet)

By 1939, the Nehra family moved to 3 Grenville Road (the street probably named after their oldest child) on the Martello Estate. In July 1939 their fourth child, Ruby, was born, and her birth was registered in the Hailsham District [although Pevensey Bay is some distance from the inland town of Hailsham itself, its Rural District stretched down to the coast]. The household, by this time, appears to have included a nanny, Emily Westgate from Hastings, and an under-nurse, Maureen Pickett from St Leonards-on-Sea.

Martello Estate bungalows in Grenville Road, Pevensey Bay. (Image from Google Streetview)

In September 1939, Germany invaded Poland, Britain declared war on Germany, and the Second World War broke out. The following January, the Nehra family sailed from England for India, and their nanny, Miss Westgate, went with them. They travelled First Class, arriving in Bombay (Mumbai) the following month. Nehra had hoped that he could be reconciled with his family, who had disowned him when he married a woman who was white, and not a Hindu. But when he called on them with Myfanwy, they were not even allowed into the house.

Luckily, Nehra did have friends in India, and he and his family were offered the use of a wing in a palace, in the Himalayan “hill station” resort of Mussoorie, for as long as needed. Myfanwy wrote about this in a letter from Lucknow to her twin sister, Kathleen (“Kit”), in March 1940:-

Opening page of Myfanwy Nehra’s letter to her sister, 24 March 1940. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

The letter said that they would have to travel ‘the last few miles by rickshaw’. Writing again ten days later, from the Dilaram Palace in Camel’s Back Road, she told her sister: 

‘We are 7000 feet above sea level and 6000 of it all up one mountain. How they made the road I don't know. It's swerves round and round – the most fearful hairpin bends - just a narrow road & ravines straight down. I shut my eyes half the time - beautifully green – trees etc. - Then rice growing, other parts wild. Not a bit flat just climbing all the time, round and round. As we turned round some bends one could see all our cavalcade - about 30 coolies with trunks and boxes on their backs…. [and] five or six men pushing each rickshaw.’

Myfanwy, Ram, Grenville and Sheila, with Palace servants and coolies. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

Despite the idyllic surroundings, Myfanwy reported that she had not felt well. We’ve seen before that, in 1935, Nehra had referred to ‘my wife’s serious illness’. After just a few months in Mussoorie, the family moved to New Delhi, for better medical facilities, but on 29 September 1940 Myfanwy Nehra died from breast cancer, in the Lady Irwin Hospital.

His wife’s death, and the collapse of his solicitor business in London (in the hands of an employee who proved untrustworthy), left Ram depressed and without an income. Emily the nanny and his teenage son Grenville rallied round, and for the rest of the war the family ran a succession of hotels for British soldiers on leave, in various cities including Gwalior, Old Dehli and Srinigar. As soon as they could, after the Japanese surrender had brought the war in the east to an end, they returned to England, only this time sailing Third Class.

By October 1945, Nehra was back in England, and sold his detached house in Chalkhill Road to clear his debts. He already knew that the bungalow at 3 Grenville Road had been repossessed by the Halifax Building Society during the war, but he went down to Pevensey Bay, to sort out matters there. 

Not long after the Nehra’s had left for India, the beach and the tower at the edge of it, had been declared a prohibited area, and fenced off with barbed wire. Britain feared that this stretch of coast might be where a German invasion landed, with good reason. A mile to the east was Norman’s Bay, where William the Conqueror’s army landed in 1066. The Romans had built a “Saxon Shore” fort (now Pevensey Castle, with wonderfully intact walls), to protect their British province from invaders, and the Martello Tower itself was built for fear of a Napoleonic attack.

Aerial view of the Martello Estate, from the sea. (Image from Google maps)

Nehra had arranged for some friends, Mr and Mrs Wilson, who’d bought a home in Grenville Road, to look after the furniture from his bungalow, and other materials and plant belonging to his building company, which had been stored in the Martello Tower. After the war, some had been sold, but they could not account for the proceeds, or what had happened to the rest. This led to the Wilsons being prosecuted, although they were acquitted by the local magistrates.

Cutting from the “Eastbourne Herald”, 2 November 1946. (Image from the internet)

The newspaper report of the case said that Nehra lived at 3 Grenville Road, ‘and also at Preston-road Wembley’. The 1948/49 Curley’s Directory shows his address as 121 Preston Road, and I’ve now learned that this was the Nehra family’s first home in Wembley, when they arrived back from Kenya. Ram Singh Nehra had bought the recently-built semi-detached house around 1929, and named it “Mombasa”. It was rented out when they moved “upmarket” several years later, but it became their home again after the war.

L to R: daughter-in-law Betty, Ram and Emily, their daughter Julia and her friend Elizabeth,outside 121 Preston Road, early 1960s. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

This article was about ‘a Wembley Indian in the 1930s’, but Nehra’s story here continued into the 1940s and beyond. In 1947, he married his children’s former nanny, Emily Louisa Westgate, and they had a daughter, Julia, in 1949. He went back to work as a solicitor, specialising in criminal cases at the Old Bailey. He also continued his interest in causes he’d championed in the 1930s:

Headed notepaper of the Coloured People’s Aid Society, c.1960. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

121 Preston Road was Nehra’s home for the rest of his life, and he died there, ‘peacefully, after a short illness’, on 29 June 1965. This story began with a garden party at “The Shalimar”, and the home which Nehra had built for his family in the early 1930s also came to a sad end at around the same time. 43 Chalkhill Road was one of the many houses which the new Brent Council compulsorily purchased, in order to build its Chalkhill Estate (1 to 41, numbered from Blackbird Hill, were spared!). Einstein House now stands on its site.

Chalkhill Road demolition, c.1966, and Einstein House now. (Brent Archives / Google Streetview)

I hope you’ve enjoyed reading about Ram Singh Nehra. His story not only tells us about the 1930s, through the eyes of an Indian gentleman, but also raises some thought-provoking points which are still relevant today. If you have any comments, or any further information (perhaps you knew Julia Nehra at Preston Manor School in the 1960s?), please add them below.

Philip Grant*, Wembley History Society, December 2021.

* Although I’m the one who has written this article (and any errors are mine), it would not have happened without the initial enquiry from Winston, and some excellent online research by my Wembley History Society colleagues, Christine and Malcolm, to help answer it. Further details about the family came from Myfanwy’s great-nephew, Arthur, and more recently from Ram’s grandson, Tyrone, and I’m grateful to them both for their contributions. Local history societies in Hailsham and Pevensey & Westham also kindly answered some queries from me.

