Butt gets a bruising in Alperton by-election. Lib Dems win with increased vote share

 Charlie Clinton (Lib Dem) speaks after vote declaration

 

Charlie Clinton swept to victory in the Alperton by-election yesterday with an increased vote share. The by-election took place in unusual circumstances following the resignation of Anton Georgiou as a result of pressures on his personal life casued by the release from jail of a stalker.

Brent Greens decided not to field a candidate and called on other parties to do the same as a principled stand against violence in public life.  In the event Conservatives and Labour went ahead and Reform joined them.

Cllr Muhammed Butt had allegedly received the news of Georgiou's resignation with glee and Labour threw everything into the campaign. Barry Gardiner MP and Labour councillors joined party members in a huge effort to gain the seat for their 19 year old candidate, daughter of a former councillor.

 

 

Charlie Clinton outside the blue blocks in which he lives opposite Alperton Station

 

 Paul Lorber, Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on Brent Council said:

The stunning victory for Charlie Clinton and the Liberal Democrats is down to the amazing had work by Anton Georgiou and the Lib Dem team for Alperton over many years.

Winning over twice as many votes as Labour was beyond our expectations but shows how much trouble Labour are in since the formation of their Government. Things will get even worse for Labour as they put up taxes and cut services. 

With Charlie's election the Lib Dem Group is back to 3 on Brent Council and we will continue to punch above our weight in challenging the Labour Leadership on the many bad decisions they are making.

We are grateful to the Brent Green Party for their solidarity with Anton Georgiou by not putting up a candidate in Alperton.

 

An ex-Brent Labour Party member reviewed the result for Wembley Matters:

 

As a long-term resident of Brent, an ex-Labour Party member and a lifelong trade unionist I have watched with horror what has been happening in Brent Labour since 2010 when the current administration come into power. I am very aware that the Tory Party austerity policies has put local councils, especially metropolitan boroughs, and Labour controlled ones and suffer financially. However, some of the decisions and direction of travel in Brent have not been what most of us would consider being aligned with Labour Party values, nor for the good of residents.

 

The campaign in Alperton was a prime example of Brent Labour’s lack of care about Labour Party values and the residents they are supposed to represent. 

 

There were several messages spawned by Brent Labour that were untrue and misrepresented.

 

Blaming the LibDems for the general untidiness of the ward, along with fly tipping etc is unbelievable. Brent Labour has the tools at their disposal to sort these issues, not the LibDems, all a LibDem councillor can do is make a noise to Council Officers, whereas, a Brent Labour Councillor, such as they have in Alperton, can request the Leader and Cabinet Member to rectify these issues by directing Council resources to where they are needed in the ward. That didn’t happen, so the mess in Alperton is down to Brent Labour, so electing another one is pointless?

 

Telling us we need Social Housing while allowing all the available land to be turned into either flats for sale, or more likely private rentals is not the way to go. We are told that Brent is supplying hundreds of Affordable Homes, 80% of an unaffordable rent is still too high for Brent’s housing waiting list applicants, as are even London Affordable at is it 60% of the inflated rental values. Then there are the Shared Ownership properties, these are known to be overpriced and very difficult to sell and realise even the original investments for those that buy in.

 

Basically, in the eyes of Brent residents they see Brent Labour as being the out and out supporter and facilitator of their best friends the developers and private landlords (such as many of their own councillors). The Leadership are not shy of accepting gifts (Irvin’s fairs, lunches, receptions and more no doubt) and why would the Council (Barham Trustees, chaired by the Leader) remove the covenant off the park warden buildings in Barham Park for a paltry £200,000?  I look at Ealing Road library forecourt and wonder how they are getting away with that ridiculous occupation. Maybe they know someone?

