From Brent Council
|
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Wednesday, 9 July 2025
Upcoming Climate Events in Brent
Pro-Israel legal group threatens 'further action' in bid to stop Brent residents' project to twin with Nablus
UK Lawyers for Israel have been advising Ian Collier of Reform and Cllr Michael Maurice of the Brent Conservative Group on their attempts to overthrow Brent Council's democratic decision to support a twinning project with Nablus, in the West Bank - a project that was initially proposed by a diverse group of local residents. The project, Brent Nablus Twinning Association, will be at no cost to council tax payers.
In an escalation of the issue the UKLFL, a controversial organisation (see LINK) has announced that it is involving the Board of Deputies and threatens further action:
UKLFI will continue to work with local residents to urge Brent to reconsider this divisive political posturing. If appropriate, UKLFI will take further action to force Brent to see how its actions are unlawful. We are working with the Board of Deputies and other non-Jewish organisations to understand what is happening at a Council which seems to run without accountability and transparency nor due regard for its residents. This is another example of British local governments prioritising antisemitic and far left ideological pursuits over the needs of local residents.
Tuesday, 8 July 2025
Tory tea and biscuits for Reform supporters ahead of Nablus petition presentation
I understand that Tory councillor Michael Maurice commandeered the Tory Group's office office at the Civic Centre yesterday evening to offer Reform's Brent West Candidate, Ian Collier and his eight or so supporters tea and biscuits ahead of the Full Council meeting. Apparently, using his electronic tag, he then escorted them from the 4th floor into the 3rd floor Council Chamber where they were able to occupy the front row of the Public Gallery before admittance of the general public who had been queueing outside.
From that position the group were able to applaud every utterance of Cllr Maurice and Ian Collier and barrack Palestine supporters.
Ian Collier, a former Conservative supporter, describes himself on LinkedIn as a retired actuary and investment banker but claimed to be a representative of the people of Brent when he presented his petition opposing the Brent-Nablus Twinning. In fact in the Brent West General Election he came 6th out of six candidates with 4.98% of the vote, losing his deposit.
Presenting the petition Collier spoke about 'We British people' opposing sectarianism and divisiveness but then said that the names on his petition were 'almost entirely English sounding names, Jewish sounding, Hindu, Sikh, Jain sounding - an array of the richness of Brent's ethnic groups. There is one group that is missing, there are hardly any Muslim sounding names on the petition.'
He claimed that this indicated that the twinning had caused division and then in a statement that did not appear to help heal division, and amid cries of 'lies', 'rubbish' and 'that is a slur', said it was 'being pushed that the twinning arrangement is no more than a sham to transfer funds and resources to a proscribed organisation.'
He went on to say, 'Let's assume that this is not the case' but then suggested that the setting up of a Community Interest Company as part of the project was acknowledged to be 'far less regulated than a charity.'
Before his main response, Cllr Butt, leader of the council, said on the lack of Muslim names that his and other Muslim councillors' names had been added as signatories wihout their consent. (They had been removed after the petitioners had drawn attention to the matter).
Adopting an emolliative tone he said the council had been working with the petition organisers to resolve any misunderstandings and it was important that their voices be heard. He recognised that the petitioners cared deeply about the borough and its shared values and he emphasised that Brent is 'deeply proud' to be the home of a vibrant Jewish community with roots that go back generations.
He said the borough was a place of many cultured and faiths and it was the Council's to make sure every resident feels safe and heard.
He went on, 'I'm personally aware of the anxieties raised and we are not ignoring them. I will be meeting with representatives of the Jewish community to hear their concerns and my door will be open to meet with the petitioners.'
Cllr Butt continued, 'I'm qute clear and Cllr Afzal (supporter of the twinning) agrees with me that if the twinning is to be a success it must be about peace, cultural exchange and mutual understanding...Brent has always attempted to build bridges where we can.'