 From London Mayor's Office

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has today declared a ‘major incident’ due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant across the capital.

The Mayor took the decision as the formal Chair of the London Resilience Forum following discussions with leaders from NHS London, local authorities and emergency and other essential services in the capital.

It comes as the number of COVID-19 cases in London has rapidly increased, with 65,525 new confirmed cases in the past seven days, and 26,418 cases reported in the last 24 hour period alone – the highest number since the start of the pandemic. In the last week, the number of COVID-19 patients in London hospitals has gone up 29 per cent.

The impact of rising case numbers is already being felt across the capital with staff absences in frontline services causing challenges. By declaring a major incident it will help authorities support each other to reduce service disruption and allow more time to administer booster vaccines, as we learn more about the severity of the variant and the impact it will have on the NHS.

A major incident is defined as an event or situation with a range of serious consequences which requires special arrangements to be implemented by one or more emergency responder agency. It is “beyond the scope of business-as-usual operations, and is likely to involve serious harm, damage, disruption or risk to human life or welfare, essential services, the environment or national security”.  In addition, “the severity of the consequences associated with a major incident are likely to constrain or complicate the ability of responders to resource and manage the incident”.

It means that coordination arrangements between key public services will be further stepped-up with the re-establishment of the Strategic Coordinating Group, which will have a Government representative enabling London to seek further support from government to address the pressures facing the city.

The Mayor previously declared a major incident on January 8 due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 and its impact on the NHS, but was able to stand it down on February 26 as case numbers fell.

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said: 

The surge in cases of the Omicron variant across our capital is hugely concerning, so we are once again declaring a major incident because of the threat of COVID-19 to our city.

 

The Omicron variant has quickly become dominant with cases increasing rapidly and the number of patients in our hospitals with COVID-19 on the rise again. We are already feeling the impact across the capital and while we are still learning about this variant, it’s right that London’s key agencies work closely together to minimise the impact on our city, including helping to protect the vital vaccination programme.

 

We know that the vaccine offer our best defence against the virus. There are now more clinics in London delivering vaccines than at any point during the pandemic. I urge all Londoners to book their appointment or to go to one of the many walk-in centres across the capital as soon as you can.

Georgia Gould, Chair of London Councils, said: 

The rapid spread of Omicron across our city is of huge concern. Local councils have stepped up and played a vital role in supporting their communities through the pandemic, I know they will continue with these efforts but we cannot do this alone. Vaccines offer the best protection against the virus and now more than ever it’s important that Londoners take up the offer to get a booster as soon as possible. If you’ve not had your first and second dose yet, please do come forward and protect yourselves and others around you. Together we must do all we can to defeat this virus.

 Gary Nolan, Transport for London's Strategic Engagement Lead wrote to local councillors late last night to tell them that negotiations had produced a short-term extension of government funding.  This followed a major campaign by the London Mayor about the potential impact of a failure to agree funding that would include closing some underground lines and curtailing services.

We have today agreed a further short-term extension to our current funding agreement with the Government. The extension will continue to 4 February 2022 and will allow us to run services and meet all our contractual commitments until then. No new Government funding has been provided for borough funding and active travel during the extension period.

 

Funds already allocated from both the June settlement and the Government's Active Travel Fund are still available to continue the delivery of agreed projects, but we are unfortunately not able to allocate any new funding to boroughs during the extension period. I understand this is disappointing, however we are grateful for this support and, given the very short-term nature of this new funding extension, work must now continue to engage the Government in meaningful discussion on long-term sustained funding so that a hugely damaging period of managed decline can be avoided.

 

We are determined to play our full role in the next phase of pandemic and continue to support the capital as we have to date.

 

 Thank you to everyone who had a go at last weekend’s Wembley history picture quiz. It seemed to get quite a few people viewing it, and I hope you enjoyed it. 

Were there a few (or more?) of the pictures that you didn’t know the answers to? If that was the case, now is your chance to discover some new details about Wembley’s past. I’ve also included several “links”, that will provide more information, if you want it:-

If you were feeling competitive, you can now see how many of the twenty questions you got the right answers to.

There are no prizes, but if you want to publish your score (just to let others know how well, or badly, you did), you are welcome to add a comment below – only honest claims, please!

Philip Grant, 

Wembley History Society.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s proposed Cecil Avenue development.

It is more than four months since I first raised questions about Brent Council’s proposals for the Cecil Avenue site in its Wembley Housing Zone scheme. Brent has an urgent need for genuinely affordable Council homes. This is Council-owned land, and the Council has had full planning permission for it since February 2021. Why was it proposing that 152 of the 250 homes on this site should be for a private developer to sell for profit?

I got no answers from the Cabinet members or Council Officers that I asked to explain this “preferred option” (which Brent’s Cabinet approved on 16 August). In order to force them to say something on this matter, I asked a Public Question for November’s Full Council meeting. The written reply I received from Cllr. Shama Tatler before the meeting sidestepped the main points of my question.

A supplementary question was asked, on my behalf, at the Full Council meeting on 22 November, but the Lead Member for Regeneration was not there to answer it. I eventually received a written reply, but again the key points in it were not answered by Cllr.Tatler (or the Council Officer who composed the reply on her behalf).

As well as the lack of genuinely affordable housing in the Council’s scheme, I was troubled as to why Brent was involving a private developer in what should have been a solely Council housing project. In addition to preparing the supplementary question, I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise in April 2021. I’ve now received the Council’s response, and you may well be interested to know what I have found out (and what Brent’s Officers still don’t want to disclose).

I learned that this “market testing” had taken place from this paragraph in the Wembley Housing Zone report to the 16 August 2021 Cabinet meeting:

'3.5.4 Soft market testing interviews with five developers undertaken April 2021 confirm general market appetite for new housing development opportunities, specific market appetite for Wembley as a location for private sales housing, the two planning schemes, preferred delivery approach for 50% affordable housing, procurement and contractual arrangements.'

But why were Brent’s Officers involving private developers in a Council scheme in the first place? An earlier paragraph in the report had said:

‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated a preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site, namely that the Council finance construction, retain the affordable housing, and procure a developer partner to build out and take the private sales housing ….’