 

Brent Labour have let Brent’s environmental services decline into an ineffective service while spending ridiculous amounts of money on the Civic Centre, publicity, and other unnecessary spending. There are so many other failings of this Brent Labour led council that are wrong, it is not surprising that residents don’t vote Labour in sufficient numbers anymore, as shown in recent elections, even before the Labour nationally lost a lot of their support over its recent ineptitude. Citing the Labour Government as an issue is partially true, but it is far from the real issue for Labour in Brent, Brent residents need a Council that listens, does the right thing, tells the truth because it is worth telling and represents the electorate first.

 

I really believe that this Labour group believe what they are doing is the right thing and that they lost Alperton because residents don’t understand how wonderful the council is!!!! 

 

PETITION: Urge Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to Abandon Plans to Close Kilburn Post Office

 

Life in Kilburn has started the petition below:

 

We have been a regular user of the Kilburn Post Office for many years and can personally testify to its essential role in our community. With its ever-present long queue, it serves not only as a vital service provider, but also as a social hub where discussions vibrate and connections are made.

The decision by Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to close the Kilburn Post Office strikes at the heart of our community. Kilburn Post Office is not just a service - it is part and parcel of Kilburn's social fabric, aiding in connecting its residents and supporting local businesses.

Moreover, in the larger picture, the closure affects more than just local conversations. Post Offices nationally contribute significantly to local economies; this includes Kilburn. Our Post Office facilitates local business interactions, providing necessary services like postage, banking, official form filling, identity verification and utilities, thereby empowering our local economy.

Therefore, we appeal to Gareth Thomas MP and Nigel Railton to consider the detrimental impacts of their plans on our town centre. The closure of the Kilburn Post Office will not simply inconvenience the local people; it will rip out a part of our social fiber and damage our local businesses. Please consider our plea, and do not shut down a significant pillar of our community. Please sign this petition in solidarity with the community of Kilburn and for the survival of our cherished Post Office.

 

For reference here is a report on the impact of Post Offices. https://postofficeimpact.publicfirst.co.uk/

SIGN HERE

LETTER: Tokyngton SNT & Brent Council - 'Stop passing the buck and do something about this danger'

 

 

Dear Editor,

 Delivery drivers on bikes are zooming down the narrow disabled access from Wembley Hill Road (it's between the White Horse Bridge and the Fatburger Restaurant)  through Juniper Close and across the footpath at busy Oakington Manor Drive.

 

 There are also  e-bikes and scooters:  no stopping, no slowing,  no regard for  safety.  It is terrible after c around 6pm with 20 or so in  30 minutes.  Just waiting for a fatality.   

 

We have tried Tokyngton Safer Neighbourhood Team: No help.  Brent Council passes the buck to the police.   

 

This is a dangerous public safety issue.  Who can help?   

 

We do not want a cycle hub  here to attract more bikers.   It's a known area of anti-social behaviour.

 

A local resident

Hazel Road Victorian Mission Hall – why proper Heritage Statements matter in the planning process.

 Guest Post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

The Victorian former mission hall, alongside the 2002 Hazel Road Community Centre.

 

Last month, Martin published an article “Kensal Green residents oppose the demolition and redevelopment of Victorian community centre building in Hazel Road.” The local residents’ association had already contacted Willesden Local History Society, to ask for any help which could be given with the heritage aspects of the planning application, 25/0041. I’m a member of that Society, and as I already have experience of dealing with similar planning cases (“Altamira” / 1 Morland Gardens!), I was asked to take a look at it.

 

Looking at the application documents, it was clear that the Making The Leap charity and their planning agents had not even considered the Victorian building they own to have any heritage impact on their proposals. They just planned to knock it down, along with the Hazel Road Community Centre beside it, and build a modern office block on the site. It appears it was only after Brent’s former Principal Heritage Officer pointed out that the Victorian building was a non-designated heritage asset that they asked a consultant to prepare a Heritage Statement to support the application.

 

It came as no surprise to me (based on past experience) that the firm they paid to consider the building’s heritage value, and how that should be dealt with for planning purposes, came out strongly in support of its client’s application!

