From Barham Community Library

Barham Community Library at 660 Harrow Road Wembley HA0 2HD on frontage to Barham Park will reopen on Saturday between 11am and 3pm. This Saturday (8 January) we’ll only be open for book returns and borrowing. 

Our normal activities for children will resume on Saturday 15 January. We’ll also open on Monday and Wednesday from 3pm to 6pm. We are encouraging adult visitors to wear a mask if possible. Our shop in Sudbury Town Underground Station will be open on Saturday 1 to 4pm as usual. 

As we are keen for people to enjoy reading we welcome suggestions for good books to read. So please respond by giving a recommendation for a good book you read recently or even your favourite book of all time. Thank You.

 Dear Editor,

In a letter last month I wrote about “Flying from Brent”, and some of the other Heritage and Wellbeing projects being facilitated by Brent Museum and Archives as part of their “Being Brent” programme. There are now more “gems” from this project that your readers might like to know about, and take part in, so I’m writing to share the details with them. 

Brent Heritage Tours – Willesden logo

After a number of popular guided walks during the autumn, Brent Heritage Tours are going “online” for January 2022, with three free illustrated talks on Friday evenings. Tickets can be booked via their Eventbrite pages here:

"Queen's Park - Past and Present":  Friday 14 January at 7pm (to 8.30pm):
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/queens-park-past-and-present-tickets-180818451857?aff=ebdsoporgprofile

"Willesden - Past and Present":  Friday 21 January at 7pm:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/willesden-past-and-present-tickets-180847889907?aff=ebdsoporgprofile 

Postcard of the High Road, Willesden Green, c.1900.

"Welsh Harp - Past and Present":  Friday 28 January at 7pm:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/welsh-harp-past-and-present-tickets-180984247757?aff=ebdsoporgprofile

They will be back with free “live” guided walks from February (numbers on each walk are limited so book early if you are interested), and also have self-guided trails that you can download to explore in your own time. More details on their website at: https://brent-heritage.co.uk/

I hope that readers enjoyed my series of articles last month about Ram Singh Nehra and his family. The story of Brent’s multiracial and mixed-race community is one area of our social history which has not received much attention, but another “Being Brent” project is hoping to shine more light on it, with a digital exhibition planned for March 2022. 

The curators of “By the Cut of Their Cloth”, local artist Warren Reilly and director of The Mixed Museum, Chamion Caballero, need your help to collect as wide a range of memories and photos as possible, to make a permanent record celebrating our community’s rich history of migration and mixing. They are holding two online “open days”, on Saturday 15 January (10am to 4pm) and Sunday 16 January (12noon to 4pm). If you have stories you would like to share, you can find more information, and “book" a private zoom meeting with them, at:

https://mixedmuseum.org.uk/news/btcotc-open-days-booking-now-live/   and,

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/by-the-cut-of-their-cloth-open-day-tickets-231641404677

I hope you will take, and enjoy, these opportunities. For more about “Being Brent”, and links to the videos already produced from a variety of projects, you can find details on their website. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

*Lockable bollards removed from some restrictions following concerns raised by local Brent London Ambulance Service representatives.
** Restrictions removed to improve access to the Covid-19 testing centre on London Road.

The Brent Cabinet will consider a review of Brent Active Travel at its meeting on January 17th which includes Healthy Neighbourhood Schemes and School Street Schemes. The former have been controversial and School Streets less so.

Of the implemented Healthy Neighbour schemes officers recommend  removal of Oliver Road, Dollis Hill, Preston Area and Tokyngton and Wembley Central Area schemes with further consultation and engagement with residents. Future schemes will be subject to the availabilityof funding.

The report to Cabinet recognises the benefits of such schemes but also issues around the trials which are attributed to the way the Government introduced them. It iis admitted that public opinion is polarised on the policy and the generally low response rate to consultation noted:

The Healthy Neighbourhood schemes aim to change the way in which people travelby reducing motor traffic on residential streets, creating safer, quieter, cleaner,healthier and more pleasant neighbourhoods that encourage walking and cycling. Thebenefits of these schemes are well researched and documented and the Government(link) and TfL (link) continue to support measures that encourage active travel.

Furthermore;

 

· Air pollution shortens the lives of Londoners, leading to nearly 10,000 prematuredeaths each year. In Brent, it is currently estimated that air pollution directly causes200 deaths per year (Public Health England, 2016) in Brent and that it is acontributing factor to many more conditions.

· Information provided by TfL (2016/17–2018/19 average) show that 50% ofhouseholds in Brent do not own a car and there would be a 60% increase inprivate car travel if car owners switched their public transport trips.

· Around 1.6 million, or 22%, of all car trips made by London residents every day areunder 2km and could therefore be walked (2.7 million more could be cycled).

· Almost 55% of Brent’s adult population are overweight, 34% of whom areclassified as obese with a chronic lack of physical activity. By 2050 levels of obesity are projected to reach 50% of the adult population in Brent. Similarly, themost recent figures show that over 28% of Brent children in reception areoverweight, 14% of whom are classified as obese

· Reducing car journeys reduces the potential of injuries from road traffic collisions.