I’ve checked the minutes of the July 2020 Cabinet meeting, but I found nothing to substantiate that statement. If Cabinet memberswere consulted, it must have been “off record”, so who were they? Almost certainly the Lead Member for Regeneration, probably the Council Leader also, and possibly the Deputy Leader and / or Lead Member for Housing. Any of those who were not consulted are welcome to let me know.

Some of Cabinet’s “likely suspects” for Brent’s Cecil Avenue scheme.

So, what did I find out about the Council’s “soft market testing”, as part of its efforts to ‘procure a development partner’ for the Wembley Housing Zone? Here is the first question I asked, with the reply I received in red:

1) What were the names of the five developers who were interviewed?

                    Anthology, Higgins, London Square, Lovell and United Living.

Anyone who has read the Wembley Matters coverage on Granville New Homes and the Ridge Report will be as surprised as I was to see “Higgins” included on the list! They seem to crop up on a number of Brent Council schemes over recent years, almost as if they were a favoured contractor. The only excuse for them being invited to take part in this exercise is that it might have taken place a week or two before Council Officers were aware of the contents of the Ridge Report, including that:

‘Since taking handover of the buildings, from the original developer Higgins construction, problems with water ingress from the external envelope have been noted.’   and:

‘The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.’

Higgins Homes is a client of Terrapin Communications, who have cropped up over local planning and development issues on “Wembley Matters” before. Back in 2017, Terrapin treated Cllrs Muhammed Butt and Shama Tatler to a three course dinner, where they met a number of the PR company’s developer clients. Those clients included London Square, who are building a scheme at Neasden Lane, with Clarion Housing.

Anthology are the company behind the Wembley Parade development at North End Road, Wembley Park, while one of United Living’s current schemes is with Network Homes in South Kilburn. Lovell are big nationwide housebuilders, but their only project in London at the moment is in Woolwich.

Why were these developers chosen for this “soft market testing”, and who chose them? Those were the points I raised in my next two FoI questions (with the Council’s replies in red):

2) What method or process was used by Brent Council to choose which developers to interview for this "soft market testing" exercise?

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing based on their knowledge and experience of the London property market, to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement; this is a standard approach taken in public procurement.

3) How many Council Officers, and how many elected members of the Council, were involved in choosing these developers? What positions within Brent Council did these Officers and elected members hold?

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing. No elected members were involved in selecting developers for the WHZ soft market testing.

Now we get onto what Brent’s “soft market testing” actually involved:

4) How were the prospective interviewee developers for this exercise contacted to take part in these interviews? Please provide copies of the email, letter or other communication sent to the developers, and a copy of any information about the proposed Wembley Housing Zone developments provided to them in advance of the interviews.

Developers were contacted by telephone and emailed a diary invitation and an information pack in advance of the meeting, copy of which is included in this response (names are redacted as personal information exempt under s40(2) FOIA).

The email, sent 19 April 2021, was brief, and I will just include its main text here, but the ‘information pack’ is very informative, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that at the end of this article:

‘Hi …(redacted)…

Please find attached information pack which would be useful to review ahead of our meeting tomorrow, as it provides you with some further information about the schemes we will be discussing.

Look forward to seeing you then! Best,
……(redacted)……

Regeneration Project Manager.’

Final page of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

From the “Scheme Design” details for the Cecil Avenue site on page 2, it is clear that Council Officers (perhaps in consultation with a Lead Member?) had decided, well in advance of submitting proposals to Cabinet for a decision, that 152 of the 250 homes to be built on the former Copland School land would be for private sale, including 20 of the 64 family-sized homes. 

Although said to be an exercise ‘to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement’,this was clearly a very specific piece of “market testing”. This can be seen from the way the exercise was carried out, and the Council Officers involved in it:

5) How were the interviews actually conducted in practice (e.g. telephone, online meeting, face-to-face meeting, written questionnaire)? How many representatives of Brent Council took part in each interview, and what positions in the Council did each one hold?

All WHZ soft market testing sessions were held online and attended by the Regeneration Manager and a Procurement Officer. The Head of Regeneration, a Senior Lawyer, and a Regeneration Officer also attended some sessions.

If a Senior Brent Council Lawyer was involved in some of the sessions, it suggests that at least some of the prospective developers were getting quite serious about the chance of becoming Brent’s “development partner” for this Wembley Housing Zone scheme!

That was the last of my FoI questions that Brent (through its Head of Regeneration, Jonathan Kay) were prepared to disclose information on. I had asked for copies of the notes of the five interviews, and was not surprised that these were refused, as being confidential and commercially sensitive. However, I was disappointed with the response to my final point:

7) If the person(s) who conducted the interviews produced a report summarising the results obtained, please let me have a copy of that report, and the position(s) at Brent Council of the person(s) to whom that report was addressed.

We consider the summary report from the WHZ soft market testing is confidential (s41 FOIA) and commercially sensitive (s43 FOIA) and therefore exempt from disclosure.

I won’t bore you with “chapter and verse” of Brent’s legal arguments over why they consider that Sections 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act apply in this case. Nor will I bore you with my reasons why they don’t apply to much of the information in that summary report, but I have made my case and asked for an Internal Review of the refusal to supply a copy. 

Brent clearly doesn’t want me, or you, to know what was going on over its discussions with private developers in connection with its Cecil Avenue development. But why should those private developers be invited to make a profit from selling 152 homes on a Council scheme, that Brent residents urgently need? Will anyone at the Civic Centre give us a full and honest answer, and if not, why not?

Philip Grant.

The London Flood Review has been set up to examine the flash flooding that affected many parts of the capital in July 2021.  The review seeks to better understand the extent and causes of these floods, to assess how the drainage systems performed, and to recommend how the increasing risks of future flooding events can be managed.

The review, which has been commissioned by Thames Water, will play an integral part in ensuring the company future proofs its infrastructure to protect its customers, their communities and the environment as such severe weather events look set to become the norm across the UK.

The review will also play an important role in improving collaborative working between all parties responsible for managing future flooding risks. As part of its focus, the review will provide insights on London’s wider drainage infrastructure and broader recommendations that could be adopted by all organisations with surface water management responsibilities.

