Press Release from Brent Council (unedited)

Brent residents have cast their votes to choose which projects should share a £500,000 funding pot that aims to reduce carbon emissions in the borough by at least 100 tonnes.

Voting from residents took place on Saturday 29 January. This is the first time that Brent has used this bold new Participatory Budgeting programme. The ‘You Decide’ programme has put the community in the driving seat from the start; the resident-led Planning Group (CO2GO) designed the funding criteria and powers were handed to residents to say which projects should be funded.

A diverse range of almost 250 residents attended the ‘Decision Day’ event, which was open to any Brent resident, and voted on the green projects that they felt would make a difference in their communities. The residents’ choices are subject to formal ratification from the council’s Cabinet.

The first pot of £400k was awarded to homes that will install energy efficiency measures to reduce their carbon emissions. The winning bids included a total of 37 flats, maisonettes and houses that will undergo sustainability works to reduce their carbon footprint. These properties have combined as a cluster to maximise the benefits of green measures. Two community buildings in Willesden were also selected for energy saving makeovers.

The second pot of £100k was awarded to community groups who will run educational projects to help residents reduce carbon emissions, save money, and make positive and healthier lifestyle changes.

The winning projects for pot two, all based in Brent, included: Brookway Biodiversity Project, Advice for Renters, Ultra Education CIC, Hill Top Circle, Diffusion Elite Security, Clube dos Brasileirinhos, Mums for Lungs and Young Brent Foundations.

These exciting community-based initiatives include:

•           Planting fruit trees and extending wildflower meadows

•           An Energy Advice Bus

•           Teaching young entrepreneurs to think sustainably

•           CO2 awareness sessions with Brent, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities

•           Children’s art workshop to create single-use shopping bags

•           A mural project with schools and educating children about air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

•           Training for youth workers on creating engaging sustainability projects with young people

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council said: 

“It was amazing to see so many people coming people coming forward for the first resident-led Decision Day in Brent. The quantity and quality of the submissions was brilliant; local people, local ideas for local change. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bid and congratulations to the winning projects. Our ambition is to support more activities that give residents the power to decide on local projects for their communities! Watch out for more community decision days and we want to see more amazing projects coming forward.”

The fire door that is supposed to be self-closing remains open - allowing flames and smoke to penetrate the building.

Brent Council reacts on Twitter to John's first letter - January 18th, 2022

Dear Editor,

Will Brent Housing ever carry out the urgent repair to the self-closing fire door on the 3rd Floor at William Dunbar House, South Kilburn?

As readers of WM know, I have been trying to get the council to fix the Fire door on the 3rd floor for a long time, which compromises my safety and that of everyone living in the block.

Last night there was a serious fire in Poplar on the 8th floor of a tower block which required an emergency evacuation, with some residents escaping via an internal fire escape.

If a fire was to break out on the 3rd floor of my block and smoke and flames escaped from the flat where the fire was, it would quickly travel out the open fire door into our only internal fire escape, leaving  everyone living in the block trapped with possible fatal consequences.

Nobody can ever predict when a fire might break out in their home, so I am calling on Brent Council for one last time to repair the fire door to ensure the safety of everyone living there.

Finally, the council are breaking the law, as The Fire Safety Order (2005) updated in 2021 says "landlords have a duty of care to protect any residents living in William Dunbar House" but for some reasons known only to themselves, they have chosen to break the law by not repairing the fire door.

Thank you

John Healy.

Here is a reminder of Brent Council's undertaking following the Grenfell disaster

 And here is the link to the manufacturer's statement on maintenance:

https://www.gerdasecurity.co.uk/productsandservices/communal-fire-doorsets/maintenance.aspx

 Guest post by David Walton of FLASK

The new proposed Brent Local Plan to year 2041 is set to be put for adoption to Full Council on 24^thFebruary 2022.

Government Planning Inspectors in January 2022 put forward their final report and modifications to Brent Council. Here are some South Kilburn (soon to be Tall Building Zone (?) local observations…….

South Kilburn Growth Area, South East Place (one of 7 large often internally un-related and un-relatable Brent Plan 'places') is excluded from being part of Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum Plan for Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward), but is where Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward) will tower and excluded mega population grow - a bit like Wembley non City, a bizarre, colonial and fractured approach to Brent’s major change.

It is of note that these modifications that all site allocation insert plans for South Kilburn have been removed by inspectors from this new Brent Local Plan. I suppose that is one solution to resident questions, but this future engagement is unhelpful as South Kilburn has so many 'site allocations' (knowns and unknowns) pending which must now rely (unlike for other Brent places) entirely on words. Some title headings for new sites have had modifications removed- why not keep a plan saying that current state school land uses or public open space land uses are become new 'site allocation' opportunities instead?

It is also worth noting that many South Kilburn large 'sites' don’t even make this modified plan, for example the Cullen House/ station car park ( long land banked), new Peel Square with its 16 storey Countryside tower yet to be built,  Carlton Granville Community and Education Centres, Brent housing plan 'other ideas site' and more….. What are the infrastructure planning requirements for this plan sites denied- none? Should flood alleviation infrastructure and social infrastructure not be stated in Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area? There is certainly a lot less social and health infrastructure required than the 2010 SKGA plan and that was a lot less required than the 2004 Neighbourhood Plan offer (2016 Brent cancelled).

The reality is that South Kilburn's population is being increased 6 fold from 6,000 in year 2000 to 36,000 by 2041 (sites hidden/ 'moveable feast' ambiguities added). Modification here is clearly all about the scale of the South Kilburn Mega Growth being kept carefully under the radar of Brent wider social and public health/ recreation strategic infrastructure investment for massive population growth..

Of the South Kilburn site allocations which Planning Inspectors modifications:

BSESA1 Austin House and public park demolition. South Kilburn Air Management Area (SKAMA) / 'a car free development should be the starting point.' Infrastructure planning requirements- 'Thames Water has indicated that upgrades to the wastewater system are likely to be required.'

'Are likely to be required' is the key get out clause here, as Brent despite social rent housing clearing since 2005 has yet to produce a detailed Flood Risk Assessment for any of its many South Kilburn Masterplan(s) for massed help-to buy/ affordable housing on a flood plateau. As regards future floods baked-in by the corporate risk appetite for removal of all existing public owned natural flood defences with new builds no longer being built at raised level either, South Kilburn people will have to ' learn to live with it?' and with the costs involved.

What is also interesting is that there are so few site social infrastructure planning requirements for new South Kilburn Growth Area, which is surprising given enormous population growth. This makes the new Brent Local Plan an inequalities/ non citizen zones Brent 'Slum Dog Billionaires' policies document towards 2041 as regards South Kilburn. Very much parallel development and as if Grenfell, Windrush and pandemic simply never happened and the planning reform bill had not been cancelled as being ill advised in 2021 either.

The modifications continue…….

BSESA2 Blake Court and public park demolition; SKAMA/ a car free development…. Despite being adjacent to Austin House public park flood defence, no infrastructure planning requirements at all?

BSESA3 Carlton House and Carlton Hall demolition. SKAMA / a car free development….Despite a community hall and public green space attached being demolished- Infrastructure planning requirements - zero according to Inspectors?

BSESA4 Carlton Vale Infant School demolition. SKAKMA/ not car free as next to the Westminster boundary? Inspectors state that vehicle access between Malvern Road and Carlton Vale is 'proposed' to be closed, which is a bizarre planning statement given that vehicles have been closed from Malvern Road to Carlton Vale since the 1960's, this at that time to prevent regular traffic accidents near the schools and central park. Malvern Road is a Brent long established traffic calmed one way street so what is there to propose? Is the intent to open Malvern Road to two way traffic? SKAMA what SKAMA?

A land swap with Wordsworth and Maesfield House demolitions is proposed for this school’s new site when it becomes mono-housing. This school is currently central public park side located.

BSESA5 Craik Court demolition. SKAMA/ car free development. Public green open space with veteran trees and community hall demolished. Infrastructure planning requirements-non?

BSESA6 Crone Court and Zangwill House demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. Public open space loss, yet the only Infrastucture planning requirement – water supply and waste water infrastructure upgrades possibly.