 

‘The Proposed Development would achieve numerous public benefits, including high quality community and training spaces, landscaping improvements and the enhancement of all community facilities, that would convincingly outweigh the slight harm caused by the demolition of the existing non-designated heritage asset.’

 

However, the “quality” of the research which had gone into the three-page “Heritage Statement” document (which had no maps or photographs, and only a slight knowledge of the building’s history) was rather undermined in the next sentence: ‘In conclusion, the Proposed Development is in accordance with the Barnet Core Strategy ….’

 

It will come as no surprise to regular readers of “Wembley Matters” that when I conducted a more thorough examination of the building’s history, its heritage significance and how the correct Brent Local Plan policies applied to the case, I came to the opposite conclusion. I have set out my views in a detailed Alternative Heritage Statement, which Martin has agreed to attach at the end of this introductory guest post, for anyone who is interested to read, or glance through. 

 

The original Willesden Local Board record of the 1888 planning application for the Mission Hall.
(Source: Brent Archives Willesden planning microfilm for application number 1970)

 

What is now Harriet Tubman House was the Christ Church Mission, built in 1888 to replace a temporary “tin tabernacle” of the same name in Ponsard Road, College Park (now part of the site occupied by the Mayhew Animal charity). Football fans may remember that the mission’s football team, Christ Church Rangers, formed in 1882, was the start of the club which would become Queens Park Rangers.

 

The Victorian building is a heritage asset of high significance, which should be protected by Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1, while the claimed ‘numerous public benefits’ involve little public benefit, and in some cases no benefit at all (the reality of ‘the enhancement of all community facilities’ is actually a cut from two full-time community rooms totalling 245sqm floor area to one room of 115sqm).

 

There are also some major breaches of other Brent planning policies (DMP1, BP6 South East and BD1), which all require new developments to complement the historic character and scale of their setting. I apologise for the differing perspectives of the two images I’ve combined below, but I have tried to ensure that the scale of the imposed architect’s image of the proposed new office block matches that of this view along Hazel Road. I think anyone can see that it would be out of character!

 

View along Hazel Road from the east, with the proposed office block imposed
instead of the Victorian mission room and community centre buildings.

 

My Alternative document below (the only one of the two which I believe deserves the title of Heritage Statement) took a lot of time and effort to prepare, and I cannot promise to assist in this way with any other planning application. However, it was clear to me when I looked at the planning documents, researched the building’s history and visited the site, that KGRA and their supporters have a strong case, including a strong heritage case, for opposing this application. Their efforts deserved my support, and I hope that application 25/0041 will be withdrawn, or refused. 

 

 

Whether that happens or not remains to be seen – this is Brent, after all!

 

 Philip Grant

 

 

 

 

 

Are Brent Council representing the interests of developers, rather than those of Brent residents?

 

The open space and surroundings

 Centre the up to 5 story block on the green space

 

 SEGMENT OF REPRESENTATIONS AT PLANNING COMMITTEE

 

  

There appears to be a widespread feeling that Brent Council is no longer representing the interests of residents, but instead represent the interests of developers.

This has been evident for some time but particularly in the case of the recent Pellat Road application and the Barham Park covenant removal.

In the video above the resident speaker represents 300 family homes and Cllr Kennelly his constituents.

The full discussion can be heard in the video that can be found on the Brent Council website. LINK

Normal practice is that the developer and planning officers negotiate changes beforehand and so what is presented to the Planning Committee looks like a 'done deal', especially when residents' concerns receive shortshrift.

At this Planning Committee the developer's agent was particularly bouyant claiming that their plans hd received 'the ringing endorsement of the [Brent} case officer' and  the place making manager described the application as 'exemplary'.

It was only under questioning that they admitted that in the consultation out of 10 responses 9 opposed the application and one was neutral.