INDEPENDENT REVIEW INTO THE FLOODING IN LONDON ON 12 & 25 JULY 2021

Terms of Reference

1. Why has Thames Water commissioned an independent review?
 

On 12 and 25 of July 2021, London experienced extreme rainfall events that led to extensiveflooding, with more than a thousand homes and businesses flooded, and health, social and transportinfrastructure also affected. Given the scale of the impact on its customers and local businesses, Thames Water has taken the unusual step of commissioning an independent review into the flooding as the organisation believes it is important to understand the root cause of the flooding, how its assets performed and to learn lessons so the company and other parties may better prepare for future risks, in an open and transparent way.

This review will also assist with Thames Water’s role (as a Risk Management Authority) in supportingLocal Authorities in undertaking their flooding investigations as required by Section 19 of the Flood
and Water Management Act (2010). Thames Water’s ambition is that the review should take no more than 6 months, with interimreports published as it progresses. This timeframe is planned so that the review concludes within aperiod where the findings are relevant to the key stakeholders and also are able to inform ThamesWater’s draft PR24 business plan. As such, the review must balance the desire for comprehensivescope, level of detail and stakeholder engagement, with the need to complete within this timeframe.

This will mean that the review will primarily focus on the performance of Thames Water’s assets,within the context of other Risk Management Authorities’ assets, and be developed using existingThames Water models.

2. What is the aim of the independent review?

The review has four core objectives. To:

1) Research, understand and report on the ‘what, when, why and how’ of the twoJuly storms

Key to the investigation is capturing as accurately as possible what occurred,where and how customers were affected, i.e. the number and type of properties impacted,the type of flooding (internal/external, surface/sewer) they experienced etc. This needs tobe undertaken in the context of understanding the storms that occurred i.e., characteristicsof rainfall and also where it occurred because the impact will not be the same across thedifferent affected areas. This will also identify whether there were other factors (such ashigh tide, time of day etc) that potentially contributed to the flooding and what impact
they might have had.

2) Examine the flooding mechanisms and to consider the performance of drainagesystems against design standards.

This will determine how well Thames Water’s assetsperformed on 12 and 25 July in accordance with the duty set out in Section 94 of the WaterIndustry Act.

 The assessment should be of Thames Water’s drainage and sewerage assets ingeneral in the affected boroughs, with a specific focus on recent flood alleviation schemes,including Maida Vale, Counters Creek and Westbourne Grove and their performance againsttheir project objectives (this will include where Thames Water has installed FLIPs and otherlocal flood risk management measures).

3) Consider how changes to existing and planned drainage system works, operationsand/or policies might have alleviated the flooding and make London more resilientto future storms.  

Whilst the focus of the recommendations will be on the public seweragesystem, these must be made within the context of the interaction between the ThamesWater operated and maintained public sewerage system and third-party drainage and floodrisk management systems. The review should highlight wider points on the future of theLondon’s sewerage and drainage system and identify key opportunities that should beconsidered in Thames Water’s DWMP and PR24 Business Plan, and other stakeholders’ plansand programmes.

4) Be as evidence based as possible.

Further lines of inquiry may be included as raised by the participants of the review, but as notedpreviously, these should not detract from the aim of achieving the core objectives within the statedtimeframe.

3. How will the independent review be run and managed?

In order to be properly independent, the review cannot be led by Thames Water, but neither can itbe entirely independent of Thames Water, as Thames Water is the major provider of informationand resources for the review and will be a key recipient of its recommendations.

The structure of the Independent review is as follows:

1. An Independent Expert Group (‘IEG’) that will lead the review. The IEG’s role is to:
a. Agree the terms of reference and scope for the review, including the brief for thecontractors, in consultation with the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
b. Work with Thames Water to appoint the contractors to support the IEG
c. Work with the contractors to produce the interim and final reports in consultationwith the Strategic Stakeholder Panel
d. Be responsible for the successful outcome of the review
e. Stand behind the findings of the review
f. Promote the review and the dissemination of its findings, including attending anypotential scrutiny/inquiry meetings.

The IEG will consist of three experts with industry-leading knowledge and experience in sewerageand drainage modelling, legislation and regulation, and flood risk management. The experts will beappointed by and paid by Thames Water, but be otherwise independent.

A key early stage to the review will be an assessment by the IEG of available data/models in order toagree what gaps may exist and how best to resolve these gaps within the time available.

2. A Strategic Stakeholder Panel (‘SSP’) comprising representatives from the key strategicorganisations in London with a responsibility for and interest in surface water and sewerflood risk management. The SSP will be consulted on the scope and objectives of the review, inputting into its course, receiving, and (where appropriate) endorsing, promoting, and
enacting its findings. The SSP will include senior representatives from:

a. Greater London Authority
b. Transport for London
c. London Councils

d. London Drainage Engineers’ Group
e. Environment Agency
f. Consumer Council for Water
g. Ofwat (as an observer)
h. Thames Regional Flood & Coastal Committee
i. Thames Water

The IEG will, as a minimum, meet with the SSP at each key stage (see ‘Key Deliverables’ below):
• Inception meeting to discuss and agree the Terms of Reference
• Meeting to review the work programme and agree data requirements from the SSP andother parties
• Review the findings of each stage of the review ahead of publication of the interim reports
• Review the findings of the final report and development of a non-technical summary

3. A contractor (Mott McDonalds) to provide the technical capability and resources toundertake the work detailed in a brief approved by the IEG. The contractors will be procured and funded by Thames Water, but report to and be managed by the IEG.

4. Key Deliverables

The following key deliverables are included to provided structure and clarity around what outputs are required. It is intended that each stage will build on the prior one:
• Stage 1: Full assessment of impact of the storms, detailing the nature of the storms thatoccurred and the impact (extent) of the flooding (who and what was flooded).
• Stage 2: Assessment of the flooding mechanisms and a technical view of where and how  flooding occurred.
Stages 1 and 2 together will form the ‘baseline statement’ for the review:
• Stage 3: Explanation of the performance of the sewerage system, including stating whether the sewerage system and key flood alleviation schemes performed to the intended levels of service.
• Stage 4: Lessons learnt - details of where improvements to the sewerage system andpotentially third-party assets and policies may be appropriate. To be completed by end ofApril 2022.

A report will be published for each of the stages.

(SW  Londoner)

 Paul Lorber has made a Freedom of Information request to Brent Council in the wake of a report earlier this month in  the SW Londoner that Brent Council accounted for just under half of the total expenditure by all London Councils on air flights 2014-21

Lorber pointed out that Brent Council had declared a Climate Emergency and asked:

 (SW Londoner)

At the time of the article's publication Cllr Krupa Sheth, Lead Member for Environment, told the SW Londoner:

Council officers do not fly anywhere on council business unless absolutely necessary. All of these flights are directly related to social workers working with vulnerable children. 