BSESA7 Dickens House and public park demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements water supply and waste water upgrades hopefully.

BSESA8 Hereford House and Exeter Court, play areas demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. 'Development must be consistent with the recommendations of Brent Local Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2' Infratructure planning requirement. Granville Road Public Open Space (see BSESA11) is to be re-located here at this BSESA8 site. Not very helpful that this requirement Inspectors term 'open space' as that will mean fully private enclosed green space thereby rendered useless to the wider community.

BSESA9. The Inspector doesn't dare to even write Kilburn Park Foundation School demolition anymore. The 'site' created by this will be of ambiguous status as for example SKAMA/ car free development is stated. Then Inspectors later say that the demolition site created will be a park, so a new car free park?

This school land use being built on re-locates to Wordsworth and Maesfield sites but also onto the South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburns only park sized park, demolishing its bio-diverse veteran tree woodland area no less!

BSESA10 Neville House, public open space and Winterleys demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste water upgrades possible.

BSESA11 Again, Inspectors dared not name the site which (upgraded and invested in in 2010) is the remains of the once grand scale Granville Road Public Open Space and flood defence. Less 'public open' too this in recent years as Brent Master Developer has been land bank locking it up on and off. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. So a no public open space replacement is planning required in a flatted  (no gardens) area of public open space deficiency?

BSESA12 Wordsworth., Maesfield and part of South Kilburn Public Open Space. SKAMA/ car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- new school(s) to replace the two school sites being demolished for housing. Water supply and drainage upgrades? There is no planning legal requirement stated by Inspectors to replace the large chunk of South Kilburn Public Open Space veteran tree woodland area that both school(s) sold for housing will be re-built on?

BSESA13 Again Inspectors unhelpfully decided to abandon naming John Ratcliffe House demolition. SKAMA. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. 

BSESA14 William Dunbar and William Saville House, community hall demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste upgrades only.

BSESA15 Not site named again, the UK Albanian Muslim Community and Cultural Centre. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water and waste water supply upgrades only.

BSESA16 Oxford Kilburn Club demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing.

Infrastructure planning requirements- Replace club either on or off site (elsewhere)? Water supply and waste water upgrade.

After Brent's take, the OK Club took the lion's share of New Deal for Communities government funds (their first project being to employ a professional fundraiser). It will be interesting to finally see if this by community investment of scarce public funds made any sense now when the OK Club now monumentally 'cashes in?'     

To add, please look at Article 4 (1) Directions published by Brent in July 2021 which includes an SK Inset Map with at least some of this site allocations red-line box's colonialist horrors illustrated. Horrors (not mapped in the Planning Inspectors modified Brent Local Plan of Jan 2022), with Brent South Kilburn mono-colonial-overdevelopment zones new plan to build on current land uses such as South Public Open Space woodland, Granville Road Public Open Space, Kilburn Park Foundation School, Carlton Vale Infants School and Dickens Austen Public Open Space. This all comes into effect 1st August 2022.

The term Growth Area from 2010 BLP should not be retained in this new Brent Local Plan 2022 regarding South Kilburn given the new planning bills 2021 suspension. While underground car parks everywhere as separate 'business' opportunities and the doubling highways by Brent in SK zone should also be made public.

Most of the requirements from the 2010 SKGA plan were not landlord actioned and  in the new plan become cancelled requirements. 2022 SKGA South Kilburn plan infrastructure requirements is for flats as literally the only infrastructure and at densities as yet unseen in the UK! Vague Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area is simply not written into later 'site allocations' infrastructure planning requirements or is ambiguously stated, the same for the BSEGA1 new sites not mentioned at all- no infrastructure planning requirements for them no doubt either?

A new England-led 'sovereign take back control' South Kilburn for project Global Britain, of high tax take (tax as tribute for simply being allowed to live in the UK third class)- no social, health, shared services towered zones (a social rent estates level and up/ tower, level and up/tower, again and again as of such poor flood area build quality). A zone where no one is or ever can live a full UK citizen's life, rights, health and wellbeing supports and chances- this all by government Global Britain design.

A mega density non place for non citizens is 2041 guaranteed by these Inspectors modifications and residents concerns were not listened to and not respected. This South Kilburn zoned corporate colony for feeding Global Britain Slum Dog Billionaires risk appetite dines on and on- the South Kilburn 'moveable feast'.

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

An entry from Brent Council’s latest Forward Plan

Dear Brent Council,

I think that you’ve become too complicated in the way you seek to provide the new Council homes that many local people need. 

Take, for example, your decision (at last November’s Cabinet meeting) to buy a block of flats at the former Alperton Bus Garage site. The developer, Telford Homes, was given planning permission to build three tower blocks there, on condition that one of them, block C - containing 155 of the 461 flats proposed in their application, would be as “affordable housing”. 

South-west elevation drawing from the planning application documents (block B outlined at the back)

Normally, when a private developer agrees a large-scale affordable housing offer, they do so in partnership with a housing association which will provide those homes. But here, it is Brent Council who have stepped in to acquire them. And the Council is not buying them direct from Telford Homes. It is proposed that they will be acquired from an Asset Special Purpose Vehicle (“ASPV”). Who or what is an ASPV?

That would be explained in the report that Cabinet members made their decision on, wouldn’t it? If it was, the explanation was in one of the (now all too common) exempt appendices. Looking at the minutes of the meeting, all the Lead Member for Resources, Cllr. McLennan, said about the ASPV was simply a repeat of the Officer’s report :

Opening section of the November 2021 Cabinet Report

The report to the meeting was not from the Director of Housing, but the Director of Finance. No questions were asked about why the Council was not buying the flats direct from the developer, who the beneficial owner of the intermediary ASVP was, and why it would not be a straight 999-year lease. Cabinet members seemed more intent on congratulating the Council, its finance team (and themselves?) for the proposal they were about to “rubber stamp”:

‘In expressing their support for the proposal, Cabinet highlighted the opportunity the scheme provided to further increase the supply of affordable social housing within the borough based on a leasing model which was felt to represent good value for money.  Officers were thanked for their efforts in securing the necessary terms ….’

But how ‘good value’ was this ‘leasing model’? The Council would be taking an initial 50-year lease on 155 homes in a 26-storey tower block (55 x 1-bed, 49 x 2-bed, 46 x 3-bed [5 person] and 5 x 4-bed [6 person] flats). The report from the Director of Finance said:

‘Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home.’

The report then goes on to say:

‘The target average development cost under the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP) is £280K per home. As such, the leasing model represents good value for money.’

It appears from this that the cost per home for the leasehold flats at the Alperton Bus Garage site would be no better than the development cost for freehold homes on one of Brent Council’s own housing projects, over which the Council would have much better control. 

And the £280k per home figure is dependent on the deal to buy leasehold flats from an ASVP (which only has an option to acquire them from the developer) qualifying for a £4.3m grant from the GLA, and that the Council would qualify for 100% Stamp Duty Land Tax relief on its leasehold purchase, which is not certain:

‘These assumptions will need to be fully tested along with the Council’s tax advisors and HMRC. Failure to secure the SDLT exemption noted above would increase the cost of the scheme by circa £1.9M.’

Why is Brent Council getting into such a complex and potentially risky deal? If it has £48m available to spend on new Council homes, why not spend it on building those homes on a vacant site it already owns, and for which it has had full planning consent since February 2021?

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme. (From an April 2021 Council document)

I am referring to the Cecil Avenue site, part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone, which I have been writing about since August 2021. As can be seen from the image above, this development is not a tower block (maximum height 9-storeys), it will have an internal garden square and includes family-sized maisonettes with their own private gardens. Surely that would provide better new Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

At the moment, following a Cabinet decision six months ago, it is proposed that 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue (including 20 family-sized homes) would be for a developer partner to sell at a profit. In an article last month, I asked why Senior Council Officers and a small number of Cabinet members (with the rest not questioning it) were appearing to favour developers over Brent residents in need of a decent Council home? We are all still waiting for an answer!

I’ve set out the question and the evidence behind it. Now here is my advice. Avoid the ASPV! Ditch the developer! Get on and use the money you were willing to spend on 155 homes in a leasehold tower block in Alperton, and instead build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue (including the 152 you planned to “give away” to a developer) as affordable rented Council homes. You know that is good, plain common sense.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

P.S. My consultancy fee for this sound advice is the same as usual - £zero!

