Neasden Shopping Centre Bingo Hall application to be heard next week - opposed by Dawn Butler MP and councillors on behalf of residents

 Tuesday's Licensing Sub-Committee will hear an application from Merkul Slots to open a Bingo Hall on the former premises of Santander in the Neasden Shopping Centre,

The application is the first since Brent Council launched its campaign for the government to change the law which they claim does not give local authorities enough power to turn down such socially harmful applications.

This application has attracted submissions from Dawn Butler MP fore Brent East, Cllr Liz Dixon and another elected representative who is not named.

Dawn Butler MP:

Dear License Committee, 

 

I am writing to formally respond to the Merkur Slots Application at 263–265 Neasden Lane application number 33757 for a Bingo Club Premises Licence/Gambling Premises Licence New Application.

 

My constituency of Brent East has been disproportionately impacted by problem gambling with betting shops and adult gaming centres planted amidst our most vulnerable and deprived communities, impacting those who can least afford it. According to Brent Council’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), the borough’s problem gambling rate is 6.2%, which is over double the national average. Additionally, gambling-related harm costs the borough an estimated £14.3 million annually. Anti-social behaviour linked to loitering outside gambling shops is extremely problematic and I see this in casework I receive year-round.

 

The liberalisation of gambling legislation as introduced in the Gambling Act 2005 has been a serious failure for communities and this application just highlights the serious problems and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to take serious action and refuse the application. There is already a proliferation of gambling shops and adult gaming centres in my constituency, with three betting shops already within 100 metres of the proposed site. We know already that they have a propensity to cluster in poorer communities, which are more susceptible to gambling harm due to the hope that a big win will help them out of their situation.

 

It is deeply concerning that further details regarding the building have not been supplied. This is a strong community, and it is being blighted by these shops, whose owners hold the area in complete contempt and disregard. The fact that the application contains few details does not surprise me. I wrote to 7,000 households in Brent, to ask them for their own experiences of gambling and the betting shops in Brent.

 

This was going to form a response to the Government’s Gambling Review, the response to my call for evidence has been stark:

 

 • 97.5% were opposed to betting shops

• 80% questioned why more shops were being given permission

• 75% called for the number of stores to be limited

• 62.5% detailed experiences of anti-social behaviour in the locale of these shops.

 

I have heard from families who’ve faced financial ruin because of gambling  and from so many people for whom their daily lives are blighted by the associated anti-social behaviour, in particular street drinking and drugs, which circulate in close proximity to these gambling establishments.

 

To conclude, I strongly urge the Licensing Authority to reject this application. The people of Neasden deserve a vibrant, diverse high street that supports the well-being of all residents, not another exploitative gambling venue that deepens existing harms.

  

Anonymous representative:

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

This constitutes a formal objection to the proposed Merkur Slots application at 263- 265 Neasden Lane. As an elected representative and a voice for deeply concerned residents, I vehemently oppose this application due to its detrimental impact on the community and the area. City Hall has provided significant funding to Neasden and allowing this application to proceed would work completely against the efforts that all partners are making to improve the Town Centre and the area.

 

A Plague of Gambling Establishments:

 

Brent already suffers from an oversaturation of gambling venues. With 81 licensed gambling establishments, our borough boasts a higher concentration than  supermarkets, banks, or even schools – a truly alarming statistic. This over- proliferation, particularly in areas like Neasden, directly contradicts the principles ofm nresponsible community planning.

 

Fuelling Addiction and Social Harm:

 

The Brent Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) paints a grim picture:

 

 Epidemic of Problem Gambling: 6.2% of Brent residents grapple with problem gambling, a staggering figure twice the national average.

 Economic Devastation: Gambling-related harm costs Brent a staggering £14.3 million annually.

 Predatory Targeting: Operators like Merkur Slots exploit vulnerable communities, with Neasden, Harlesden, and Willesden bearing the brunt of this exploitation.

 The Deadliness of FOBTs: Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) and online slots, despite being utilized by a mere 3% of the population, are the primary drivers of problem gambling. The addiction rate of FOBTs surpasses even heroin and tobacco, highlighting their devastating impact.