Family court orders may require social workers to assess a vulnerable child’s extended family in their home, which could be abroad, or accompany a child to be reunited with extended family members who live overseas, or visit a child in care a very considerable distance from Brent.

As a part of our strategy we are developing a plan to achieve net zero across our estate and operations by 2030 and we will consider this issue and the potential to offset any necessary flights as part of that review process.

Given that some other London boroughs have similar demographic profiles it is unclear why the Brent should be so much higher.

Anne and Margie at work in Salmon Street

I came across Anne and Margie in Salmon Street, Kingsbury this morning and paused for a chat.

The 80 year old twins have formed the AM Litter Patrol to pick up litter  in the shrubby verges of Salmon Street and invite others to join them.

Their placard says, 'I'm only 80, you figure it out!' suggesting that if 80 year olds can do their bit for the environment then others can too.

The initiative emerged from the twins' concern about climate change and the impact it will make on the next generations:

We didn't realise at the time that we, unknowingly, were contribution to climate change along with the rest of our generation through rampant consumerism. We know now and want to play our part in preserving and improving the environment.

Like many others who take part in litter-picking they are stunned by the efforts people go to in order to avoid disposing of litter responsibly and amazed at the variety of objects that they pick up in the tangle of vegetation along Salmon Street.

Amidst the gloom of a grey winter's day and pandemic concerns it was a reat treat to meet Anne and Margie. Thank you.

Block A maximum 10 storeys c65metres,  Block B maximum 16 storeys c86metres, Block C maximum 12storeys c72metres.

The proposal:

Phased redevelopment of the site comprising: Demolition of all existing buildings, structures and site clearance, construction of three buildings ranging from 6 to 16 storeys comprising 252 residential units (Use Class C3), and provision of 325 sqm of commercial, business and service floorspace (Use Class E). Hard and soft landscaping works, access and highway alterations, car and cycle parking provision, and associated ancillary works. | 1-75 Crone Court, 1-85 Craik Court and 1-10 Zangwill House, London, NW6 

A group of Craik Court residents have objected  to the above demolition and redevelopment on the South Kilburn Estate on the following grounds:

We object to this application because

1.   Residents were involved in the three consultations during the spring and summer of 2018. The plans in this application do not resemble what was proposed in the final consultation event in September 2018. In these consultations residents said strongly that they did not want buildings over 10 stories high.  We were given the impression in these meetings that what we were shown in September 2018 would resemble what was built. This is not the case.

2.   We do not want high rises in South Kilburn. The application says buildings up to 16 stories will be built. This goes against Brent's Local Plan for the area Craik (p.201) Crone p.202 only mentions up to 14 stories.  Why does this application add 2 extra stories? In the exhibition we were shown the buildings are 8 and 9 stories high. But in this application 16 stories are proposed.   In the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for South Kilburn on p48 it says  that the regeneration  plans " will not propose radical divergence from the mansion block typology" 16 Stories is a radical divergence from this . It has a knock-on effect of causing the area to be too densely populated and the loss of light to other blocks in the area.  

3.   Loss of parking. At the moment Craik has 22 parking spaces, Crone has 28 parking spaces . These spaces are very much in demand, There seems to be no new spaces in these plans but many more dwellings.  In fact there is a heavy loss of spaces. While we agree that with climate change we should discourage car use, many people living in the area need cars for work or because they are not able to get around without them. Where will they park?

The parking on the new plans is only on the road. These roads are now filled with the numbers of people living there. If these buildings are built there will be many more households needing  parking all looking on the same roads for very limited parking.

4.   Loss of light - The height and density of these blocks, if allowed  to go ahead, will cast shadows on the homes and open spaces behind them. This is unacceptable.

5.   Density -  if the number of new homes asked for in this application  is allowed it will put an enormous strain on the already strained infrastructure in the area.  Services such as doctors are over stretched.  There are no doctors at Kilburn Park Surgery and the other local surgery, Lonsdale Practice is full to the brim.

6.   Loss of green spaces. If this plan is accepted there will be a huge loss of green spaces. The area between the two new proposed sites, Canterbury Road, is dark and has 2 huge buildings looming over it in this proposal.

7.   Loss of play space.  The application has a huge loss of playspace which is not made up for with the new  park. The new park was built to replace other play spaces that have already been lost. There is a space in the middle of the building on Canterbury Road but that is only for residents of that block. It cannot make up for open accessible play spaces lost.

FULL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL HERE

There was some speculation on social media from people who witnessed 100 bikers dressed as Santa and other Christmas characters speeding in convoy across the borough.

All was revealed in the Sufra Foodbank's latest Newsletter:

 From the Quality Care Commission

In October, CQC carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the maternity department at Northwick Park Hospital, run by London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust*. This was to follow up on concerns identified during a previous inspection in April, when CQC told the trust to take urgent action to keep mothers and babies safe.

Following the October inspection, the overall rating for maternity services improved from inadequate to requires improvement. Safe, responsive and well-led remain as requires improvement. Caring remains good, and effective moved up from requires improvement to good.

Nicola Wise, CQC’s head of hospital inspection, said:

“I am pleased to say we saw a number of improvements in the maternity department at Northwick Park Hospital during our recent inspection.

“After our previous inspection, we were concerned there was a blame culture within the service which stopped incidents being escalated and improvements being made. This had improved, and staff are encouraged to give feedback and report incidents which are now being reviewed and learning shared, with improvements being tracked. We found a zero-tolerance policy regarding bullying and inappropriate behaviour, which was an improvement from our last inspection.

“Women using the service told us staff treated them with kindness. One person who had recently given birth, said that staff had gone above and beyond to provide safe care and treatment. They also respected people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs. One woman who wore a hijab said that staff had respected them and their privacy regarding this.

“Following this inspection, we pointed out areas where further improvements need to be made. However, the interim leadership team is aware of the issues, and is committed to making the required improvements. Staff told us that senior managers were much more visible, and they were impressed by the change in approach from the leadership team, saying there was no longer a feeling of ‘them and us’. It is clear that leaders need time to fully embed the improvements in the maternity service and make permanent appointments to the team.