 

Healthy Neighbourhood schemes have proven to be controversial and representationswere considered at an Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council on 16th October 2020,details of which are available on our website. 

 

Representations were receivedfrom residents from the Kilburn and Brondesbury and Queens Park areas followinginitial consultation with statutory stakeholders, (including the emergency services), foran Experimental Traffic Order, before notices were sent to residents in the area. TheCouncil also received high numbers of objections and several petitions opposing the trial schemes.

At the Extraordinary Meeting of the Full Council in October 2020, it was recognised that these schemes can provide benefits in relation to climate change, air quality,health and that many of the concerns raised were in relation to the engagement andconsultation process, which was as a result of the way in which central governmenthad sought to introduce active trials.

Following the meeting of Full Council in October 2020, the decision was made to focuson community engagement prior to deciding on the implementation of the remaining five schemes. It should be noted for the Brondesbury and Queens Park and Kilburnareas, the major junction improvement works by Westminster City Council at LadbrokeGrove and Harrow Road may also have resulted in congestion in the area

 

Officers have also made the following recommendations and observations:

· The outcome of the consultation during the trial period indicates that none of thefive Healthy Neighbourhood trial schemes were supported by the majority oflocal residents. From the responses from the community from within the HealthyNeighbourhood areas, between 70 and 91% of respondents opposed the current schemes.

· Generally, public opinion is polarised and officers have and continue to receive ahigh number of enquiries, particularly during the public engagement exercise andmainly from those that oppose the schemes.

· There is a misconception of a lack of consultation, this is a result of the way inwhich the Government sought to introduce active trials and limited TfL funding todeliver schemes at pace.

· There is also a lack of public understanding on the benefits of these schemesand the need to encourage active travel to improve air quality, health andwellbeing and respond to the climate and ecological emergency. The council willneed to do more work on this.

 

· The effectiveness of these schemes have been negatively impacted by changesin circumstances with the spread of coronavirus and the need to remove physicalmeasures so not to impede access to test and vaccination centres, andresponses by the emergency services. The local London Ambulance Serviceraised specific concerns in relation to access and recommended the use ofrestrictions enforced by CCTV enforcement cameras so that they can gainaccess when needed. The effectiveness of the schemes was adversely affectedby lockable bollards and plastic barriers being removed by unknown parties, andthe lack of CCTV enforcement cameras.

· The community engagement exercise carried out by Living Streets providessome useful feedback on measures that may be successfully introduced in thefuture that would provide benefits to the area and potentially be supported by thecommunity.

· Collaborative design with the community would help to engender public supportfor future measures, and these will need to be effective in preventing throughtraffic and trialled for a longer period, potentially 12 months. This would providesufficient time for residents to experience the benefits and also for establishingthe effect of the scheme in terms of monitoring changes to travel behaviour,traffic and congestion and the effects road safety and air quality.

· Officers have made recommendations for each of the five healthy Neighbourhood trial schemes in Appendix A. These are that; the Olive Road,Dollis Hill, Preston Road and Tokyngton and Wembley area schemes areremoved, and the Stonebridge and Harlesden area scheme remains, with theexception of the restriction at Mordaunt Road, which will be removed.

· Officers will prepare a report for consideration by the Council’s Cabinet on thefuture approach to developing and delivering Healthy Neighbourhood schemesand a policy on the use of CCTV enforcement cameras and exemptions.

· The development and implementation of future schemes will depend on futurefunding being made available for that purpose

 

These are the officer comments and recommendations for each of the trial areas extracted Appendix A see the full Appendix for detail HERE.

Stonebridge and Harlesden Area

• There is a very low response for this area. Responses fromroads where modal filters were installed (Lawrence Avenue,Mordaunt Road and Nicoll Road) a total of 22 responses werereceived. Of these 10 (45.5%) supported the scheme and 12(54.5%) did not.
• The Mordaunt Road restriction is suspended / removed, thisis also a route used by the LAS who raised concerns.
• The Nicholl Road closure remains but is not fully closed, asconcerns have been raised by the LAS. Plans are developedfor moving this to the junction of Craven Park Road.Consideration is given to a CCTV camera restriction with exemptions, subject to consultation and future funding. Fromthe consultation responses 8 residents in the street supportedthe restrictions, two opposed.
• The Wembley to Willesden Healthy Streets Corridor wouldprovide an opportunity for improved cycle infrastructure in thearea over the next two years.
• It would not be feasible to restrict Lorries on the A404Craven Park Road, but discussions will be held with TfL onlorry routes and signage to encourage alternative HGVroutes.
• The Council will encourage play streets in the Borough andthis area.
• There is further engagement with the community to developideas from the community engagement exercise, which wouldbe subject to consultation and future funding

Preston Area

• There is very little support for the scheme overall.
• The restrictions are suspended / removed, GrasmereAvenue is also a route used by the LAS who raised concerns.From the consultation, 2 residents in Grasmere Avenuesupported the scheme, 9 opposed. This will include thecovering or removal of signage indicating restrictions, plantersmay remain in place and potentially be used should further
measures be introduced.
• One way systems are considered as an alternative means torestrict through traffic.
• Improvements to the Lulworth / Windermere roundabout,providing improved pedestrian and cycling facilities will beconsidered.
• There is further engagement with the community to developideas from the community engagement exercise, which wouldbe subject to consultation and future funding