He said that the Council had been in contact with the Nablus local government following the petition, and would ensure that the concerns were addressed if they had not already been answered. He said that utlimately the aim is to builld relationships that support, not divide, and it will be the responsibility of the Brent Nablus Twinning association to do just that.
The issue came back with a Conservative motion about the process of approving twinning arrangements later on the agenda, although Cllr Maurice managed a contribution that got applause from the Reform supporters. Later another Tory got a dig in by quoting Cllr Nerva's words opposing the twinning to Cllr Butt.
I think Cllr Maurice's colleagues will not be entirely at ease with his flirtation with Reform and this may cause problems ahead of the 2026 local elections and some Labour councillors may feel that Cllr Butt should have objected strongly to some of Collier's more extreme comments and unevidenced allegations.
PS Challenged on the checking of names on petitions Brent Council said there had been random checks but now new more robust checking procedures will be adopted,
Sunday, 6 July 2025
UPDATE: MOTION APPROVED -Full Council tomorrow includes a debate on a 'visitor levy' on Brent hotels
UPDATE: The Labour motion on a visitor tax was passed with Liberal Democrat support. The Conservatives voted against. There was some discussion with Cllr Kelcher wanting a lower overnight rate of £1-2 so as not to discourage visitors.
There are some people who say Brent Council can't tell the difference between its bottom and the knobbly bit on the bend of its arm. I couldn't possibly comment, but the notice on its 'landing' webpage https://www.brent.gov.uk/ could be cited as evidence and the mistake is repeated on the 'Council meetings and decision making' page,
Tomorrow's meeting is in fact Full Council and there are a number of important items that members of the public may miss if they are misled by the notice.
The items include questions from the public and Brent Youth Parliament members to Cabinet members on debt collection practices when residents are facing the cost of living crisis, and council seeking the voices of young peope on crime and safety.
There are petitions on the exorbitant rent increase faced by the East Lane Theatre, against modification or discharge of the restrictive covenant on Barham Park, and against the Nablus Twinning arrangement. The latter does not mention that the lead petitioner, Iain Collier, is the Reform candidate for Brent West.
There are the usual party group motions. The Tories line up with Reform on Nablus, Lib Dems twist Brent Counci's current 'Don't Mess with Brent' environment campaign with a motion entitled 'Stop Messing Up Brent' and Labour move one on encouraging schools to restrict use of smart phones and another on protecting the rights of delivery riders and the safety of pedestrians.
The penultimate item is the non-cabinet members debate with a motion moved by Cllr Mary Mitchell. I declare an interest as I have previously advocated a Brent Visitor Tax to raise funds to mitigate the impact of Wembley Stadium and Arena visitors on local residents:
Motion for Non-Cabinet Member debate
Empowering Brent with Visitor Levy Powers to Support Our
Communities
This Council notes:
The growing number of successful events taking place in Wembley, which are a vital part of Brent’s local economy, attracting visitors from across the country and around the world, supporting jobs (1,800 Brent jobs from the Stadium),
businesses and hospitality across our borough.
Each additional non-sporting event at Wembley Stadium generates an estimated £4.35 million through direct local expenditure. With Oasis, Coldplay and other acts arriving this summer, Wembley Park will be in the spotlight as a world-class cultural destination.
Hotel occupancy is high across Wembley during events at the Stadium or the
Arena and capacity is estimated at nearly 1,800 rooms.
Aside from the significant economic benefits, major events in Wembley
understandably bring additional pressures on residents, including disruption,
waste, congestion, noise and increased demand on council services.
Brent Council is working proactively to mitigate these challenges, partnering with Wembley Stadium to ensure tickets are shared in the local community, giving residents access to events happening on their doorstep.
Glasgow City Council has been granted powers to introduce a modest Visitor
Levy (on average £4.83 per night), which could generate £16m in additional
income from overnight stays, with the funds ringfenced for services such as street
sweeping, parks, infrastructure, and environmental enforcement.
This Council also notes:
The recommendation made by the London Assembly, that the Mayor of London should ‘advocate for London’s live music industry to introduce a voluntary levy on arena and stadium tickets to support grassroots music venues in London.’
This Council believes:
Brent should be empowered by government with powers to introduce a visitor
levy on hotel and short-stay accommodation within the borough.
The revenue generated should be invested into transforming Brent’s public realm making Brent greener through investment in street trees and green infrastructure, enhanced street cleaning, and additional waste enforcement officers.
A visitor levy would ensure those who benefit from Brent’s world-class facilities also contribute a small amount towards maintaining high-quality services and a cleaner, greener borough.
This is a progressive, and practical measure utilised across European cities and
could supplement council funding at a time when local authorities like Brent face
sustained financial pressures.
This Council therefore resolves to:
(1) Write to the Secretary of State, calling for London boroughs, including Brent to be granted the powers to introduce a discretionary visitor levy on overnight stays.
(2) Write to the Mayor of London to support the London Assembly call for a voluntary levy on stadium and arena tickets to fund grassroots cultural opportunities.
(3) Continue to work with partners including Quintain, the FA, event organisers,
businesses and residents to ensure that the benefits of Wembley’s success are
shared fairly, and that residents' voices shape our work to establish a Visitors
Levy here in Brent.
(4) Work with London Councils, the GLA, and the LGA to build cross-party support for an amendment to the English Devolution Bill to grant the powers necessary to all local authorities to introduce Visitors Levies where supported.
Cllr Mary Mitchell
Welsh Harp ward
The full agenda for the meeting can be found HERE (fingers crossed!)
Saturday, 5 July 2025
Guest post: 'We cannot rely on the private market to solve the housing crisis. We must think outside the box and demand more from central government'
The former Liberal Democrat councillor for Alperton, Anton Georgiou, drew on his experience in Brent when he addressed the London Liberal Democrat Summer Forum as part of a panel on housing. His address is published here as a guest blog post. Housing is a major national and local issues and other guest posts on the issue are welcomed.
I am a former Councillor in a part of London that has experienced its fair share of development and building. In my time as a Councillor, I was a vocal, often lone voice, on the need to prioritise the delivery of genuinely affordable family homes and for local authorities to focus on increasing their own Council stock to address ever growing house waiting lists.
The key to tackling the housing crisis in London and nationwide must be to vastly increase the type of homes our communities require. There must be recognition that most people who are trapped without a decent home, on housing waiting lists cannot afford to privately rent and they are not able to buy their own home. Saturating the market with more of the same, mostly unaffordable, unattainable properties, is not the answer. I know from personal experience that taking this line, does put you in direct conflict with the ‘build, build, build’ brigade, but I strongly believe we must, as a party, develop an approach that both ensures the delivery of more homes and most importantly what Londoners actually need – far more genuinely affordable homes and social/ Council properties.
The problem in a nutshell is that ever since damaging policies like ‘Right to Buy’ were introduced, Council and social housing stock across London has significantly depleted. We having been knocking down and selling off annually more social homes than we have been building. All governments, political parties have failed to address the diminishing Council homes stock problem, which is why we are now in a situation where local authorities are frankly unable to even begin to reduce the number of people on housing waiting lists. Every week, thousands of Londoners present at Town Halls, Civic Centres, across the city, as homeless. They join tens of thousands of Londoners who sometimes wait upwards of a decade for a suitable Council home to be available for them to move into. The problem is much the same in other parts of the country, and whilst we feel it acutely here, given our population, I can tell you from my time working in temporary accommodation hostels in other parts of the country – the situation is dire nationwide.
Local authorities are currently spending huge amounts of money on temporary accommodation, in the case of Brent, BnB’s outside of London, simply to ensure individuals who have no where to go, do not end up on the street. If local authorities had been prioritising the building of social homes, as they should have been for the past 40 years, we may not be in as bad a situation as we are now.
Some will lead you to believe, that this is a simple supply and demand problem. Increasing the supply of all tenure types, including leasehold properties, which should be banned, Shared Ownership units, which simply put are a scam that should never be classified as ‘affordable housing’, as well as unaffordable for most, private market tenures, will deal with our current crisis. This could not be further from the truth.
We will not tackle the housing crisis by continuing the path that London, the country, has been on since the 1980’s. Things are not getting better – they are getting much, much worse.
What needs to happen now, is a revolution in Council home building, but also in ensuring maximum use of existing stock, including bringing empty properties back into use. It will require bold action, and frankly for us to think outside of the box and demand much more from national government to make it happen.
The Chancellors recent announcement of £39 billion to drive an increase in the number of affordable homes across the country over the next decade, should be welcomed, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Detail that has not been very forthcoming to date. And I fear, like most of this Labour government’s announcements, when the detail is revealed, things will start to unravel.
Despite the £39 billion commitment, the government have not set a target for how many social and Council homes they will build with this money – nor have they been explicit about the tenure types, they will include as part of their affordable homes offer. I know from my time in Brent, that often a whole load of tenure types are lumped together within the ‘affordable offer’ to boost numbers and falsely project that those in power are meeting their housing targets. This must not be allowed to continue.
As Liberal Democrats we need to be clear in our resolve that we will only accept investment in high-quality, permanent Council homes, as the best use of this money from the Treasury, and indeed any further money that we must all hope will be identified to ensure the delivery of Council homes at scale.
I was pleased to see Liberal Democrat MPs push for a vote to force the government to set a far more ambitious target on increasing social homes – 150,000 in this Parliament alone. This is something we also need to be demanding of every single local authority in London too, as well as from City Hall.
However, when targets are in place, it is essential that we hold those in power to account, in delivering them. There is simply no point in having targets, as most local authorities do, often wedded into Local Plans, that state private developers must deliver 50% ‘affordable’, which is an ambiguous term that has never been universally defined, when in the end most Councils let developers off the hook because of ‘ever increasing costs’ and the ‘financial viability’ excuse.
We cannot rely on developers alone to tackle this crisis. By their nature private developers are driven by profit, their interests are not often the interests of our communities. Therefore, local authorities need to have greater control when dealing with these profit minded organisations across the city. However, we can still make use of private developers. One thing I would want to explore is finding a way of negotiating with private developers to reduce Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 contributions, in exchange for them delivering additional genuinely affordable units, social homes, at or under the LHA rate. The concept of CIL is about offsetting the impact of development, well I see no greater way to payback to the community, than by potentially increasing the number of homes available in our communities – for people who desperately need them.
To add, Councils are always glad to collect CIL contributions, but what I have found from my time in Brent and in accessing the data from other London authorities, is that many tens of millions are hoarded rather than spent effectively quickly, as should be the case. I would much prefer to see developers guaranteeing the delivery of further genuinely affordable units, over allowing Labour Council’s to hoard money, because frankly, I do not trust Labour to spend money well.
The money that does currently exist, in Brent for example, over £100 million in the CIL pot, could and should be unlocked to assist the Council in ramping up its own Council homes building programme. Council’s need to be given greater tools and resource to build their own quality stock. The government and City Hall need to step in to realise this ambition.
I will end by saying this. Every Londoner deserves a decent, safe, affordable place to call home. This after all is the foundation for all our lives. Without this foundation, people are massively impacted, one’s ability to work, to study, to feel secure, it robs our young people of the ability to not just get by but get on and take full advantage of living in the best city in the world. This is why we need to be bold and radical in our approach. There isn’t time to tinker around the edges, and place sticking plasters on this crisis. We cannot rely on the private market to solve this crisis. It will take an interventionist approach, and the Liberal Democrats in London must lead the way on this.
Friday, 4 July 2025
Brent Community Land Trust Consultation Days - July 12h and July 17th
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