 

These stark realities underscore the urgent need to curb the proliferation of gambling establishments, especially in areas like Neasden Lane, to safeguard our communitynfrom the devastating consequences of gambling addiction.

 

Eroding the Vitality of Neasden Lane:

 

The proposed Merkur Slots development poses a grave threat to the vitality and viability of Neasden Lane as a thriving commercial centre.

 

 Anti-Social Behaviour Hotspots: The existing concentration of betting shops within a mere 100 metres of Neasden Lane already contributes to significant anti-social behavior. Adding another gambling establishment will only exacerbate this problem.

 Undermining Community Development: This application directly undermines the substantial investments made by City Hall to revitalize Neasden Town Centre.

 Deterring Diverse Businesses: The oversaturation of gambling establishments discourages other businesses from establishing themselves, hindering the development of a diverse and vibrant commercial landscape.

 

 Unsightly Development: The proposed design lacks the vibrancy and aesthetic appeal necessary for a thriving town centre. Instead of fostering a welcoming and engaging atmosphere, it will detract from the pedestrian experience.

 

Size, Location, and Nuisance:

 

The scale and location of this proposed development are entirely inappropriate:

 

 Residential Intrusion: The continuous operation of this gambling establishment will inevitably lead to increased noise, disturbance, and anti- social behaviour, severely impacting the quality of life for nearby residents.

 Ignoring Community Concerns: This proposal blatantly disregards the Brent Local Plan's emphasis on protecting residents from the negative impacts of commercial activities.

 

Exacerbating Social Inequalities:

 

This application raises profound concerns about its impact on the most vulnerable members of our community:

 

 Preying on Financial Desperation: Many individuals, particularly during times of economic hardship, turn to gambling as a desperate coping mechanism.

 Targeting Young People and Ethnic Minorities: Young people and ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by gambling-related harm.

 

This development directly contradicts the principles of creating healthy and inclusive communities. Instead of fostering well-being, it will deepen existing inequalities and exacerbate social challenges.

 

Conclusion:

 

The proposed Merkur Slots development at 263-265 Neasden Lane is an affront to our community. It represents a threat to the health, safety, and well-being of our residents.

 

I urge the Licensing Authority to categorically reject this application and prioritize developments that contribute positively to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of Neasden.

 

 Cllr Liz Dixon:

 

 

 

 

Conflicting views on Just Cravings late-night license application

 

Facebook video The Licensing Sub-committeewill next week consider a late night licensing application for Just Cravings for their premises at 150 Willesden Lane.

The application reads like an advertisement for the desserts:

Just Cravings is a dessert takeaway dedicated to offering a delicious selection of sweet treats to satisfy every craving. Our menu features a variety of handcrafted desserts made with high- quality ingredients, ranging from rich, indulgent chocolate treats to light and refreshing fruit-based delights. Customers can enjoy warm, gooey brownies, creamy cheesecakes, and classic waffles and crepes loaded with toppings, along with a selection of hot and cold beverages. Our establishment is committed to cultural diversity, creating an inclusive and welcoming space for all dessert lovers. The premises are square in size, and we are applying for a license for late-night refreshments only. No alcohol will be served on-site. We look forward to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for our customers to indulge in high-quality desserts at any time of the day or night.

Some local residents have complained of littering, noise, alleged drug use and much else while customers have rallied to support the black-owned business and its staff submitting 34 responses.