 I have just caught up with the Planning Committee Meeting that considered and approved plans for a 3G all-weather pitch at Queens Park Community School (QPCS).

It was a controversial application where both sides, Brondesbury Park Residents Association (BPRA)  and QPCS, brought in some big gun experts to advise on their case,  which must have been at considerable financial costs. It was a very lengthy meeting with public representations made on both sides and Cllr Gbajumo speaking on behalf of the 3 ward councillors in support of the school's application.

BPRA had submitted a petition of c300 signatures opposing the application. They pointed out that most objections were from nearby homes whilst supporters were mainly well outside the area. They expressed the view that the views of those that lived nearby should be given more weight but were told that this was not within planning guidance. They noted that only 20% of the 1200 pupils had written in support of the application. 

The speaker on behalf of the BPRA claimed that they had been lied to by the school  throughout their dealings and questioned their integrity.  He asked if the appplication was for the benefit of the school and the local community or mainly for commercial reasons. Out of school hours use would be for 67% of the time.  The headteacher had said the school was cash rich but to make it commercially viable they would have to have the commercial usage applied for.

Cllr Kelcher asked about the potential benefits of the pitch. The BPRA speaker replied that at first they did not want the pitch at all but wanted to negotiate but could not do so because the lines of communication were severed. They felt that other pitches were available in the area and these were more appropriate as not near people's homes. The fact that the pitch would be open until 9pm. Monday to Friday, 6 or 7pm at the weekends, would be harmful to the community and its way of life. BPRA suggested a weekday cut-off of 6pm for both school and community use. Questioned by a councillor he said that if the finish time was 6pm he would probably write a letter of support for the application himself, probably with conditions such as a more enviromentally suitable pitch surface.

There was some discussion about alternative sites with some dispute about how long it would take pupils and residents to walk to Capital City Academy. 

Another local resident addressing the committe said, 'We would like to keep our evenings. Our children's bedrooms will overlook the pitch.' She said that her 5 and 6 year old went to bed at 7.30pm. The school had acknowledged there would be increased noise. She did not have an objection to children, it was adults yelling  from the pitch that concerned her.

A local resident, who said he was a member of the BPRA but had not attended any of their meetings because as far as he knew none had been called, spoke in favour of the application. He lived 250 metres way from the site and loved to hear people playing. He said there was a shortage of pitches in Brent and Kilburn based on his personal knowledge as a football player.  QPCS and Brent had a proud record of providing top players. He had played on the current grass pitch. It was water-logged in the winter and rock-hard in the summer. He spoke of the importance of sport and exercise for people's well-being and physical health.

The headteacher of QPCS, speaking  for the application, said that an all-weather 3G pitch was needed to enable her pupils to access the full physical education curriculum. At present pupils were unable to choose to do A Level PE because the necessary  facilities were not available.  Pupils from poor housing where there was not safe access to outdoors, needed the proposal facility that they could use after school. Brent Council was contributing £95,000 Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levey monies to the pitch deveopment. It would promote health and wellbeing and contribute to pandemic recovery. The school would balance community and commercial interests. 14 community organisations were supporting the provision including Brent Sports, QPR Hub and Brent Centre for Young People. The latter used football to help teenagers express their emotions in life-changing work. She concluded on the public good of the application, 'We all want a better society where young people are no longer at the mercy of local gangs or crime.'

Questioned by councillors the headteacher said Claremont and Capital City had received no complaints about their pitches, despite them having been opposed. Capital was open until 10pm.  Both had been fully booked.

Responding to a question about the need for commercial revenue from after hours lettings she said that the overall  capital cost would be £300,000 with £95,000 of that provided by the council.  The school would be committing £200,000 of its reserves  that trustees/governors would seek to recoup from commercial lettings over the next 3-5 years. This would replenish their reserves for other earmarked uses including school boilers.

The QPCS headteacher outlined to the committee the context of children travelling outside their postcode. Children's safety could be a deal-breaker with parents relecutant to let their children travel outside the area. There was a significant risk for young males from gangs, there were muggings and females risked sexual assault. This meant that provision at school, at the end of the school day was safer and would reassure parents.

There was a limited discussion about environmental concerns regarding the 3G surface of rubber crumb. BPRA had wanted a more envirommentally friendly surface The head said that staff had been concerned about this and were satisfied that the material would have a minimal impact on the environment.

Cllr Erica Gbajumo, speaking on behalf of all three Brondesbury Park Labour councillors said that they supported the proposal. Later opening was necessary because of people's working hours. She invited the committee to agree that some of the BPRA's claims were 'over-the-top'.

Cllr Kelcher, suggested that the councillors were taking a risk, ahead of the May local elections, in supporting the application despite residents opposition. Cllr Gbajumo responded that there were residents in favour but in any case it was not about the election but doing the right thing.

After further discussion the committee agreed suggested amendments to the conditions and voted unanimously in favour of the application.

From Brent Council website:

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions (as amended below) and informatives set out in the report and supplementary agenda:

Condition 7 – Community User Agreement to include clarification on the definition of Community Use, the availability of the facility for community use and the cost

Condition 9 – Tree report/planting schedule to be amended to allow flexibility in the location of new trees, to allow additional planting between the pitch and Aylestone Avenue and to provide for an increase in the number of new trees to be planted.

Officers' Report to Committee LINK

Statement on behalf of Brondesbury Park Residents Association LINK

A video of the Planning Committee discussion on this item (c90 minutes) can be see HERE

Martin Redstone in high vis jacket protesting over redevelopment of Willesden Green library

I am sad to hear  via social media of the death of Martin Redston, a Brent man of many interests, totally involved in our community.  A model 'active citizen' who was terrier like in his campaigns for justice and afraid of no-one.  My condolences to family and friends.

I bumped into him on several occasions recently and he told me about his illness and the poor outlook. Nevertheless he kept going and was at the last Brent Connects meeting where, ironically, he backed my request made via the chat, that  the meeting pay tribute to another veteran local local campaigner, Dilwyn Chambers. Now it is my turn to pay tribute to Martin.

Martin as actor

I am sure others will write about his involvement with the Brent Arts Council, the Mad Hatters Theatre Club and other organisations but it is through the Keep Willesden Green campaign and later, his pursuit of Dominic Cummings that I best knew him.

Martin had his own civil engineering company, Redston Associates LINK

Martin was co-chair of Keep Willesden Green LINK, a campaign set up to fight the redevelopment of Willesden Green Library and the subsequent loss of the much-loved Willesden Bookshop, other amenities in the building, the open space  in front and the Victorian library. We also opposed the sale of public space behind the library for a private development of flats.

In  order to save the public space Martin launched a campaign to get it protected through designation as a Town Square.

That campaign, along with the effort to save the bookshop, was lost but the Victorian library was retained.

Martin's co-chair of Keep Willesden Green, Alex Colas said:   

Martin's tenacious campaign to register the area in front of the Willesden Green Library as a town square failed. But his David-like fight against the Goliath developers and their Council allies galvanised residents in saving our Library turret as a local landmark. It stands as a fitting  tribute to Martin's efforts on behalf of the local community.

His most recent high profile campaign was over Dominic Cummings breach of Covid regulations where he launched a crowdfunder to raise £30,000 for a jusicial reviw of the failure of the DPP to investigate Cummings' actions. On his crowdfunder page he wrote:

My name is Martin Redston and I am bringing judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions for his failure to properly consider the actions of Dominic Cummings, the chief advisor to the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, in relation to a potential breach of Regulation 6 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350.

I, like many other citizens, have fully complied with the Government’s lockdown requirements at all times. Despite the police and the public having been made aware of Mr. Cummings’ potential breaches of the rules since 22^nd May 2020, there has been no investigation into those potential breaches in London.

Why does this matter?