Neverless the Planning Committee  approved the application with just Cllr Johnson against. Another feature of Committee proceedings is that those against have to give their reasons,  but those voting for the application do not have to give reasons for support. This is particularly galling when committee members who through their questioning indicate major concerns but still vote for the application.

Cllr Johnson cited concerns about parking, the overbearing nature of the proposed 5 storey building, and it not being in keeping with the local area.

 

 

 

BREAKING: Barham Park Trustees' £200,000 deal with George Irvin to enable him to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

 

The houses proposed for Barham Park

 

The long-running campaign by local residents in Sudbury to resist the building of houses  in Barham Park will come to a head at the Barham Park Trust Committee on February 24th 2025.

 A deal with funfair and property developer George Irvin will see him pay the Trust £200,000 for removal of the covenant that prevented building of four 3 storey houses on the site presently occupied by two modest 2 storey cottages at 776-778 Harrow Road.

The deal also involves vehicular access into the park and eretion of other facilities. Details are below:

 Recommendations:

The Barham Park Trust Committee RESOLVES to

2.1 Approve the modification of the restrictive covenants at 776 and 778 Harrow Road, as detailed in paragraphs 3.8-3.11 and delegate authority to the Director of Property and Assets to execute a deed with Zenaster Properties Ltd for the agreed sum of £200,000, subject to 2.2 below.

2.2 If required, approve seeking Charity Commission consideration of the Qualified Surveyor’s Report (Appendix 1) and authorisation under Section 105 of the Charities Act to modify or discharge the covenants.

 

Existing Covenants (extract from single plot):

 

*Not to use the Property otherwise than as a single private dwelling house and the garage for any purpose other than as an ancillary private garage.

*Not to divide the Property into two or more dwellings or residential units.

*Not to erect or cause to be erected on the Property any building or structure whatsoever except a greenhouse or shed of not greater length than 4 meters (sic) and of not greater height than 3 meters (sic) or permit or suffer any person under the Transferor’s control to do so.

*Not to stand or support any vehicle, commercial vehicle trailer, mobile home, caravan, trailer, cart or boat on any part of the Property.

*Not to carry out any development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in or upon the Property.

* Not to park any motor vehicle on or otherwise obstruct any part of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land at any time.

 

Proposed Modification (combined plots):

 

3.9 The deed (to be prepared in accordance with the planning committee report dated 12 June 2023 and decision notice dated 13 June 2023—see Appendices 3 and 4) will amend these covenants to permit the development of four houses.

3.10 A revised version of the restrictive covenants that would enable the proposed redevelopment in accordance with the granted planning permission is set out below and may be subject to further refinement.

 

Permitted Use:

 

*The Property may be used for residential purposes, permitting the construction and occupation of up to four residential dwellings, together with any ancillary buildings, structures, and facilities required for their use in accordance with the planning permission granted under reference 22/4128.

 

 From Application 22/4128

 

Subdivision of the Property:

 

*The restriction on dividing the Property into multiple dwellings is removed, approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Construction of Buildings and Structures:

 

*The restriction on erecting buildings or structures is modified to permit the construction of four residential dwellings and any associated infrastructure, including garages, outbuildings, and landscaping, in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Vehicle and Storage Restrictions:

 

* The restriction on standing or supporting vehicles, commercial vehicle trailers, mobile homes, caravans, trailers, carts, or boats on the Property is modified to permit reasonable residential use, including the parking of vehicles by residents and visitors in designated parking areas as approved under planning permission 22/4128.

 

Permitted Development:

 

*The restriction on carrying out development within the meaning of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is removed to allow the construction and occupation of four residential dwellings in accordance with planning permission 22/4128.

 

Accessway and Parking Restrictions:

 

*The restriction on parking and obstruction of the accessway hatched yellow and hatched green or any part of the Retained Land is modified to allow vehicular and pedestrian access as required for the lawful residential use of the Property, ensuring that any access arrangements comply with planning permission 22/4128 and any subsequent highway or planning authority requirements.