RESIDENTS

Dear Licensing Team, I am writing on behalf of local residents regarding the premises license application (No. 34282) for Just Cravings, located at 150 Willesden Lane, NW6 7TH. We wish to formally object to this application for a late-night license due to ongoing disturbances and violations of licensing regulations. For over five months—possibly longer—this establishment has been operating beyond 2:00 AM, despite not having a license for such hours. This raises serious concerns regarding regulatory enforcement. If the premises do not currently have permission to operate late at night, we urge the council to take immediate action to prevent further breaches. We invite you to visit the location any day at 2:00 AM to verify this matter firsthand. Since the shop has been operating beyond permitted hours, residents have experienced significant disruptions, including: Increased waste and littering in the area. Anti- social behavior, including groups gathering on neighboring roads engaging in drug use (including nitrous oxide) and leaving behind debris. Frequent disturbances due to loud altercations and reckless driving in and out of local car parks. Traffic congestion, with customers parking along Willesden Lane, causing obstructions and preventing buses from stopping at designated bus stops, particularly after 9:00 PM. Given the ongoing issues already affecting the community, all local residents strongly object to this application. The situation has already made daily life unbearable, and granting official permission for these extended hours will only worsen the problems. We urge Brent Council to: Enforce the current licensing regulations if the premises are indeed operating unlawfully. Consider residents' concerns when reviewing this application and reject any extension of operating hours. Consult with affected residents from REDACTED before making a decision. We trust that the council will act in the best interests of the community and enforce the necessary regulations. Please confirm receipt of this objection and inform us of any further steps in this matter.

 

CUSTOMERS

  

I am writing to express my strong support for JustCravings’ application to extend its operating hours until 2 AM. This business is a vital social hub, a boost to the local economy, and an example of the success of Black-owned enterprises in our community. JustCravings provides a much-needed venue where people can socialise in a safe and welcoming environment. Extending its hours would allow it to continue fostering community connections while contributing to the local economy. At a time when many businesses are struggling, we should be supporting those that are thriving; not unfairly restricting them. I have reviewed the objections to this application, and the primary concern appears to be littering. While this is, of course, an issue that must be addressed, it is not a reason to deny a business the opportunity to flourish. There are practical solutions to tackle littering, such as increased bin provisions and enforcement of waste disposal rules, which should be explored rather than using it as an excuse to block a business that adds value to the area. Furthermore, I cannot ignore the racist undertones in some of the objections. Claims that JustCravings’ customers are smoking cannabis or consuming codeine are baseless stereotypes, unfairly painting a thriving Black-owned business and its patrons in a negative light. These types of accusations appear to be part of a smear campaign rather than genuine concerns about public safety. If there were any actual evidence of wrongdoing, it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels, rather than being used as an excuse to deny a licence extension. Approving this extension would send a clear message that our community supports entrepreneurship, values diversity, and welcomes economic growth. JustCravings has the potential to put our area on the map, attracting visitors and further investment. It deserves our full backing. I urge you to grant this extension and support fairness, business success, and community spirit.

Brent Travellers stand up for their community at Brent Cabinet following legal notice that would force some to move from Lynton Close site

 

The voice of Brent Travellers came over loud and clear in a presentation at Brent Cabinet yesterday. Elizabeth Corcoran, supported by Nancy Hawker (London Gypsies and Travellers Association), spoke eloquently on behalf of  residents of the Lynton Close Travellers Site.

The full presentation and the response from Cabinet member  Cllr Fleur Donnelly-Jackson can be seen in the video above.

The situation had arisen because of over-crowding at the site and a resulting fire risk. A conflict had arisen over the the introduction of a waking fire watch because of fears of strangers walking around the pitches and a waking watch hub being in the children's play area. Assurances that the fire watchers would be introduced to the residents had not been followed. The issue had not been resolved but the residents did want to ensure fire safety and re-open discussions.

Elizabeth advocated for the equal rights of Travellers as one of Brent's ethnic minority groups and said that their right to maintain their culture would be infringed by their displacement as a result of the compliance order. She spoke of the impact on children who had built up relationhips with teachers in their school. Many had additional or special needs and had waited years for support. The uncertainty was affecting the mental health and wellbeing of extended families. She cited the high suicide rates in Traveller communities. Bricks and mortar were not how Travellers wished to live and made them feel imprisoned.

She concluded:

I kindly urge the council to reconsider this course of action, to engage with our community and to find a better solution that respects our cultural beliefs and ensures our safety without uprooting.

Collaboration and understanding can lead to solutions that honour our heritage while addressing the safety concerns.