The rule of law should apply for all persons, irrespective of any friendships in government. The public health measures which were put in place to protect us must be applied to everyone, including in particular those who helped to make the rules. A number of individuals in public office who have flouted those strict rules have resigned. That provided some accountability for breach of the law by those who are central to the public health message and the need to encourage full compliance. In respect of Mr. Cummings, however, representatives of the Government have taken to social media in support of him. The Attorney-General has tweeted in support of Mr. Cummings’ actions. This raises a real concern over the state’s obligation properly and fairly to investigate the case of Mr Cummings where a law officer has prejudged it by issuing a peremptory statement that sought to exculpate Mr Cummings, without due process of the law.

Martin lived long enough to see echoes of that case in 10 Downing Street.

Martin was passionate abour righting injustices and not afraid to take risks in launching legal proceedings. Many of his campaigns have been reported on Wembley Matters. Here are a few links:

Speech at Muhammed Butt's first meeting as Council Leader regarding Willesden Green Library  (May 2012)

Reasons for Rejecting Willesden Green Library Plans  (June 2012)

Public Inquiry into registration of Willesden Green public space as Town Square  (December 2012)

Martin's comments on Public Inquiry report (February 2013)

Martin's comment on rejected of Town Square registration (March 2013)

Concern over the cutting down of apparently healthy trees by Brent Council (July 2014) 

 Martin launches campaign for judicial review of DPP's failure regarding Dominic Cummings  (June 2020)

Guardian report on Martin's campaign  (June 2020)

After refusal of case Martin says 'This isn't over yet' (November 2020)

Martin persists and ask for permisison to Appeal ther case  (November 2020)

'We can't give up now' (January 2021)

The most recent intervention I can find is about the Neasden Gyratory system just 5 months ago on Brent's Have Your Say site !

Residents on the north Brent borders with Harrow will not be surprised that another dispute has broken out with Harrow School wanting to close a footpath used by the public on grounds of anti-social behaviour. This is the latest enclosure move by the private school.

A discussion is underway on the website Next Door LINK. This is a quote from the initial post:

To summarise: there is a path going through one of Harrow School's many fields, just off the West St in Harrow. It leads through a road between two of the John Lyon's buildings and then comes up towards the Byron Hill Road. This path is taken every day, pretty much exclusively by the students of the local Roxeth Primary School and their parents. Not once did I see any of the children or their parents damage property or behave in a disruptive manner.

After speaking to some local people, it turns out this path had been in use by the public for over 25 years. It's the shortest way up the hill, and in a borough where most of the green spaces seem to be fenced off by the Harrow School, it's a pleasant walk, much more so than walking around on some of the extremely narrow paths up the hill.  However, Harrow School informed me that it's private property and in a couple weeks they will be installing a coded gate between the cricket field and the road passing through John Lyon's so that parents like me will no longer be able to walk through. 

Considering Harrow School (and John Lyon) both enjoy the financial benefits of being registered charities, it seems obscene to block people's right of way in such a manner, for reasons which on inspection appear both flimsy and petty. 

Gareth Thomas MP has got involved and has organised a zoom meeting for Tuesday at noon LINK

 Brent Cabinet will consider an important update on the main new homes project areas on Monday. Affected residents need to check out details particularly over the type of tenure envisaged - does 'Affordable' mean  Council rents, Social rent, London Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership etc? Arrangements for decanting during new build, the amount of green space taken up by in-fill, delivery times are all key:

7.0 New Council Homes Programme (NHCP) - Significant Scheme Updates

7.1 Grand Union (Northfields Site), Alperton. A total of 92 properties are expected to be handed over at the Grand Union site in 2 phases of 46 units each. After the properties were advertised, a successful viewing cycle for the first 46 homes took place in December 2021 into January 2022. A number of clients have viewed, accepted and have beenverified for sign up. Viewings are currently taking place for the remaining 46 properties in phase 2 and sign-ups will take place once the properties have been handed over by the developer.

7.2 Church End (99 homes £5m+). The Council is the freehold owner of the entire Church End Car Park site and has two separate planning permissions to deliver the following:
· Planning permission (ref: 13/1098) was granted for 34 affordable homes, ground floor non-residential use space, a new market square and the stopping up of Eric Road.
· Planning permission (ref: 13/2213) was granted to develop this part of the Church End Car Park site for 65 affordable homes, 7 car park spaces and 298sqm of retail use space.

7.3 The Council is currently evaluating contractor tenders to bring forward the on-site delivery of the above planning permissions. As closing the current Church End market is fundamental to achieving a start on site by March 2022, the Council has adopted the following two-phase plan to relocate the market to ensure that traders are not moved away from their core customer base and that local residents do not lose the benefits of this service provision:

· Phase 1 (March 2022 – July 2022): The Church End market will be moved to one half of the current car park site in order commence enabling works on the vacant half of the site before the end of March 2022. The market will continue operate on a twice a week basis (Wednesday and Saturday) whilst enabling works being are undertaken until July 2022. 

Please refer to Appendix 1 to view Phase 1 of the market relocation plan.

· Phase 2 (August 2022 – August 2025): After the Church Road public realm improvements and bus diversion works are complete, the Church End market will move to Church Road and will remain there until the Church End redevelopment works are complete and the new market square can be used. 

Please refer to Appendix 2 to view Phase 2 of the market relocation plan.

7.4 Officers have provisionally allowed a three-year programme period to complete detailed design and construction of the Church End development. Once contractor appointment is confirmed, then the Council will be in a more informed position on the key dates and these will be communicated to the relevant stakeholders in the near future.

7.5 Windmill Court - The existing estate comprises of 138 - 1,2 & 3 bedroom flats between the existing tower and the maisonettes as well as a community centre, kids play area and two-storey car-park. Within the maisonettes, there are nine leaseholders and nine tenants, all of whom are being consulted regarding the proposals. Brent are negotiating with the leaseholders to purchase their properties while the tenants will be decanted off-site and have a right to return to the new homes. Four tenants are proving difficult to contact or refusing to engage with us therefore we will need to proceed with the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)  process ASAP whilst still trying to get a negotiated agreement.

7.6 Officers are aiming for vacant possession by March 2022 with a view to start on site by September 2022. Planning application has now been submitted, which include proposals for the two-storey car park and 16 of the 18 Maisonettes will be demolished. Following this, two new 7-storey blocks will be built offset on either side of the tower, which in total will equate to 60 new affordable housing homes giving a net uplift of 44 units. The two remaining maisonettes will be reconfigured into new studio flats at the base of the tower.

The community centre will be extended and remodelled in its existing location as well as this there will be changes made such as a new children’s play area & half basketball court, the introduction of outdoor adult exercise equipment, upgrades to landscaping (new trees planted), pedestrian routes, site security by way of gated entrances and perimeter fencing and ground level parking.

7.7 In terms of resident engagement, this has been done by way of online resident panel sessions (8 in total), onsite drop-in sessions, regular newsletters, letters, flyers, surveys and phone calls. There will also be an updated webpage on the Brent website with all the communications to date for residents to view. Now that the planning permission has been submitted more resident engagement will undertaken over the next few months.

7.8 Watling Gardens. The existing estate includes 2 x 12 storey towers that will be retained plus 12 bedsit bungalows and a deck access block of 30 x 1 bedroom flats that will be demolished. Decanting and leasehold buybacks have been underway for the last 12 months and are now finalising the last few tenants, who are currently being moved out.

We therefore anticipate vacant possession by February 2022. All tenants who have been decanted have a Right to Return to the new homes and a local lettings policy is in place to enable those living in the retained blocks who are in housing need, to have an opportunity to move to the new homes.

7.9 A planning application has been submitted for 125 new affordable rented homes including a 45 flat extra care scheme with a range of communal activity areas and 24 hour staffing plus eighty 1, 2 and 3 bed and general needs homes. In addition to the new homes, the planning application provides for significant upgrading of the estate landscaping and public realm with a new Multi-Use Games Area and playground. The scheme is due to be considered at Planning Committee on the 23rd February and is currently being prepared for tender to provide for a start on site in June/ July 2022.

7.10 The building works are ready to go out to tender pending planning approval with 3 contractors. We have already had initial contractor discussions in December 2021.

7.11 Kilburn Square, The current site comprises nine buildings, seven that accommodate residential use.

7.12 In the autumn of 2020, the Council started engaging with the residents about a proposed infill development of Council homes. As a result of resident feedback the designs are still evolving; with a focus on reducing height, density and loss of open space whilst still providing a significant number of genuinely affordable council homes.