 

3.11 These modifications preserve reasonable protections while enabling the approved redevelopment. The precise wording of the changes may be further refined or amended during the legal conveyancing process.

 

Timeline

 

3.12 The overall timeline for these steps is expected to span several months. Suppose the Trust Committee approves the restrictive covenants’ modification and/or discharge. In that case, completion may be subject to obtaining Charity Commission approval, if required, and the conclusion of legal formalities by the parties. This includes Zenaster applying to the Land Registry to register the Deed and effect the necessary changes.

 

3.13 The modification or discharge of the restrictive covenants is subject to the satisfactory reinstatement of the boundary in respect of 776 and 778 Harrow Road and return of the Barham Park Trust land to open space as agreed by way of surveyor’s aerial plan signed by George Irvin on behalf of Zenaster on 28th August 2024.

 

Zenastar Properties Ltd (previously Aventor) business is listed as

•      Buying and selling of own real estate
• Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate
• Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis  
  

Retained profits at January 2024: £3,781,976

Current officers

Campaigners will be looking for grounds on which to challenge to covenant deal. The report to Trustees discusses the role of the Charity Commission:

Compliance with the Charities Act 2011

 

3.4 The two key legal requirements under the Charities Act for land disposal have also been met:

 

*Independent advice: A report has been obtained from a qualified Designated Adviser acting solely in the interests of the Trust.

*Best terms achieved: The proposed transaction represents the best

financial terms reasonably obtainable by the Trust.

 

Requirement for Charity Commission Approval

 

3.5 Under the Charities Act 2011, charities do not typically require prior Charity Commission approval for land disposals where the two legal requirements above are satisfied. However, approval may be required in specific circumstances, including:

 

*Disposals to a "connected person" (as defined in the Charities Act).

*Disposals involving designated land in most cases

 The last two points regarding 'specific circumstances' may be considered grounds for challenge given previous allegations of a close relationship between Muhammed Butt, Chair of the Trustees and  George Irvin, Director of Zenastar, and argumets over designated land.

Appeal for volunteers to help clear vegetation - Welsh Harp Centre, Birchen Grove, March 8th 10am-2pm

 

Welsh Harp Education Centre Vegetation Management

Saturday 8^th March, 10am – 2pm

 

Come and volunteer at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre for vegetation clearance. Help us clear along the fence line where brambles and shrubs are taking over and pushing the fence. This will greatly benefit the biodiversity of our site and the allotment holders on the other side. Dramatic and satisfying results guaranteed!

 

Stay for an hour or the whole event, but please come from the beginning so we can kit you out with wellington safety boots, gloves and tools. Tea, coffee and a warm room provided, bring your lunch if you like.

 

How to Book:

Sign up for this event on Plinth here

·        Register or login on Plinth to book ticket/s.

·        To book multiple tickets, book your first one, then add a person.

·        No need to print your ticket, we have your details once you book.

·        If you need to cancel your booking, log into Plinth, go to My Account, My Bookings and cancel.

 

Location:

Meet at Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre (Google Maps link)

Birchen Grove, NW9 8RY. Follow the signs towards the Birchen Grove Garden Centre.

The postcode covers a large area so please use the Google Maps link (not Apple Maps) or the What3Words link below.

What3Words location: ///woof.charm.visits

 

Any Questions?

Deb Frankiewicz

Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

Email: welshharpcentre@thames21.org.uk

Ph: 07711 701 694

 

Further info:

·        We will be walking on uneven ground and you may have to bend and duck under branches.

·        Places are limited and booking is essential, please cancel your Plinth booking if you can no longer attend.

·        Please wear comfortable outdoor clothing in layers and a spare pair of socks if it’s cold for wellington safety boots. Please bring a waterproof jacket if it is forecast to rain. 

·        All tools and gardening gloves provided.

 

Debra Frankiewicz

Environmental Educator, Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre