651.-london-borough-of-brent-and-its-boundaries-with-barnet,-camden,-ealing,-hammersmith-and-fulham,-harrow,-knc-and-westminster

Recommendations

Info

90. Brent also objected to the transfer of Northwick Park toHarrow. It regarded the Park as being of particular importanceto Brent, which in its view is deficient in public space. TheCouncil commented that .it organises sports events in the Park,and said that the sports facilities are used mainly by residentsof Brent. It believed that our draft proposal would diminishlocal authority accountability to these users, particularly inrelation to planning matters. Brent also pointed out that thereis no vehicular or pedestrian access to the park from Harrow.91. The Rt Hon S ir Rhodes Boy son MP and Mr Paul Boateng MP,together with 46 other respondents, also objected to our draftproposal insofar as it affected Northwick Park. In general, theserepresentations reiterated the points made by Brent. However,concern was also expressed over the possibility of developmentin the park, and resultant traffic congestion. A Brent councillorand the Sudbury Court Residents' Association feared that Harrowwould take a more positive .view of development schemes thanBrent. The St. Cuthbert's Church Parochial Church Councilcommented that Brent has taken effective measures to controlsocial and leisure activities in the park, such as the flying ofmodel aircraft, which disturb local residents; it considered itimportant that the local authority responsible for Northwick Parkshould be answerable to those residents.92. A local resident pointed out that five electors resident inNorthwick Park Pavilion would be transferred to Harrow under ourdraft proposal, even though access to the pavilion was via theFairway, in Brent. A second member of the public considered itunreasonable that Harrow residents should be required tocontribute to the upkeep of a park which they rarely use, whilea third felt that our draft proposal would make it more difficultto police the area effectively.93. Harrow, and nine other respondents - including a Brentcouncillor, Harrow East Conservative Association and the Jubileeand Bakerloo Lines Users' Committee - supported our draftproposal insofar as it affected the Park, the college and thehospital. One local resident believed that Harrow would be morelikely than Brent to protect Northwick Park from development. The27
proposal to transfer the college and hospital was described as* soundly based' by the North-West Thames Regional HealthAuthority, which commented that the hospital is serviced byHarrow, and draws most of its patients from that Borough.94. We received 14 representations, and 197 pro-forma letters,supporting that part of our draft proposal affecting theresidential area west of Kenton Station. A further fourrespondents objected to this part of our draft proposal. Brent,together with a Brent councillor, argued that Churchill Avenue,Rushout Avenue and Northwick Avenue - collectively known as theNorthwick Park Triangle - form an integral part of the SpencerChurchill Estate, which straddles the Bakerloo Line railway.Brent argued that the shopping zone alongside Kenton Stationforms the focal point of the estate, and suggested that plans fora new supermarket, on land immediately to the east of theStation, would strengthen the ties between the Triangle andBrent. The Brent North Conservative Association commented on thehistoric connections between the triangle and Wembley. It feltthat the Kenton Road provides the clearest and most logicalboundary in this area.95. Harrow, the Metropolitan Police and a large number of localresidents supported this part of our draft proposal. TheNorthwick Park Residents' Association suggested that thene i ghbourhood looks to Harrow for service prov i s ion, withschools, shops and leisure facilities all being convenientlylocated north of the Kenton Road. The Association forwardeddetails of a survey which it had conducted in the locality: 73%of affected households were recorded as having supported ourdraft proposal, with just over 1% expressing opposition. A publicconsultation exercise conducted by Harrow showed similar results.Those residents who commented to us directly mentioned theTriangle's proximity to Harrow town centre, and its comparativeremoteness from administrative facilities in Brent.96. In assessing the response to our draft proposal, we noted thedistinction drawn by respondents between .the park, college andhospital on the one hand, and the residential triangle on the28
Page 2 and 3: LOCAL GOVERNMENTBOUNDARY COMMISSION
Page 4 and 5: ; . CONTENTSParagraphsIntroduction
Page 6 and 7: THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC, HPSEC
Page 8 and 9: .In the notice we said that, from t
Page 10 and 11: espect of these radical suggestions
Page 12 and 13: 21. Two members of the public submi
Page 15 and 16: esidents of north Brent for radical
Page 17 and 18: y the radial routes traversing this
Page 19 and 20: divide Willesden between the Boroug
Page 21 and 22: oundary between authorities_as, in
Page 23 and 24: 35,000 electors) was for the bounda
Page 25 and 26: 65. Harrow suggested that the bound
Page 27 and 28: Broadway (A5), by realigning the bo
Page 29 and 30: library, and had delayed doing so o
Page 31: north along the Bakerloo railway li
Page 35 and 36: ejoining the existing boundary at W
Page 37 and 38: therefore decided to confirm as fin
Page 39 and 40: Bridgewater Road, to the west of On
Page 41 and 42: 121. The Baling Conservative Associ
Page 43 and 44: the area. Brent Trades Union Counci
Page 45 and 46: ear" curtilages of properties in Mo
Page 47 and 48: government. We have . therefore dec
Page 49 and 50: 149. Hammersmith and Fulham, having
Page 51 and 52: e' more effectively and convenientl
Page 53 and 54: South-Kilburn area. . Ten residents
Page 55 and 56: which it received part of its fundi
Page 57 and 58: BRENT'S BOUNDARY WITH CAMDENKilburn
Page 59 and 60: Signed K F J ENNALS (Chairman)G R P
Page 61 and 62: LOCATION DIA«AMIHARROW LBBARNET LB
Page 63 and 64: HARROW LB
Page 65 and 66: HARROW LBEALNG LB
Page 67 and 68: BRENT LBALING LBC) Crown Copyright
Page 69 and 70: KENSINGTONAND CHELSEA LB
Page 71 and 72: MAPNO.CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGESAREAREF.

651.-london-borough-of-brent-and-its-boundaries-with-barnet,-camden,-ealing,-hammersmith-and-fulham,-harrow,-knc-and-westminster

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?