As a result, of the consultation, five options where put forward, the Council is currently considering all five options, following which officers will communicate the outcome to residents. The Council intends to meet the timetable set by the GLA grant funding with a start on site by September 2023.

7.13 Alperton Bus Garage site, Cabinet has approved the acquisition of 155 homes to be let at affordable rents. This former bus garage development will deliver 461 homes altogether, 155 of which the Council will acquire. The Council will enter into a 50 year leasing arrangement, which will see the homes transfer to the Council for a peppercorn at the end of the Lease. The new homes are expected to be handed over during the year 2024/25.

7.14 St Raphael’s Estate, The GLA’s change of approach to the funding of replacement units using grant has placed a large number of regeneration schemes in jeopardy across London and has meant a fundamental rethink into the approach to the overall funding of these schemes. As a result of this change in grant funding coupled with adjustments to the project cash flow model in order to reflect programme and market changes, the redevelopment of St Raphael’s resulted in a project viability gap of -£110.2m. This was considered unviable.

7.15 The Council’s commitment to the residents of St Raphael’s was for a community led approach to the master planning of their estate, culminating in a resident ballot through which residents would be able to demonstrate their support for redevelopment, with infill development being the default option. This route to ballot has always been predicated on having a redevelopment masterplan that was financially viable and therefore able to be delivered.

7.16 In line with this commitment, and because the delivery of the redevelopment masterplan was no longer considered financially viable, the infill masterplan is now being progressed, with a community led approach being followed as before. The infill masterplan consists of clusters of new homes in the north and south of the estate, facing the river along the western edge of the existing homes, and some in underused pockets of land within the estate. It currently has the potential to deliver 370 new homes; 334 flats and 36 houses. The detail is likely to change as the design is developed. Homes are forecast to be 100% affordable, owned and managed by the Council.

7.17 The design of the phase 1 site in the south of St Raphael’s started in July 2021, with start on site currently forecast for winter 2022/23 and completion winter 2025/26. The design team will, as before, take a co design approach to the design of the buildings and public realm improvements.

7.18 In addition to the development of new affordable homes, there is the potential to deliver significant place making improvements, which arguably, whilst not as transformational as full redevelopment, have the ability to improve the lived experience for St Raphael’s residents. We have called this ‘infill plus’. Early priorities for delivery in 2021/22 ahead of the delivery of the Phase 1 site, are focused on the issues identified through recent consultation with residents. They centre on improvements to the care and maintenance of the estate and target green spaces, waste management and parking as well as providing a temporary building for use by the community and project team. We have already improved the public realm and dealt with primary issues of residents’ concerns such as; abandoned vehicles, grounds maintenance, basket ball court and the Wates compound. More significant improvements to the public realm, estate connections and community facilities will be delivered alongside the delivery of the new homes over the coming five years, in collaboration with the community.

Consideration of wider Council objectives for health, culture, education, climate emergency etc. will also be brought to bear in these discussions.

7.19 South Kilburn Regeneration, Unity place has now completed and progressing well towards full occupation. This scheme will have delivered 235 Council homes as well as an event space, car parking and open spaces. The Neville and Winterley’s scheme is currently in the final stage of the procurement process for a delivery partner. The affordable housing delivered on this site, as well as future developments, is to remain in the ownership of the Council.

7.20 South Kilburn has a number of sites that have been submitted to Planning for a decision in the coming months, this will then lead onto new tender processes expected to go live this year. Officers continue to explore opportunities in South Kilburn to deliver an increased number of Council homes while still ensuring a sensible balance between different housing tenures and place making priorities, as required in the Master Plan. The option of having one delivery partner for the remainder of the masterplan is also being reviewed. Officers are currently working towards promoting opportunities to decant a number of the blocks more quickly. This has arisen due to the desire to avoid long-term maintenance works, which will create unnecessary expense, both for the Council and Leaseholders. This can be achieved by a variety of means including identifying more decant opportunities for residents and accelerating the building programme.

Sonia Francis (no relation) presented the Tokyngton residents' 320 signature petition about littering, flytipping and street drinking to the Brent Cabinet this morning LINK that was publicised on Wembley Matters last month.

After publication, and before today's Cabinet, a site meeting was arranged in the area, attended by Cllr Butt (Brent Council leader and ward councillor), Cllr Krupa Sheth (lead member for Environment), Chris Whyte (Operation Director Envirnment), the Council Enforcement Manager and three Neighbourhood Enforcement Officers as well as local residents.

Quite a turnout!

Responding to the petition presentation Cllr Sheth said she agreed that there was a definitely a problem in the are aznd that the council would agree an Action Plan,  hold regular meetings with residents and set up a Whats App grouo for residents to report concerns. In terms of the detailed request she said that action was limited by budget constraints  but she would work with enforcement officers, council officers and Veolia to clean up the area.

Chris Whyte added that it was good to hear directly from residents and the council could not deny that there were problems in the area. Cllr Butt said that a Fixed Penalty Notice was served on a street drinker during the site visit,

Kilburn Village Residents Association (KVRA) also presented a petition this morning about the proposed tower block and infill on Kilburn Square. The petition of 900 signatures was presented byMargaret von Stoll a founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op:

Kilburn Square Petition speech to Brent Council Feb 7 2022

Good morning Councillor Butt, Cabinet Members and Officers

My name is Margaret von Stoll. I’m a longstanding Kilburn Square resident, and founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op.

I’m here to present a 900-signature petition against the scale of the council’s proposals for infill development at Kilburn Square, and to voice our disillusionment with the pre-consultation process to date.

Despite repeated requests for more meaningful engagement, we have just been informed that the Council intends to submit its Approach A to Planning – an option which fails to address our concerns about our existing green space, and about overcrowding on the estate.

We feel let down by the undemocratic decision-making, and an inadequate and unprofessional engagement process. I would like you to listen to our concerns.You'll see they impact on Health, Environment, Community Engagement, Scrutiny and other portfolios as well as Housing.

Last year we were relieved when Source Partnership was selected as our independent Advisor We were led to believe that they would be allowed to work as a neutral channel between the Council and residents throughoutthe process

Their resident survey on the original scheme concluded;

“There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals, or trust in the consultation process”

That powerful statement was omitted from the published summary; and our request to send the full report to every household was refused. And since the re-set decision, Source has been largely sidelined. This is simply not acceptable!

Councillor Southwood:

You have acknowledged our community’s concerns, stating that you now sought “a scheme that can work for everyone”. That Brent would:

·      ensure the team would work “in collaboration with residents”

·      and balance the housing targets with respect for the wellbeing of estate residents 

We are here to say, Brent’s actions and latest decisions prove otherwise.

Our ‘design workshops” have proved to be one-way Drop-Ins, residents being instructed to choose from limited design proposals, without being allowed to state on record that none of the proposals address our concerns. We’ve been told “these are your options, your vote will be wasted if you don’t choose one”.

This engagement process is tokenistic, and gives only the illusion of collaboration with affected residents. You have held community-led co-design efforts elsewhere – why not on Kilburn Square? To tell us the scale and shape are fixed, and then offer us further engagement is disingenuous and totally unfair.

Brent is proud to have one of the largest social housing programmes in London. We believe you should be creating homes and places we can all be happy to live in - not just more housing. The London Plan stresses that the optimal capacity of a site is not the same as the maximum capacity.

We do accept the need for SOME additional housing. But Amenity Space at Kilburn Square is already much lower than Brent’s own policy norms require; and the scale of your current proposals would make this much worse.

Whilst increasing the number of homes at Kilburn Square by 60% may make economic sense, and achieve targets, there will be significant detrimental impact to our health and wellbeing through the overcrowding, loss of health and community facilities and loss of mature trees and open green space.

Brent’s Climate strategy seeks to increase green space - not remove it. New research shows we are the area most deprived of green space in the whole Borough. Your Approach A proposal will remove our green lung – which helps mitigate flood risk and the appalling air quality from Kilburn High Road.