Tokyngton and Wembley Area

There was a very low response rate to the consultation onthe Brent portal. For the Wembley and Tokyngton Hillscheme, there was a very low response rate of 4%.
• There is very little support for the scheme overall.Responses from roads where modal filters were installed(London Road and Tokyngton Avenue) a total of 18responses were received. Of these 4 (22%) supported thescheme and 14 (78%) did not.
• Restrictions on Cecil Avenue and Rupert Avenue wereremoved early in the scheme to accommodate access to theLondon Road Covid testing centre

• The restriction on Tokington Avenue should be removed.Only 1 resident supported the restriction, 7 opposed.
• An inspection of the pavements in the area will be arrangedand defects meeting the intervention level programmed forrepair
• A traffic speed survey will be carried out and speedreduction measures considered, subject to prioritisation andfunding.
• A Controlled Parking Zone would reduce non-local trafficand this would be considered if there is evidence of widersupport
• There is further engagement with the community to developideas from the community engagement exercise, which wouldbe subject to consultation and future funding

Olive Road Area

• There was a good response to both the consultation duringthe trail and the community engagement exercise.
• There is very little support for the scheme overall.
• There were several reports of lockable bollards beingremoved
• The introduction of ANPR Cameras, potentially withexemptions for residents may be supported.
• Restrictions should be suspended / removed, including theSt Michaels Avenue restriction as from the consultation, 1supported and 8 opposed the scheme.
• There is potential for a new scheme to be developed takinginto consideration the feedback from community engagement.
• A 7.5t ‘access only’ restriction could be incorporated into thedesign of a new scheme.
• The School Street Scheme is subject to a separateevaluation and review process.
• There is further engagement with the community to developideas from the community engagement exercise, which wouldbe subject to consultation and future funding

Dollis Hill Area

• There is very little support for the scheme overall
• Restrictions should be suspended / removed. From theconsultation for Dollis Hill Avenue, 1 supported and 21opposed, for Oxgate Gardens, 6 supported and 14 opposedand for Gladstone Park Gardens, 8 supported and 72opposed. The London Ambulance Service also raised someconcerns about the restriction in Gladstone Park Gardens,access should be retained and CCTV enforcement should beconsidered.
• Dollis Hill Lane could be incorporated into the scheme area,but this is a bus route and access would need to be provided.The implications of restricting traffic on a main route wouldneed to be considered.
• Measures to reduce speeding will be considered, subject tosurveys, consultation and funding
• School street measures for the Jewish school can beconsidered within the school streets programme.
• Safety outside our Lady of Lourdes will be considered, alongwith the request for a pedestrian crossing. This would besubject to consultation and funding.
• Cycle lanes on the A5 Edgware Road ad Dollis Hill Lanecould be considered in the future if funding becomesavailable. The council have an extensive programme forintroducing Cycle Hangars, 50 new Hangars will beimplemented in the spring of 2022. Consideration will begiven to the area if there is demand.

• There is further engagement with the community to developideas from the community engagement exercise, which wouldbe subject to consultation and future funding

LINK to the Motion on Healthy Neighbourhood Schemes passed at extraordinary Meeting of Full Council in October 2020.

 Reacting to the news that Brent Council officers are recommending the withdrawal of some of the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in the borough, Brent Cycling Campaign said:

We are still reading through all the reports (19!), and we will have a better clarity on the overall picture soon. The first impression, however, is that there's a sense the Council is not acknowledging its responsibility in the chaotic implementation and subsequent failure of this programme. These interventions were never fully implemented, operational (beyond a couple of weeks in places) or even enforced but this has been completely omitted in the decision making process.  This is a rather large caveat to ignore.

As a result, it's difficult to draw meaningful, evidence led conclusions from them.  There also seems to be a stark difference, a contradiction even, between insights drawn from the engagement process and the result from quantitative data via the online consultation. Without knowing the unique responses numbers - as you could respond more than once, or what is the modal split among respondents, it is hard to tell whether or not the online consultation is genuinely representative of residents' views. This is an important point, given that seems to be the main basis on which officers made their recommendation. As evidence shows, after the introduction of such measures, people start thinking whether or not some driven trips could be made differently as more choices become available to them. Driving is no longer seen as the default option for short local trips and people feel supported by a new enabling environment. But this happens gradually so it is expected that they may not be agreeable at first because they are the ones asked to make the biggest change.

The schemes were meant, and indeed funded, to be live trials with engagement and modifications during the consultation period. Instead, rather than engage with the process, many councillors either remained silent, not communicating about the trials or vocally encouraged residents to petition against them straight from the start.

We have no doubt that future schemes will be proposed, because the council knows they will have to tackle the many negative impacts of a car-centric environment, as part of the response to the climate emergency they declared.  Residents want safe, healthy, quiet streets as well as clean air and low traffic neighbourhoods achieve that when done right alongside other supporting measures to enable people to switch to more sustainable modes of transport.

All in all, the way things have gone, this feels like a waste of public money, a waste of people's time and hopes for a better future.

 

 

 

 Dear Editor, 

When I attended Kingsbury Green Primary School in the 1950s I cannot remember any of my fellow pupils arriving by car. Now things are very different and with St Robert Southwell Primary now a close neighbour to Kingsbury Green I witnessed some chaotic and bad-tempered scenes with drivers at home time a few years ago when I left the premises after working with pupils in Fryent Country Park.

They are two of the schools involved in the Emergency School Streets schemes introduced partly as a result of the pandemic and the need for social distancing, as well as the overall health benefits of walking to school and reduction in traffic pollution.

In contrast to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes the great majority of School Streets are recommended to be made permanent despite concerns about the impact of Covid related school staff absences impacting on supervision. The decision will be taken by Brent Cabinet on Monday January 17^th.

There was consultation in the neighbourhood of the schools as well as with the parent body and detailed reviews published for each scheme.

Officers’ report:

Closing the road outside of a school to vehicles at pick up and drop off times helps make the route safer for pupils, promotes walking and cycling, and cuts the number of polluting cars contributing to local air pollution. It also helps the school community with social distancing as more pupils return to school.

Residents who live within the school street zone, blue-badge holders and emergency vehicles are exempt from restrictions.

An independent review has been conducted of the 30 emergency school streets schemes that have been operation since September 2020 to see if they should become a permanent arrangement or be removed.

Thank you to everyone that responded to the consultation, your feedback will be used in the decision making process. A report will be considered by the Councils Cabinet at the meeting on 17 January 2022.

Dilwyn Chambers died last week. He was 88.  Dilwynwas a familiar figure to many Brentonians who shared his interest in local history and local issues including the preservation of our heritage and our libraries – a real local character who popped up in the most unexpected of places.

Dilwyn was Secretary of the Wembley History Society in 1974, when Willesden Local History Society was started. He soon joined the Willesden group, and had been a loyal member ever since, tireless in his efforts to promote interest in our local history. Dilwyn had a wide range of interests and was a member of dozens of societies. He attended local community meetings on behalf of the group, always with a handful of WLHS programme leaflets to advertise its activities. Dilwyn always spoke his mind, and will be missed by many people in Willesden and Wembley.

These are some of the tributes  by various members of Brent's two local history societies (Wembley and Willesden), Brent and community libraries, and Brent Museum and Archives.

'It is sad news indeed, as Dilwyn has been a big part of our community for a long time.'

'Very sad to hear of Dilwyn's passing. I had some great conversations with him, he had a vast knowledge. Please pass on my condolences.'

'I am so sorry to hear this news about Dilwyn. This is actually a shock to me. He was an irreplaceable member of WHS, and an often unfathomably challenging Brent Museum and Archives service user. And he will, for all his good qualities and general contrariness, be sorely missed.'

'What a great loss, he will be missed.'

'So sad to learn of Dilwyn’s departure. He was a presence in the local history society and community who made his mark on all who knew him over so many years. He kept me on the mark as chair of the Society, both in meetings and through an endless stream of beautifully-crafted letters containing info from other meetings he had attended (he went everywhere). Also, gentle criticism about what we should be doing, based on his time as an officer.'

'The [Brent] library team were saddened to hear of the death of Mr Chambers.'

'Dear Dilwyn ... too much to say now.  My daughter who danced with Dilwyn at the dance centre above Burton's in Harrow 20+ years ago (photographic evidence is available!) is as distressed as I am.' 

'Dilwyn had an encyclopaedic knowledge of subjects he found of interest. I remember him once talking to me about troops at the Battle of Prestonpans using a railway embankment for cover. I briefly considered the possibility that he had gone mad, but it turned out that he was correct, there was a railed 'waggonway' for horse-drawn wagons running to the coast that ran right across the middle of the battlefield, and troops did indeed use the feature for protection in 1745!'

'He was well-known in the Preston Community Library ....  He will be remembered as a great supporter of Library events - especially Saturday night film evenings - and any party where an opportunity to jive was on offer!'

'I still have numerous interesting random pieces [Dilwyn] had passed on to Richard, with fitting messages attached.'

'Sorry to hear the passing of Dilwyn.  Sad but not unexpected.  Please give my condolences to his nephew when next in contact.'

'Thanks for letting me know about the sad loss of Dilwyn. He must have been the longest serving member of WHS. I joined in 1971 and he had been secretary for a few years before then. He was a member of numerous societies and made valuable contributions to them all. He often sent me photocopies of articles and pieces of ephemera in which I might be interested, very thoughtful and generous.'

'He was a great supporter of and a regular visitor to our [Barham] Community Library, and of course other local causes.'

'He was a very passionate man and really cared about heritage.'

Brent Health and Wellbeing Board will discuss updated reports on winter planning as services cope with the pandemic and the usual winter increases in cases LINK and the much longer term Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy LINK which is the result of learning lessons from the pandemic and entering the third stage of consultation.

The Strategy consultation ends on January 31st 2022 and the final document will go to the Board on March 16th 2022 for agreement.

Residents and organisations can complete the consultation HERE.

The Strategy seeks to address the following health inequality issues in a joined up way: (Click on images to enlarge)

While Brent Friends of the Earth very much welcomed the “Healthy Streets” programme by Brent Council, we are now very disappointed to see that the Council has decided to suspend the implementation of five of these Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes. This is in sharp contrast to the experience of many London boroughs which have successfully implemented LTNs.

We appreciate that there was a great deal of vociferous opposition to this initiative, but its implementation appears to have been somewhat half-hearted, and it has been abandoned before the communities affected really had a chance to experience the full benefits. It also appears that the online consultation process was not well designed, and there are questions about whether the results, with mostly very low engagement rates, were really representative of the community as a whole. 

Monitoring appears to show that even these partially implemented trials did result in a reduction in traffic. In order to keep within targets for CO2 and air quality reduction, Brent Council really does need to take traffic reduction measures seriously, strongly encouraging walking, cycling and other means of active travel. We hope that the Council will come back with improved LTN proposals very soon. 

We hope that future schemes will be better implemented and consulted on, ensuring that the voices of the many in Brent who do not own cars are heard as clearly as those who do. It is also imperative that such schemes should have a chance to run for a reasonable length of time, in order to demonstrate the proven benefits of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods for health, safety and the environment.

We are pleased to see that the School Streets programme has been successful and is being retained.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month I sent an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, and Lead Member for Education, explaining why it would not be a good idea to award a Design & Build contract for the Council’s proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens. Notice of the intended decision to award a contract on 4 January 2022, dated 3 December, had appeared on Brent’s website.

The Key Decision had still not been announced on the Council’s website by the evening of 11 January, but I did receive a response to my open letter then. I will ask Martin to attach that at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to read it can do so. The response confirmed ‘that the council intends to proceed with the proposed scheme of works’.

Architect’s visual impression of the proposed scheme for 1 Morland Gardens

However (as is becoming common with Brent Council, if you can get a reply from them), the response raises as many questions as it answers. It does, of course, begin by referring to ‘the very many benefits that the scheme will provide.’ 

This ignores the fact that if Council Officers had followed Brent’s own, and national, planning rules over heritage assets at the start, they would never have come up with this scheme! It involves the demolition of an irreplaceable locally listed heritage building. And if the Planning Committee in August 2020 had been properly advised, they would have known that this heritage asset was too “significant” for them to decide that the “public benefits” of the proposals outweighed the importance of retaining the beautiful, architectural and historic Victorian villa.

Extract from Brent Council’s May 2019 Historic Environment Place-making Strategy

The response lists one of the benefits of the scheme as ‘65 social rented homes.’ Will these really be homes let to Council tenants at genuine social rent levels, or is this just another example of Brent officers (and Lead Members) misusing the term ‘social rented homes’ when they are actually referring to “affordable housing”? 

Brent originally told the GLA that the new homes at 1 Morland Gardens would be for “social rent”, but at the planning permission stage in 2020, the Council had changed this to 'all of the 65 units would be delivered at London Affordable Rent.' In a comment on an earlier blog, I pointed out that £6.5m of the cost for these homes was meant to be funded from the GLA’s Affordable Homes programme for 2016-2021. Even though the end date for that was extended to construction beginning by 31 March 2022, that £6.5m is unlikely to be available. Does a change back to “social rent” mean that some of Brent’s funding from the 2021-2026 GLA programme will now have to be used for this project?

Are you are wondering what is behind the "little dig" in the response ('I know from previous correspondence that you are concerned with the pace of delivery of social rented accommodation in Brent ....')? It refers to my attempts to get Cllr. Shama Tatler or Mr Lunt to explain properly why they propose that 152 of the 250 new homes on the Council-owned vacant former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue (Wembley High Road) should be built for a private developer to sell at a profit, rather than all 250 being genuine affordable rented housing for people in urgent housing need. I have yet to receive an answer to that!

Moving on to Brent’s responses to the six reasons why they should not award this contract, the “answers” to points 1, 2, 3 and 6 are similar. The Council has not yet done anything about the legal requirements over stopping-up orders, appropriation of land for planning purposes or the planning condition that it needs to “divert” (that is, dig up and move!) the water main in Hillside / Brentfield Road. 

It could have begun these tasks, which it admits are necessary to complete before construction can commence, at any time after receiving full planning consent in October 2020. Instead, it now says that ‘the council will complete the first stage of the two-stage design and build contract and finalise and obtain the necessary legal pre-requisites in order to begin any construction works.’ But there is no guarantee that at least one of these ‘legal pre-requisites’, the stopping-up orders, will be obtained! Why even pay for the first stage, when you don’t know whether the proposed construction work could go ahead?

The Victorian villa which Brent Council’s project would demolish. (Photo by Irina Porter)

Reason 4 was the effect of the proposed demolition on climate. As Brent Council has declared a “Climate Emergency”, you would think that Senior Officers and Lead Members would take that matter seriously. But here the response is: ‘Whilst the proposed redevelopment will emit CO2, the benefits the project brings can go some way to justify this.’ Have they quantified the climate damage, and measured the harm this will cause as compared to the alternative option, retaining the Victorian villa, which I have suggested? Or is this just another example of Brent Council making fine-sounding promises, but not following them in practice?

The response to reason 5, the Design & Build Contract itself, leaves a very important point unanswered. I had asked: ‘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 point has been ignored. Is Brent Council proposing to pay the contractor to come up with a new design, or make significant changes to a detailed design it has already paid a firm of architects to prepare for it? And if there are any significant changes to the building plans that were approved in 2020, won’t that mean a new application for planning permission? Surely those are important questions that need to be answered!

The response tells me that: ‘The council has appointed technical consultants to ensure the designs by the contractor meet the council’s requirements ….’ How much will these consultants cost, and will that cost have to be met out of the budget for the project agreed by Brent’s Cabinet two years ago?

A bigger reason why I was concerned about the proposed two-stage contract was this: ‘If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work.’

Brent’s answer: ‘the technical consultants will be monitoring the contractor’s progress to ensure the build meets the requirements in terms of materials used, methods of construction and quality of finishes. It is expected that this monitoring will prevent any issues with the quality of the finished building andany issues can be dealt with under the defects liability (including latent defects) responsibilities set out in the contract.’

Do you have confidence in the Council’s expectations that there won’t be any “issues” with a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding? Or that if there are any “issues”, they will be dealt with by the contractor ‘under the defects liability’? Given Brent’s experience over Granville New Homes, I have a feeling that history might repeat itself, IF the Council continues its insistence on pursuing its flawed 1 Morland Gardens project.

Philip Grant

 Dear Editor,

The Times February 4th 2017

Barry Gardiner's receipt of funds from Christine Lee and employment of her son was first covered by Wembley Matters 5 years ago when allegations were made by the Times newspaper. At the time Gardiner made the following statement on his website:

“Christine Lee & Co have generously supported my work as a Member of Parliament over many years since we first worked together to fight against plans to redevelop Oriental City and the loss of homes, livelihoods and community ties in Brent. The firm has enabled me to appoint a strong research support team to hold the government to account. This has always been transparently and appropriately recorded in the register of members’ interests. The Times article has revealed nothing that was not already in the public domain and they themselves admit that the secondment of staff was properly declared and state that “there is no suggestion of impropriety”.

The statement is no longer available on Gardiner's website but was included in Wembley Matters' coverage

LINK

It wasn't just Tories under the influence (The Times February 4th 2017)

At the time the sum involved was put at £180,000 and 5 years later is said to be c£500,00 between 2015 and 2020 by some accounts. The new circumstances are M15's warning to parliamentarians and the worsening US and UK relationship with China and the clampdown in Hong Kong. Back in 2017 Barry Gardiner was a prominent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn's shadow cabinet and had been praised for his media appearances.

Yesterday's annoncement is of course concerning and raises questions about Gardiner's judgement (as does his friendship with Modi)  but has been seized upon by Tories to help deflect attention from 'partygate' and the government's culpability in the many deaths that would not have happened with better management of the Covid crisis.

In contrast to Boris Johnson, Gardiner appeared on LBC yesterday to answer questions from the presenter Iain Dale and his listeners. I leave it up to readers to make up their own mind when they watch the recordings. Gardiner said he regarded Jennifer Lee as a friend and felt betrayed by her.

Recordings can be found HERE on the LBC website.

It is worth recalling the prescient comment made by Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant on Barry Gardiner's 2017 statement:

Oh,come on, Barry! You may have declared the "donations" you received from Ms Lee's firm in the register of Members' interests, but the standards of conduct in public life require that:-

'... you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.'

Ms Lee's firm acts as a legal adviser to the Chinese Embassy / Barry Gardiner MP (recipient of £180k in staff costs from that firm) was a strong supporter of Chinese involvement in the Hinkley Point nuclear power station project. Is that not placing yourself in a situation where your integrity may be questioned?

One of the staff funded by the £180k from Ms Lee's firm was Ms Lee's son, who worked in Barry Gardiner MP's Westminster Office, so presumably has a "pass" enabling him to access parts of Parliament not generally open to the public.

Given Ms Lee's links with the Chinese Embassy, does that not pose a security risk, and again raise doubts over whether our MP has put himself in a situation where his integrity, the appearance of his behaviour, and his judgement, could be called into question?

An article in yesterday's Guardian set alarm bells ringing for people in Brent who are buying or renting some of the new developments that have communal heating.  

Guardian Money explained:

While households with conventional heating systems have been told they could face 50%-plus increases to gas and electricity bills when the cap is increased on 1 April, people who bought or rent apartments in one of the 17,000 blocks in the UK that rely on communal heating and hot water systems are facing fourfold increases as suppliers pass on the huge wholesale price increases unchecked.

It is thought that up to 500,000 people live in developments where at least some of the heating or hot water is provided by a centrally controlled system, usually administered by the company that manages the estate.

Apartments in these developments are all supplied by a single energy supplier, and because this is classified as a commercial deal rather than domestic supply, the residents have not had bills protected by Ofgem’s price cap.

The article gives the example of a Manchester owner of a two bedroomed flat whose energy bill went up from £80 in November to £260 in December.

Individual occupiers cannot change their energy supplier so will be reliant on the managers of the developments to negotiate a deal. Systems designed to reduce carbon and lower bills may unfortunately prove to be an additional burden to people already facing high service charges and in some cases costs for cladding removal, building defects remediation and fire watches.

The Agenda for a June 2021 meeting of residents in George House, South Kilburn, gives a flavour of the range of issues facing residents at an L&Q development LINK:

Proposed agenda for 22^nd June Swift George Residents Association meeting

1. Clarification/update on works to heating & hot water pipe work (including explanation of recent system outages).
2. Update on replacing terracotta cladding & issuing of EWS1 form 3 and clarification of fire safety policy
3. Update on safety of windows following the failure of hinges in another L&Q development (we believe we have the same hinges)
4. Update on service charge refund (the review Rob Hunter had been carrying out).
5. Energy meters & billing – energy meters appear not to be working or faulty.
6. Pigeons – reports received of them nesting on the roof of George House and leaving deposits on the flat roof of the 6th floor
7. Any Other Business (AOB)
   

Some of the heating issues may have been resolved see HERE

Wembley Matters would be interested in hearing from residents in the South Kilburn, Wembley Park and Alperton regeneration areas who have communal heating  systems if they have been impacted by higher energy costs.

 Following a consultation Brent Council's Cabinet will discuss recommended changes to the Council's housing allocation system at tomorrow morning's meeting.

These are the main changes, further details can be found in Section 6 of the officer's report starting on page 5.

a) Change 1: Give reasonable preference to homeless households 6.2 to 6.4 of report embed below
(b) Change 2 - Give priority to existing Council tenants, who need a transfer, to bid for all new build properties 6.5 to 6.12

(c) Change 3 - Emergency Management Transfers 6.13 to 6.19 

(d) Change 4 - Transfers due to Overcrowding as set out in paragraphs 6.20 to 6.24
(e) Change 5 - Award Priority Band A to Special Guardians 6.25 to 6.28
(f) Change 6 - Decant moves for essential repair 6.29 to 6.33 

Dr Richard Evans

Dr Richard Evans, now teaching in Mill Hill, but previously Deputy Headteacher at Copland High School in Wembley, was awarded an OBE in the 2022 New Year Honours to add to the MBE awarded in 2003 for services to education

The OBE was for charity work during Covid.  The story in the Barnet Post LINK did not mention what Evans had been involved in before taking up his post at Mill Hill but Evans himself brought it up in an interview with Schools Week, which he may have thought would complete his rehabilitation. LINK

Evans was accused along with five others, including the Copland headteacher Sir Alan Davies, of defrauding the school  out of more that £2m and was suspended and then sacked. The case only came about because of whistleblowwing by a member of staff and union representative.

Evans was (is?) close to the Conservative Party and advised David Cameron on education, and was a former Westminster councillor. He organised fundraising dinners for the school at the House of Lords and was expected to receive a knighthood. Ironically, Alan Davies lost his knighthood as a result of the affair.

Schools Week reports:

Evans, who teaches at Mill Hill County High School in Barnet, ran the 2020 London Marathon for charity having survived a heart attack the previous May. He was treated at the Royal Free Hospital, to which he had delivered food parcels for frontline staff just days before.

Evans told Schools Week that he laid the blame for that heart attack squarely at the door of his ex-employer, the London Borough of Brent, and the Metropolitan Police.

Evans was originally said to have taken £600,000 in excessive payments LINK but the Schools Week article says:

Evans, a former education adviser to David Cameron, maintains he had no idea he was being overpaid as he believed the payments, described as bonuses, had been approved by the local authority.

“The whole experience, quite bluntly, was terrifying,” he said. “When you go through something like this, you question every sinew, every bit of what you held to be important. There’s no sense of apology.”

Not to notice that amount of extra money in your pay packet is pretty amazing!  Local authorities don't award bonuses to school staff.

Evans was also a director of a company set up to put together plans for the Copland school site, Copland Village Developments Ltd. LINKFollowing academisation of Copland as Ark Elvin a new school building was built at the back of the Copland site and the former street frontage is being redeveloped as flats and retail outlets.

Brent Council tells Schools Week that this was money that should have been spent on the children of Copland High School, children who came from some of the most needy areas of Brent. (Ask Raheem Sterling)

In a further twist to the sorry story Keir Starmer, then  Head of the Crown Prosecution Service became involved in the High Court case. Alan Davies agreed to plead guilt to 6 of the less serious of the 8 charges , in return for the two most serious charges being dropped (that of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering).  It was agreed that charges would be dropped against the five other defendants and Sir Alan pleaded guilty to false accounting.  He was given a two year suspended sentence by Judge Deborah Taylor and charges were dropped against the others.  There is some disagreement over whether this meant they were 'cleared' of the charges.

Richard Evan now blames Brent Council for trying to get justice. Schools Week says.

The council spent £1.7 million of public money on the High Court case and was ordered to pay more than £260,000 in costs. Evans’s tribunal alone cost Brent more than £100,000; he had been told to pay back just £46,000, with the remainder statute-barred.

Separately, legal aid bills in the High Court case ran to half a million pounds.

To date, Brent has recovered just £450,000 of the overpaid cash – plus a Rolex watch that used to belong to Alan Davies.

Evans said his standing in the community had been devastated. “Immediately,” he said, “my name was in the papers. People Google it. Walking down my street, the abuse I got was phenomenal.

“Councils have to learn from this. It was pointless and destructive.”

Does he mean that the allegations should not have been investigated or legal action  taken  and it would have been better not to attempt to recoup any wrongful payment?

FOOTNOTE

 There is more murk in the case of the valuable paintings given to the school by artist Mary Fedden.LINK

 I understand that Healthy Neighbourhood schemes (LTN - Low Traffic Neighbourhoods) are to be discussed at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday (6pm) under the standing agenda item 'Topical Issues'.

The Brent Cabinet has the officers' report recommending the removal of four of the schemes on its agenda. Cabinet takes place tomorrow at 10am.

 From the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra

 We are working with local partners to create a brand new Brent Music Academy that will offer advanced training and work experience opportunities for talented young people from across the borough. From performance (any genre/instrument/style) to behind-the-scenes production and business experience with our industry partners, we’re hoping to provide additional professional opportunities to young people showing an aptitude and interest in the industry, regardless of background, formal training or prior achievement.

We know there is so much excellent music provision going on in the borough and so many talented young people with a range of interests and skills, so we are hosting a series of Zoom consultations over the next weeks to find out how the Brent community would like this new initiative to look and work. From content and types of training or opportunities offered, to location, dates/times, fees, etc., we’re looking to hear from any potential stakeholders (young people, parents, teachers, professionals, community groups) to help us design this new organisation.

Online FORM HERE

 This 3rd floor self-closing fire door has not been working since 2017 despite notification to Brent Council

A week ago Wembley Matters published a letter from John Healy who lives at William Dunbar House on the South Kilburn Estate. LINK

He had resorted to writing the letter to ask Wembley Matters for helf after his attempts to get Brent Council to repair what are supposed to be self-closing fire doors that have remained open. One since 2017!

John Healy wrote:

At the Grenfell Inquiry, self closing fire doors that did not self close were identified as the second highest issue after unsafe cladding and as a result I have been emailing the council to fix 2 self closing doors that do not self close and which are part of my only fire escape in my high-rise, one on the 3rd floor & one on the 5th floor but after 3 years, they still have not been fixed and everyone's safety is under threat because of this.

I had a response to one of my emails from a housing officer who said "Fire Safety is not included in my job description" and he failed to pass it on to another officer, who did have Fire Safety in their job description.

After 3 years I decided to ask the London Fire Brigade to solve the issue but I was shocked by their reply, which said they were not responsible for Fire Safety in council blocks and they forwarded my email back to Brent Council who failed to take any action as usual.

I hope that now the evidence of failure to rectify is public that Brent Council will exercise its dury of care to residents and quickly fix the problem on the 3rd floor and the more recent 5th floor problem (below) and check every self-closing door in the block.

Can you ask Brent Housing to carry out a full inspection of all the fire doors in William Dunbar House, as I have only checked those doors up to the 5th floor and for all I know, there may be many others in the floors above me.

At the Grenfell Inquiry Mr. Stokes the Fire Risk assessor carried out his FRA's without actually going into the tower.  Since I began emailing the council, my block has had 2 FRA's, with the last one in 2019 and neither of them noticed the damaged doors.

II can only assume that the FRA's in my block were carried out using the same method as Mr. Stokes, where the assessor never actually visited my block.  The last one even got the location of our only fire escape wrong. He said it was next to the lift shaft and anyone entering the building could clearly see the stairwell began at the far side of the building.

When I reported this to Brent Housing they said "they had full confidence in the FRA assessor and it did not matter that he got the location wrong".

 RESPONSE ON TWITTER SHORTLY AFTER THE ABOVE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED

 From Brent Council website

Plans for a new community centre in Stonebridge Park can now go ahead after the Court of Appeal upheld a High Court ruling that Brent Council solely owns Bridge Park Leisure Centre.

Leonard Johnson (first Defendant) and The Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Limited (second Defendant) were granted permission to appeal the High Court decision by the Court of Appeal in March 2021. However, the Appeal was unsuccessful and has been dismissed in a judgement released yesterday.

The plans to create a new community centre – with much improved leisure facilities, community spaces and modern workspaces – in addition to new homes can now progress.

“The council is pleased with this outcome,” said Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council. “It means we can now continue working with local communities in Stonebridge and surrounding areas to realise the potential that’s been trapped in this treasured, but crumbling, site for far too long.

“It is time now for everyone to work together to help create a fairer and more equal Brent by providing the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve.”

For more information visit: www.brent.gov.uk/bridgepark