“We will continue to monitor the service to check that improvements are made and fully embedded, however, we recognise that all hospitals and healthcare professionals are under extreme pressure at the current time, and they need to be given the space to focus on delivering safe care to patients and supporting staff through this difficult period.”

Inspectors found the following during this inspection:

• The service did not always have enough midwifery staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep women safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Waiting times were longer for women across maternity services when staffing levels were low, though staff were encouraged to report delays as incidents. The birth centre was closed due to staff shortages. Staff shortages also impacted on home visits and clinics provided by community midwives
• Compliance with mandatory staff training was 84%, which did not quite meet the trust’s target of 85%, although it was an improvement
• The service had one never event in September. Never events are serious, largely preventable patient safety incidents. A swab was left inside a patient when they were being induced, even though two members of staff had signed a document showing that the correct number of swabs had been counted following the procedure. Learning from this event was shared across the trust
• The department’s policy was to admit women on their third call in 24 hours to explore any concerns. However, there was no system of recording the time at which women with concerns had previously called
• Some equipment on the resuscitation trolleys was out-of-date and cold cots** in the bereavement suite had been out of operation for two months, as the cooling system had failed, even though this had been reported to the trust
• Inspectors found an open trolley on the delivery suite which contained two drugs vials, presenting a risk that unauthorised people could have access to the vials
• One-to-one antenatal appointments with community midwives were not always being recorded. Inspectors also saw loose paperwork relating to patient assessments which could become detached from women’s notes so information could be misplaced
• Women who were attending the service to have their pregnancy terminated often had to wait for 45 minutes for their appointment in the same waiting room as women attending antenatal and postnatal clinics, which could be distressing for them
• Antenatal classes had been reduced as a result of the logistics of providing classes during the COVID-19 pandemic and staff availability, which meant women did not have access to information that could help them improve their health and wellbeing during pregnancy. Online classes had been planned, but these had not been implemented.

However:

• New interim leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. The new managers understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. However, the trust needed time to embed this improved leadership and also to forge a period of stability by making permanent appointments to the leadership team
• In response to external reviews of the service, managers had produced a maternity improvement plan, which was reviewed and updated weekly
• There had been improvement in doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals working together as a team to benefit women
• Staff recognised and reported incidents and near misses. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about the care they received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff
• Work was in progress to ensure staff completed and updated risk assessments for each woman and took action to remove or minimise risks
• The service had recently employed an audit midwife and a risk midwife to ensure monitoring of patient outcomes and benchmarking of service
• Work was in progress to monitor domestic abuse being assessed at all antenatal appointments
• The service had information boards which carried updates for staff on the maternity risk register. Policies and clinical guidelines were up to date and had dates for review
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staffs’ work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development
• Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of women and how they may relate to care needs. 
  

On Twitter Cllr Ketan Sheth, chair of Scrutiny where he has done much to hold local NHS services to account, said: 

 Pleased to see the Care Quality Commission have upgraded London NW University Healthcare NHS Trust's Northwick Park maternity service to Requires Improvement and rated the service as Good for caring & effective. This is welcome progress for our local maternity service.

The full report is available HERE

Mumbai Junction restaurant (formerly John Lyon pub)

The rejected development

Exercising their delegated responsibilities Brent Council Planning officers have refused the planning application for 231 Watford Road, the site of the Mumbai Junction restaurant, formerly the John Lyon pub.

The Officer's report LINK notes that there were 485 comments received during the course of the application of which only 2 were in support of the proposal. An overwhelming majority for the objectors.

Objections were also received from Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North and Cllr Keith Perrin and Cllr Margaret McLennan (Deputy Leader of Brent Council).

Local residents' association Sudbury Court and Sudbury Town also objected.

Interestingly the report also notes that the 'occupier' of 231 Watford Road submitted a letter of support with 44 signatures.

The developer could Appeal to the Secretary of State over the refusal.

The grounds officers give for refusing the application will repay careful study by any residents responding to developments in the future:

1 The proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would appear as an excessively bulky building which would result in a poor transition to the suburban housing immediately to the south of the application site. The development would be detrimental to the character of the area and the street scene, contrary to Policy CP17 of Brent's Core Strategy 2010, policy DMP1 within Brent's Development Management Policy 2016, policies DMP1 and BD1 of Brent's Draft Local Plan 2020 and the guidance within Brent's Design Guide SPD 2018.

2 Based on the information provided the application has failed to fully assess the relationship between the proposed building and nearby Conservation Area. Therefore the proposal fails to demonstrate that the proposal will have an appropriate relationship with the Sudbury Court Conservation Area. The application therefore fails to comply with Policies DMP1 and DMP7 of the Development Management Policies 2016 and Policies BHC1 and BD1 of the Draft Local Plan and policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021.

3 The proposal would result in a poor standard of accommodation for future residents, by virtue of the following reasons:
- The bedroom serving G.01 would be located within close proximity to the main entrance of the development.
- Positioning of the south facing bedroom serving Unit G. 02
- The bedroom within Unit G.05 located to north would also obtain poor levels of outlook.

The proximity between the proposed flats to the rear of the site and the existing sub station would result in a poor relationship to the detriment of future occupiers based on the information submitted with the application. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the future occupiers would not be adversely affected in health terms in respect of the substation in terms of electromagnetic waves and background noise.

Overall the development would fail to comply with Policy D6 and D14 of the London Plan, Policy DMP1 of the Development Management Policies, Policies DMP1 and BD1 of the Draft Local Plan and Brent’s Design Guide –Supplementary Planning Document 1.

4 The Sunlight and Daylight report has failed to provide an assessment in relation to an overshadowing to the adjacent residential garden areas on Amery Road. As such, the proposal has failed to demonstrate that the rear gardens of these properties would not adversely affected through undue levels of overshadowing. This would be contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Development Management Policies 2016, policy DMP1 of Brent's Draft Local Plan 2020 and the guidance set out in SPD1 "Brent's Design Guide" 2018.

5 The proposal by virtue of the proximity of habitable room windows and balconies/terraces to the upper floor flats at third floor level within the front section of the proposed building in relation to the boundary with No. 135 Sudbury Court Drive would result in outlook over the neighbouring site and unacceptable levels of overlooking and loss of privacy to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of No. 135 Sudbury Court Drive. In addition, by reason of the size and siting of the proposed development, the proposal would result in an over-bearing relationship with the garden and rear facing windows of No. 135 Sudbury Court Drive to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers of that property. Overall, this would result in an adverse impact on the amenities of No. 135 Sudbury Court Driver through overlooking, loss of privacy and undue sense of enclosure. This would be contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Development Management Policies 2016, emerging policy DMP1 in Brent's Draft Local Plan 2020, and the guidance set out in SPD1 "Brent's Design Guide" 2018.

6 The proposal, by reason of the proximity of habitable room windows of the proposed development to the boundary with the adjoining site to the north, and lack of evidence on the access rights to the substation to demonstrate that this would need to be retained in the long term, would fail to have an appropriate regard to the nature of the adjoining site as a development site for mix-use purposes. As such, the submission fails to appropriately demonstrate that the proposal is will result an acceptable relationship with adjoining development site thus resulting in an impact on the capacity of the adjoining site for industrial and residential purposes. This is contrary to policy DMP1 and DMP14 of Brent's Development Management Policies and emerging policies E4 and E7 of the London Plan and policy DMP1 BE3 of Brent's emerging draft Local Plan.

7 The proposal has failed to demonstrate that adequate cycle parking provision in a secure and weather tight area can be provided. As such, it fails to comply with policy T5 of London Plan 2021 and draft policy BT1 of Brent's emerging Local Plan 2020.

8 The proposed development is not subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act which would ensure that the delivery of the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable housing together with an appropriate Affordable Housing review mechanism, and an appropriate level of carbon reduction across the scheme. As such, the impacts of the development would not be mitigated and the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies H4, H5, H6, SI2, Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2 and CP19 and Development Management Policy DMP15. The proposal would also fail to comply with the emerging policies BH5 and BSU1 of the emerging Local Plan, and Brent's S106 Planning Obligations SPD.

 

 Dear Editor,

Brent Council’s real climate change policy was evident last month when the Council justified the demolition of Preston Library by saying ‘the current building is considered inadequate in terms of energy use’.

(Kilburn Times 7^thDecember 2021 - https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/local-council/wembley-anger-as-council-begins-preston-library-demolition-8546130)

Days later residents received an email from the Council promoting its ‘Green Grants to help fight Climate Change’ and asking for applications for ‘energy efficiency improvements’. See Pot 1 at https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/climate-emergency/carbon-offset-fund/

Thus a few days after tearing down a perfectly good building and unnecessarily pumping 600 tonnes of Carbon into the world – the Council asks residents to insulate their homes and invest in low carbon heating – ‘to make a real difference locally to tackle the climate crisis’?

Where residents’ homes are ‘inadequate in energy use’ residents must apply for grants and use personal funds to top up the cost of the measures needed to save the planet. When Brent has a building that is ‘inadequate in energy use’ - it is demolished helping to destroy our climate.

In 2012 – some time before Brent Council realised there was a climate emergency - SKPPRA (South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association) completed a pilot project on energy and carbon savings in our 1930s solid wall houses.

These are ‘entirely inadequate in energy use’ as there is no cavity to insulate but surprisingly no-one suggested demolition as residents do not have the funds available to Brent to demolish perfectly good buildings.

In 2012 all residents in SKPPRA were able to participate, and two houses were chosen at random to have the work done to their house at no cost to the occupants. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) provided the funding through the Local Energy Assessment Fund (LEAF) and monitored the outcome for savings in energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Typical SKPPRA 1930s Semi - All external walls were insulated in LEAF 2012 scheme

In 2012 the project cost twice as much as Brent Council are now offering homeowners in a maximum grant through the Council’s Carbon Offset Fund. Any resident who applies will therefore need significant personal funds to reach the energy and carbon savings of the SKPPRA 2012 LEAF project.

If 480 homes are improved under Brent’s scheme residents will have to invest £4.8m of personal funds to deliver the performance of the SKPPRA 2012 pilot - just to offset the avoidable climate abuse and carbon emissions caused by the Preston Library development.

Quite a transfer of cost and resources from the climate abuser to the residents of Brent.

The destruction of the Preston Library building was not just the loss of a cherished community resource - it helped to destroy the planet.

Happy New Year?

SKPPRA – South Kenton Preston Park Residents Association

The rejected application

Reacting to the refusal of the Planning Application LINK for the site at 231 Watford Road, Sudbury Court Residents' Association told Wembley Matters:

 Our residents are delighted with the outcome.
We had fantastic support from residents in raising local awareness of this inappropriate proposal, resulting in almost 500 objections being submitted.
We are also grateful for the support from our councillors, Margaret McLennan, and Keith Perrin, as well as Barry Gardiner, our MP.  
We hope that this local, community asset can continue to thrive as a location for us to relax and socialise.

 New Year Guest Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

2022 is the year which provides an excellent opportunity to get more of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile mural scenes back on permanent public display. I’ve launched my campaign to get the murals on the walls of Olympic Way, just outside the subway from Wembley Park Station, returned to public view. On 1 January I sent an open letter to Quintain’s Chief Executive Officer, which I’ve set out in full at the end of this article.

The east wall mural scenes in Olympic Way, on display in February 2020.
(Photo by Mark Price, Brent Council)

Full details of the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals can be found in an illustrated article I wrote for Brent Archives. The murals were covered over with vinyl advertising sheets in the autumn of 2013, under a deal between Brent Council officers and Quintain. Wembley History Society campaigned in 2018 to have all of the murals put back on permanent public display. Quintain’s response in 2019 was to do this for just the central mural scene on the east wall of the subway, showing England footballers at the old “twin towers” stadium.

I had hoped I could persuade Brent’s Cabinet not to allow the murals in the subway to remain covered over, when Quintain’s Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease came up for renewal in August 2021. However, in January last year I discovered that the lease had secretly been extended to August 2024 by Council officers, under a very dodgy deal in 2019.

Quintain contractors fixing advertising screens over some of the subway murals in July 2019.

Unfortunately, that lease extension means that it won’t be possible for the rest of the mural scenes, on both sides of the subway, to be seen again in time for the centenary of Wembley Stadium’s opening (for the F.A. Cup final in 1923). The only “good thing” in the extended lease was that Quintain agreed to allow Brent to request that the Olympic Way murals be put on display for up to 21 days a year. In fact, they were put on display for a full five weeks (wow!) at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture 2020.

Now, I’m asking Quintain to “do the right thing”, and not to apply to extend their advertisement consent for the Olympic Way tile murals. I hope that they will respond positively, but if they don’t, I will be just one of many local people who fight their application all the way. I am confident that, if it comes to that, our objections should succeed in stopping the renewal of a consent which Brent’s planners should never have given in the first place.

This is my open letter:

To: James Saunders                                                          From: Philip Grant
       Chief Executive Officer                                                              
       Quintain Limited                                                         (address  removed)
       180 Great Portland Street
        London, W1W 5QZ                                                          

This is an open letter

                                                                                                               1 January 2022

Dear Mr Saunders,

Heritage tile murals at Olympic Way, Wembley Park.

Happy New Year! Quintain and its Wembley Park subsidiary have an important decision to make in 2022, and I am writing, as a member of Wembley History Society, to encourage you and your colleagues to make the right one.

The heritage tile murals at Olympic Way, celebrating sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and Arena, have been covered over with Quintain’s vinyl advertising sheets for most of the time since the autumn of 2013. 

In September 2013, Quintain applied for advertisement consent for a period of five years. Brent’s Planning department did not deal with that application until August 2017, and gave consent for five years from then. Although there was a later advertisement consent in 2019 for the Bobby Moore Bridge subway and parapets, the consent for the tiled walls in Olympic Way expires on 25 August 2022. I hope you will decide notto apply to renew that consent.

When Quintain first entered into a deal with Brent Council officers in 2013, over advertising at the Bobby Moore Bridge and on the walls of Olympic Way to the south of the subway from Wembley Park Station, the London Designer Outlet was just about to open. I can understand why your company then wished to use this “gateway” to its new Wembley Park developments to promote the LDO, and later its Tipi rental flats, Alto apartments and Boxpark joint venture. 

However, the LDO and Quintain’s other Wembley Park developments are now well established and widely known. There is no need for your company to put large advertisements on the walls of Olympic Way to publicise them, especially as you now have larger LED advertising screens on the parapets of Bobby Moore Bridge, and large banner advertising on the new lamp posts along Olympic Way.

That alone would be a good reason not to apply for consent to continue displaying advertisements over the tile murals in Olympic Way. But an even stronger reason is that these murals are part of a public artwork, designed to celebrate an important part of Wembley Park’s history, something which adds to the area’s “sense of place” for residents and visitors.

Quintain and Brent Council may not have realised the cultural and heritage importance of these tile mural scenes in 2013, but that is not the case now. I was one of the Wembley History Society representatives invited to the Mayor of Brent’s “reveal” of the Olympic Way tile murals, at the start of Brent’s year as London Borough of Culture in January 2020. Brent’s publicity for that event said of ‘the heritage tiles at Wembley Park’s Bobby Moore Bridge’:

‘The tiles, which show scenes from famous sports and entertainment events at Wembley Stadium and the SSE Arena, Wembley, are part of Brent’s rich heritage and date back to September 1993 when they were originally dedicated to the legendary footballer.’

Julian Tollast, speaking on behalf of Quintain at the “reveal” event (above), said:

‘The iconic cultural and sporting events at Wembley are celebrated in these heritage tiles behind us, and we are really proud to work with Brent and with Wembley History Society to make the reveal on a periodic basis of these murals possible.'  

Quintain / Wembley Park’s respect for the heritage value of these tile murals was also shown, in the welcome repair of damage caused by water ingress behind the tiles, in March 2021. 

I hope you will agree that the time has come for these heritage assets to be put back on public display, not just ‘on a periodic basis’, but permanently. Advertisement consent to cover the American Football, Rugby League and Ice Hockey mural scenes on the east wall, and the drummer image remnant of the Stadium Concerts scene on the west side of Olympic Way, expires in August 2022. However, if the advertising could be removed before then, in time for the Women’s Euros football final on 31 July, or the summer music concerts (such as those by Ed Sheeran in late June), so much the better. That would allow tens of thousands more visitors to Wembley Park to enjoy them.

I look forward to hearing from you that Quintain / Wembley Park will not be seeking to extend its advertising consent for the tiled mural walls on Olympic Way. 

Thank you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

 Most Brent schools return today amidst concerns over the spread of the Covid Omicron amongst young people and its impact on their families and school staff

Cllr Thomas Stephens, Lead Member for Education in the Brent Cabinet joined councillors from other London boroughs in a call to Secretary of State for Education, Nadhim Zahawi, forpractical action on air filtration in schools.

 From the Bookseller website

The team at New Beacon Books, the UK's first Black specialist bookshop, has praised the “amazing support from the community” following a highly successful crowdfunding campaign which has not only saved the store but netted £76,000 in only a few days. 

Based in London's Finsbury Park, the store announced over the Christmas break it would be shutting its doors and moving entirely online, as financial constraints from Covid-19 and online retail threatened its future.

Academic and actor Francesca Gilbert immediately launched an online fundraising campaign on 30th December with donations flooding in within hours.

The crowdfunding campaign had aimed to raise £35,000 by 24th February 2022 but, by the morning of 31st December, it had already surpassed that total and introduced a new "stretch" target of £50,000 which was also quickly met. It now has donations from 2,427 supporters.

Directors Michael La Rose, Janice Durham and professor Gus John have now outlined their plans for the future on New Beacon Books' website which could include a move to new premises and boosted community engagement. They said: “Due to the amazing support from the community in response to our fundraising campaign yesterday and today, the bookshop has been given a lifeline to assist in moving forward.” 

They explained that the money will be used to pay rent, rates, utilities and other overheads and hire a part-time member of staff to support existing management and volunteers, process online orders and carry out admin work. 

Additionally the crowdfunded cash will enable them to expand New Beacon Books’ community outreach work and educational initiatives within the community as well as restoring New Beacon Books’ publishing platform, which had been reduced in recent years. 

The directors also suggested there could be a move of premises longer term: “For the foreseeable future, New Beacon Books will continue to be based at its current premises. We will be continuing to look at ways for a long-term sustainable future.” 

They paid tribute to the people who helped them in the campaign: “We have been overwhelmed by the positive response to the online crowdfunding campaign and the many in-person purchases by the community. 

“We want to emphasise that all the funds received will be accounted for in a transparent and coherent manner. We will keep everyone informed on a regular basis as to our progress. We would like to express again our heartfelt appreciation and gratitude for this support.” 

The independent bookshop was founded in 1966 by activist John La Rose and Sarah White.