Finally, let me point out that our petition is also addressed to the Chair of the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – for good reason. Brent’s Housing Director assured the Committee in January that “they would not want to force homes on anyone, so where they had built had been with the support and encouragement of local residents and ward councillors”. We urge the Council to honour that philosophy in relation to Kilburn Square; and, even at this late stage, to genuinely engage with residents to create a more sustainable solution.

Responding Cllr Southwood thanked Margaret for her 'helpful and detailed overview of the journey so far' but said the com mitment had always been to blance balance the provision of genuinely affordable homes with the benefits to the original residents of the estate. She recogniseed concern over the height of the proposed tower, the density of the proposals and the value that residents put on the green space.

Architects had come up with proposals to meet, in variable ways, the residents' concerns which result in proposals A and E. She said that she would agree to disagree with the residents over their criticism of the level of engagement. The tower height had been reduced and the issue of density could be picked up during the planning process.

Southwood said that over-crowded families, currently in homeless accommodation without a voice, would be given priority in the additional housing. The Plan A proposal was now entering the formal phase and would include work around the green space including making better use of it.

Cllr Butt in a notably more aggressive contribution said that he made no apologies for building homes and addressing the needs of children for the stability that would give them a secure future. Concerns would be taken into account but decisions had to be made that would not suit everyone - 'I will make no apology for that'.

Margaret von Stoll was muted on zoom when she tried to come back on those remarks.

A further comment is expected from KVRA later this week.

 Following consideration of responses, both Brent and Camden Councils approved the application to re-designate the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum.

This means the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum will be able to continue the preparation of a neighbourhood plan in their area. 

South Kilburn is not included in the Forum.

Consultation responses can be found HERE

 Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

Council housing at Cecil Avenue – a reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt

At Monday’s Cabinet Meeting, Kilburn Village Residents’ Association presented a petition expressing their opposition to the “infill” housing plans which the Council seems determined to push through for Kilburn Square, and dissolution with the consultation process, in which residents views had been ignored.

After watching the webcast for this item, I was struck by the way in which the Council Leader, and Chair of the meeting, seemed to dismiss the residents’ concerns. The most important thing for him was to build the Council homes that families in temporary accommodation urgently need, and he made no excuse (or apology?) for building them.

Architect’s diagrammatic view of Brent’s planned Cecil Avenue development

That struck a chord with me, because for the past six months I’ve been trying to find out why Brent’s Cabinet decided, in August 2021, that 152 of the 250 homes the Council plan to build, on land they own at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, would be for a developer to sell at a profit, and not for people in urgent housing need on the Council’s waiting list.

I sent an email to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, referring to the passion he had expressed in Cabinet for building Council homes, then asking about Cecil Avenue:-

‘Let me ask you a straight question, and ask you for a straight reply to it:-

What excuse are you making for not building all of the 250 homes on Brent Council's Cecil Avenue site in Wembley as affordable Council homes for rent, and only using 98 of the 250 as Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

Cecil Avenue is a vacant, Council-owned site. Full planning permission for the 250-home development on that site was given a year ago, and the Council could by now have a contractor building those much-needed homes there.

Instead, your Cabinet resolved last August to adopt a "developer partner" option, under which the contractor who would be appointed, and paid by Brent Council to build those 250 homes (plus 54 at the Ujima House site across the High Road), would be allowed to purchase 152 of the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue and sell them for profit.

People in the borough, including those in temporary accommodation that you spoke so passionately about, deserve to know why. I look forward to receiving your response, and sharing it publicly. Thank you.’

To his credit, Cllr. Butt sent me a reply at lunchtime today (Wednesday 9 February), and agreed that I could publish it, as long as it was unedited. That is what Martin has agreed to do, and you can read it in full below.

You will see that much of it has been written in the form of a party political speech for the Local Council elections in May, but there are parts which relate directly to my question about the Cecil Avenue development. I will give my response to those – readers can comment on his other claims, should they wish to.

I do appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. I made that clear in my very first “guest blog” about this issue, last August.

In case it leads to confusion, I should clarify that when Cllr. Butt says: ‘This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites’, the site with 100% affordable housing is Ujima House. This still only has outline planning permission, and will need to be demolished before a ten-story block of 54 homes (only 8 of them family-sized) can be built on the site, above affordable workspace on the ground floor.

Outline plan for Ujima House, currently an office block on the High Road.

The key answer given by Cllr. Butt, to justify the planned “giveaway” of 152 homes at Cecil Avenue to a developer, is this: ‘The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

That may be Brent’s “excuse”, but Cecil Avenue is a Council housing development on Council-owned land. Brent Council will be borrowing the money, at low interest rates, to build the homes there, just as it would for any other Council housing scheme within its Housing Revenue Account, to provide homes for rent to Council tenants. Why does it need to sell 152 of those homes to a private developer, at a pre-agreed fixed price, rather than using them to house local people in housing need? I still don’t understand that.

After all, it appears to be acceptable, to the Council and its Cabinet, to borrow at least £48m, charged to the Housing Revenue Account, to purchase 155 leaseholdflats in an Alperton tower block, from a secretive “Asset Special Purpose Vehicle”! I’m still waiting for an answer on that.

Artist’s impression of the courtyard garden at the Cecil Avenue site.

My final comment on Cllr. Butt’s reply is his reference to ‘a new publicly accessible open space’. The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road. 

This shared public open space makes the Cecil Avenue site much more desirable than the 100% affordable Ujima House site, where the flats will just have tiny balconies (plus a play area on the flat roof of the block). 152 of the Cecil Avenue homes would be for private sale, and 61 of the remaining 98 “affordable” Council homes would be either for shared ownership or intermediate rent, leaving only 37 of the 250 for affordable rent to Council tenants.

I’ve had my say, but please read what Cllr. Butt has said, and make up your own minds. This is his reply to my question above, in full and unedited:

‘Dear Mr Grant

 Thank you for watching the live stream, and for your comments.

I hope that you can appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of a wider development in the Wembley Housing Zones Programme and includes the adjacent site Ujima House - which is being used for affordable workspace so that it remains in use until things have been finalised.

This site forms part of our New Council Homes Programme to deliver at least 5,000 affordable homes with partners and at least 1,700 council homes directly ourselves, by 2024. Brent is one of a handful of councils that is meeting its targets, that means people desperately in need of housing get safe secure housing, something that surely not even you can be against.

This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites. We have always strived to achieve the best that we can on any given site – it is the responsible thing to do, to deliver homes today not years down the line. What this means in plain English, is that a mixed development at Cecil Avenue will enable the Ujima House site to be 100% affordable housing.

Our vision is for a development that will also include workspace to support job creation and growth in the local economy, a community space for everyone, highways and public realm improvements. I hope that you will have seen some of the works for the public realm improvements have already started on Wembley High Road, aiding the local economy, footfall and turbo-charging our recovery from Covid-19. We also want to include a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.

This is the commitment that we gave about making improvements for the residents of Brent and Wembley and this is what we are delivering, this is what a responsible Labour council can do, focussing on action and outcomes for today, to bring the future forward faster.

The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements. Your suggestion would jeopardise any affordable homes that are needed today; and would mean the people who desperately need those homes we are planning to build, would remain in poor quality accommodation, surely you would not want anyone to remain in poor quality accommodation?

As you point out, I care passionately about the people who need help to get a roof over their head; it is what I come to work for, to make a real difference to people’s lives. Creating the opportunities for people to upskill themselves through Brent start and Brent works.

Making sure that we work with all our schools to reach point today where about 97% of our schools are rated good or outstanding.

Investing in our high streets to create the strong local economy.

Our commitment to the green agenda with our climate emergency strategy and not forgetting the changes and improvements we are making to engage and interact with the good citizens of Brent with our new portal Citizen lab.

There is so much more that this Brent Labour administration has achieved and will absolutely strive to do more, despite what the Lib Dem and Tory coalition started and this party gate Tory government has taken away from us in Brent.

I need to remind you that over the last 10 years an average of £15.5 Million a year has been taken out from this councils funding. I hope that you find that truly distasteful, because I truly do.

This labour administration has worked diligently to deliver and support the residents that need our help, we have been the dented shield that has protected our residents.

We make the promise that we will continue to do whatever is in our remit and responsibility for the most vulnerable and needy in our society.

Sometimes this means taking decisions that people may disagree with, but I have always appreciated that.

Brent is a borough of ambition, aspiration and opportunity, that is what a good Labour council like Brent will deliver for its residents

I have answered your question; please feel free to post this on any site you wish to publish my response on; in the interests of transparency I hope unedited.

I look forward to hearing that you will be watching the next Cabinet meeting; it is a fantastic thing to see more people actively involved with local democracy.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.’

There were two main issues at Brent Scrutiny yesterday evening, both vital to the safety of Brent residents. The meeting was chaired by vice chair Cllr Kasangra as Cllr Roxanne Mashari, the chair, is unwell with long covid. 

The first item came under 'Topical Issue' and was a follow up to a previous Scrutiny discussion about the impact of flooding, particularly in the Kilburn area. Thames Water appeared to answer questions but unfortunately the Environment Agency, despite requests to attend, did not.

This is important because Thames Water are responsible for sewer flooding, Brent Council for surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency for river flooding. Clearly the 3 factors interact with each other, so a joint approach is necessary along with services such as the London Fire Brigade.

Mike Benke, (Thames Water Local Government Liaison Officer) and Alex Nickson (Lead Responder on July 12th Flooding) addressed the meeting and answered questions.

The July 12th rainfall was much more intense that had been planned for. Thames Water said that they had not responded as well as customers had a right to expect - they had just not been quick enough. They had been overwhelmed on the day and their response had not been good enough.

Thames had already implemented changes such as an increase in resources at call centres and were looking for other sustainable solutions and property protection measures.

Cllr Johnson asked how, with a housing target of 3,200 dwelling, Thames would work with the borough to ensure drainage was adequate. The Committee were clearly shocked to hear the Thames Water were not a statutory consultee on planning applications - they didn't have to be consulted on large developments, but councils do consult them. Thames are pro-active in looking at where developments are proposed. Thames was not anti-development by any stretch but tried to get developers to engage with them. They offer a free pre-application advice service on how to make developments sustainable. However, developers are under no obligation to consult with Thames. 

Cllr Kasangra  felt Thames should be a statutory consultee. Nickson said that in a perfect world they would be. He remarked that it was not just large development: the cumulative impact of small changes, such as paving over of gardens could be more significant than some large developments.

Thames has appointed an Independent Review into the July 12th events. It was arm’s length to ensure independence despite Thames Water funding it. The three experts will procure evidence from independent professional advisers. It would report in April or May with a particular focus on the Maida Vale areas. 

 Of 14 recommendations made by the internal review into July 12th nine had been implemented so far and Thames was 'planning for the worst rather than hoping for the best' and working with agencies including the London Fire Brigade. Some actions had been tested during August and October storms without any serious flooding. They would provide the council with an update on the outstanding 5 actions.  They were working to improve their communication of events via social media.

A Brent officer said that the council were currently updating their flood planning and looking at attenuation of flood risk via green spaces. They were scoping the whole borough looking at major areas in danger of flooding and nearby green spaces. The surface flood risk plan for the whole borough would be updated and they were also working with neighbouring boroughs on a surface water management plan.

Cllr Mashari had sent in a question asking why Brent was not included in sewer infrastructure upgrade plans. Nickson said he was not aware that Brent was not being covered and would go back to colleagues for a response.  There was a rolling programme of works on sewers with a low capacity for growth.

Cllr Hylton asked about the release of sewage into the River Brent. Thames Water said that was currently legal when capacity reached a certain point, but they no longer felt that this was acceptable. They were working with the government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to change the system. 

 Thames Water had updated system whereby residents could provide details of instances of flooding. Prior to July complainants were asked to send in a questionaire response, now a website has been set up and they could complete it on-line but to avoid digital exclusion a written response could still be made. A record of the responses would be submitted to the Independent Review.

Cllr Janice Long raised the issue of burst water mains and the resulting flooding of roads. In some cases, traffic continued to use the road and the resulting back wash was the course of the flooding of homes lining the road. She asked that in such circumstances roads should be closed. Nickson said this was an excellent point and could be done as a result of liaison between the borough, Thames Water, the Police and the Fire Brigade.

The Committee made three information request:

1. To receive the Independent Review into the events of and response to the floods of July when that is made available

2. To also receive Thames Water's response to that review

3. To receive an update report to the Council's multi-agency flood plan and to make a committee date for this

4. Receive a report on the level of funding in Brent for drainage repairs compated to other London boroughs.

In addition they made a recommendation that the Planning Department of Brent Counciul work more closely with Thames Water on drainage issues arising from planning applications.

The review of Fire Safety is the second item on the above video (beginning at 1.01:15) and was not as comprehensive as the Flood item.

A Brent council tenant who listened carefully to the discussion said:

The scrutiny committee did not seem to know much about the subject they were discussing with the biggest fault being they made no mention as to how residents will be involved, which was the main focus of the Building Safety bill and they failed to even mention Dame Judith Hackitt's three reports on Building Safety and the Fire Safety Act which updated the Fire Safety Order (2005.

 

Their 'experts' seemed to believe that it is only new buildings that the Building Safety bill applies to but that is not the case, as it also applies to current buildings.

 

Although they mentioned cladding, no one mentioned fire doors but to be generous the absentee technical officer might have brought them into the discussion and Cllr. Conneely tried to raise issues like fire doors but was told it was a 'housing issue'.

 

They were also vague about the training competences required but if they had read the Health & Safety reports on Building Safety led by Mr. Baker, the Regulator, they would understand that any new Inspectors would need to start from level 7 (Honours Degree) and have post grad qualifications in Fire Safety and related areas.  That is why it is so hard to find suitable candidates, as most surveyors only have an honours degree but nothing higher.

 

I could go on, but I suppose it was a start, but I would give it a 3 rating (out of 10) as the council needs to start reading all the material that has already been published, although they seem to be waiting for someone to guide them to it.

 

As Dame Hackitt said only 10% of councils are 'on the ball' e.g. Camden but unfortunately Brent is within the remaining 90%.

 Details of the proposed legislation  HERE

 From Disability Rights UK LINK

The Disabled leaseholders group Claddag has started judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary for awarding a contract to produce guidance which includes the means of escape for Disabled people from fire to CS Todd & Associates Ltd.

In a statement it said: “Given Mr Todd consistently advocates against evacuation plans for Disabled people, and was the only expert of four to do so in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, we do not feel it is right for him to have this influence and authority over the safety of disabled people.”

Paralympian and disability rights campaigner, Baroness Grey-Thompson also raised grave concerns in the House of Lords last week. She spoke of the poor fire safety guidance and practice that ultimately led to 41% of Disabled residents of Grenfell Tower losing their lives in the 2017 fire. She highlighted the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to place a legal duty on owners and agents to prepare Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for Disabled residents unable to self-evacuate, despite a consultation ending on 19 July 2021, and spoke of the Government awarding the contract to produce new fire safety guidance to a fire safety expert whose testimony was rejected by the chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and who had made offensive comments on online fire safety forums about Disabled people.

Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at DR UK said: “DR UK has also written to the Secretary of State seeking reassurance that the Government intends to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations on PEEPs. We have asked when the new regulations on PEEPs will be laid before Parliament, and we have asked for a review of the award of the contract in the light of Equality Act duties.”

 Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-
 

The newly renovated listed Georgian house in Kensal Green.

A press release issued by Brent Council on 9 Februaryopens with the words: ‘A threatened historic building is now a beautiful family home thanks to Brent’s heritage experts.’

It gives the news of how Brent’s Heritage team worked with the new owner of this Georgian villa, on the Harrow Road in Kensal Green, and Historic England, to retain the historic characteristics of a building that had fallen into disrepair, and was “at risk”. The press release ends with a link, inviting us to “Read more about Brent’s heritage assets”.

The page on the Council’s website tells us:

‘Brent's heritage assets include a wide range of architectural styles from Victorian Italianate, Gothic Revival, suburban 'Arts and Crafts', ‘Tudorbethan’, ‘Old World’, Modern and Brutalist.’

‘Heritage assets make a substantial contribution to Brent's local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’

And, after describing the various types of heritage assets, including statutory listed buildings, locally listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, it concludes by stating:

‘Brent’s heritage is valued as evidence of the past culture, providing a sense of belonging.’

Brent’s finest example of the Victorian Italianate style of architecture, and a locally listed heritage asset, is the villa at 1 Morland Gardens, originally known as “Altamira”. It was built in 1876, as part of the original Stonebridge Park development, by the architect Henry Kendall Jr. It is ‘a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’ And yet, its owner, Brent Council, plans to demolish it.

“Altamira” at the entrance to Stonebridge Park in a 1906 postcard. (Source: Brent Archives)

“Altamira”, now home to the Brent Start adult college, in 2020.

At the first pre-application planning meeting in March 2019, Brent’s project team were told that the Council’s Heritage Officer believed that this heritage building should be retained. But a Planning Officer had already (wrongly) told them that ‘not retaining the villa was acceptable.’

When Brent submitted its planning application in 2020, seeking to demolish the Victorian villa to make way for a new college facility with an eight-storey block of flats on top of it, the Heritage Officer’s initial comments said that the villa ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’

The Heritage Officer’s final report, dismissed the conclusions put forward in a “Heritage Statement” submitted by planning agents on behalf of Brent Council, as the prospective developer. He referred to evidence provided by ‘Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York’, saying: 

‘He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’.’

Brent’s heritage planning policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for…heritage assets should…retain buildings, …where their loss would cause harm.’ It’s Heritage Officer’s final report clearly stated that: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’

Despite the evidence of “Brent’s heritage expert”, and the efforts of myself and other residents to get Brent’s Planning Committee to uphold the Council’s own heritage planning promises, five of the eight members were persuaded to accept the recommendation of Brent’s Planning Officers, and approve the Council’s application.

I welcome the news that the privately-owned heritage Georgian villa in Kensal Green has been restored to its former glory – but when it comes to heritage, it does seem that there is one rule for the Council, and another for everyone else!

-----------------------------------------------------

I’m dedicating this article to the memory of Martin Redston. Martin was one of many supporters of Willesden Local History Society’s campaign to “Save the Altamira”. He’d also been a leading figure in the 2012/13 community campaign to stop the demolition by Brent Council of another locally listed heritage asset, the original 1894 Victorian section of Willesden Green Library.

Brent’s then Regeneration Director had said it would be impossible to retain that building if the Council was to have a new library centre, “for free”, as part of its proposed deal with a developer partner. Martin provided them with this sketch, to show how it could be done.

Public pressure forced the Council to change its mind, and Brent now boasts of its new Willesden Green Library. There is even a photograph of it on the front of its Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy booklet, with a caption saying that the new building: ‘returns to use the locally listed Victorian Library blending perfectly the old and the new.’

There is still time for Brent to change its mind, and do the same at 1 Morland Gardens, rather than demolishing a beautiful, and still useful, heritage asset.

Philip Grant.

 From the Greater London Authority (GLA)

Consultation Opportunity – Design guidance: Characterisation and growth strategies, Optimising site capacity, a design led approach; Small site design codes; and Housing design standards London Plan Guidance

We are consulting on four new pieces of London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to design and housing quality. This is the second consultation on this guidance, which builds on the Good Quality Homes for All Londoners Guidance that was consulted on between 13 October 2020 and 15 January 2021. 

We are consulting again because we have made quite significant changes to the guidance including making it into four separate LPG. 

1. Characterisation and growth strategy LPG

This relates to the following policies in the London Plan and is used for plan-making: 

It sets out a three-stage process to survey and analyse the characteristics of areas and uses this to identify the character of different areas and define tall buildings. This is then used to support growth strategies that take account of areas’ capacity for change and capacity for growth, including areas where tall buildings might be appropriate and the heights in these locations. 

2. Optimising site capacity: a design led approach LPG

This relates to the following policies in the London Plan and is used for plan-making and directly informing planning applications: 

It sets out a five-stage process for implementing the design-led approach to plan-making and the site assessments that inform specific planning applications. 

3. Small site design codes LPG

This relates to London Plan Policy H2 Small sites, parts B2 – 4, setting out a process to analyse the opportunities for small site development and prepare and implement design codes. It will be used for plan-making and directly informing planning applications. It covers relevant aspects of the National Model Design Code published in 2021 by national government. 

4. Housing design standards LPG

This relates to London Plan Policy D6 Housing quality and standards and provides a checklist of London Plan policy requirements for new build, change of use and housing conversions in one place, with appropriate cross references back to the relevant policy in the London Plan and guidance about the type of development different standards apply to. 

The new guidance will be of interest to architects, designers, planners, developers, boroughs, neighbourhood planning groups, community groups and others. 

The consultation closes on 27 March 2022. 

Online Events

We’re running the following events (all online): 

Friday 4 March – 10am – 11:30am
This event is a general briefing for the general public to find out more about the new London Plan Guidance documents that relate to design and characterisation. It is open to all and is suitable for planning agents, architects and developers to ask questions and find out more about the guidance.
Register on this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/261016205497

Friday 11 March – 10.00am – 11.30am
This session introduces the four new London Plan Guidance documents that provide guidance on design and characterisation. It is aimed at the borough officers in London, interested in design and characterisation.
Register on this link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/261071370497

We are also attending three Urban Design London events on the 8th, 9th and 16th March where we will present and set out the guidance documents that are out for consultation. To sign up to these events, please sign up on the UDL website. https://www.urbandesignlondon.com/events/2021-2022/london/

Useful Links

View details on the consultation and submit your response:
https://consult.london.gov.uk/designandcharacterisationguidance

Sign up to attend our online events:
http://londonplanguidance.eventbrite.com

The London Plan 2021 can be viewed on our website:
https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/new-london-plan/london-plan-2021

Any queries can be emailed to QualityHomesLPG@london.gov.uk. You can post responses to: The Planning Team, Greater London Authority, City Hall, Kamal Chunchie Way, LONDON, E16 1ZE. 

Kind regards 

The London Plan and Growth Strategies Team

 Guest post by Philip Grant

Regular readers may remember a short series of local history articles which Martin published last December about “a Wembley Indian in the 1930s”.

Ram Singh Nehra in London, c.1930. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

By good chance, the “Wembley Matters” blog for Part 1 was found on the internet by one of Nehra’s grandchildren, living in Canada. He provided me with some extra information and images. Some of those were used in the Part 3 article, but I was able to include more, and make some minor corrections, when preparing a single, accessible version of Ram Singh Nehra’s story for Brent Archives.

Ram Singh Nehra, as a newly qualified barrister in 1921. (Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

After my “Wembley Matters” articles had been shared with other members of the family, I was put in touch with two more granddaughters, and with Nehra’s daughter by his second marriage. One of the corrections I’ve had to make was how Ram Singh met his first wife, Myfanwy. He was visiting another lawyer’s office, soon after qualifying as a barrister of the Middle Temple, when they noticed that a button had come loose on his suit. The lawyer called in his secretary and asked her to sew the button back on. Ram Singh was impressed with her sewing, and with the secretary! She got to know him better, and later sailed to Mombasa to marry him.

Eileen Myfanwy Brazel in the early 1920s. (Courtesy of Elizabeth Sansom)

My articles quoted from articles which Nehra had written in a magazine he published, called “The Indian”. The full version includes several more interesting snippets, as well as illustrations from the magazine itself.

A cover, and a column, from “The Indian” in 1935. (Images from the internet)

My original article mentioned that Nehra had been an early member of The League of Coloured Peoples, founded in 1931 by the Jamaican-born doctor, Harold Moody. In the accessible version of the story, I’ve been able to include a photograph taken, at a garden party held for the League, at the Nehra’s Chalkhill Road home around 1936. Ram Singh Nehra is the man in the white suit, with Harold Moody, wearing glasses, just behind him.

Members of The League of Coloured Peoples at a garden party in Wembley, c.1936.
(Courtesy of Tyrone Naylor)

Ram Singh Nehra’s story tells us a lot about Britain and its Empire the 1930s, through the eyes of an Indian lawyer. It also shares an insight into the man himself, and his efforts to break down prejudice between races and religions, through his own example. 

You can find the accessible pdf on the Brent Archives local history articles Google Drive , by “clicking” on the link. I hope you will read it, and share it with others. 

Thank you.

Philip Grant.