We have the elderly, the vulneable and those wih special needs, This is affecting their well-being. All we are asking is; work with us, help us find a safe and fair way for us to remain in our homes.

Let's talk about what can be done with respect and not removal. In conclusion I would ask for fire safety measures to be put in place and land found for a temporary caravan site in the face of this humanitarian emergency.

In response Cllr Fleur Donelly-Jackson said that she had made notes on the presentation and shared some of the concerns expressed. She said residents of Lynton Close were valued members of the Brent community. She said that the 28 day deadline to comply with licensing conditions was not an eviction notice but a request for the pitch holders to resolve the breaches of licence within 28 day.  

She said that the council knew that there are extended families living in their additional mobile homes and that what they were asking of these families was 'incredibly' difficult. However, it was important to stress that they don't have an automatic right to accommodation in Lynton Close in the same way that adult chidren living in over-crowded social homes don't have an automatic right to live in that home either.

The first duty of the council was to ensure residents' safety.

Cllr  Donnelly-Jackson welcomed the representatives' offer on the waking watch and confirmed that the council agreed in principle and officers would now work through the logistics and practicalities of putting the watch back in place.

The offical Cabinet Minute records Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt's comment:

In bringing the item to close, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) also took the opportunity to assure the residents of Lynton Close of the Council’s willingness to continue working with them to mitigate the issues and safety concerns which had been identified with work also ongoing to find an appropriate alternative site that would work for the community and their requirements.  He also thanked residents for their cooperation in seeking to progress implementation of a Waking Watch scheme to mitigate fire risks on the site. In response to the comments raised regarding equity, diversity and inclusion, Councillor Butt assured those present that the traveller community was not regarded any differently from others in the borough and would be afforded the same rights, recognising the legally protected characteristic that the Council had a duty to consider.  He concluded his remarks by reminding residents of the community meeting which had been scheduled and would provide a further opportunity to hear from and respond to residents and outline the measures to mitigate the safety issues associated with the site whilst supporting the community and ended by once again thanking the representatives for taking the time to attend the meeting and ensure the views of the traveller community at Lynton Close were represented.

Brent Cabinet decides to go ahead with formal consultation on Malorees amalgamation despite overwhelming opposition at informal stage

 

Despite overwhelming rejection of amalgamation at the informal consultation stage, the Brent Cabinet today approved moving ahead to a formal consultation on the merger of Malorees Infant and Junior School. The schools are in Brondesbury Park ward.

 

Patrick Martin, speaking on behalf of NEU members said that in their view an amalgamation would add nothing of benefit to the schools. They already operated as a Federation with staff teaching across the two schools with a single governing body and senior management.

Operating as a 2 form entry primary school as a result of amalgamation would result in a loss of funding of up to a annual £186,000 and this for a school already in deficit. They were being asked to agree a voluntary 5% cut in the hope of refurbishment. This would impact on the educational provision for pupils.

A previous successful bid for a multi use games area (MUGA) had been stopped when plans for a rebuild seemed to be likely.  Rebuild as an option seemed to be in doubt given the economic situation and resulting building delays and increased costs.

Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, was unable to be physically present and was then unable to  connect online so Muhammed Butt, Council Leader, read out her statement.

 She startd by offering to meet opponents of the amalgamation and said that its advantages included access to the DfE Schools Rebuilding Programme for both the infant and junior school.

Merging the schools would provide financial resilience and a robust case had been made by the Governing Body. She acknowledged the alarm and anxiety of parents and NEU members but said there would be no redundancies or worsening of conditions of service. There was no danger of academisation as had happened at Byron Court. The merged community primary school and foundation junior school would reopen as a maintained primary school: Malorees Primary School.

Shirley Parks, Director of Education, Partnership and Strategy,  took questions in the absence of Gwen Grahl. She said that the funding reduction took account of changes in the national formula and  assumed a new building.

Changes in the local area, including the situation regarding Islamia Primary and the attraction of a new building would  mean the school roll would probably increase [funding is per pupil].  The schools were now in the active DfE rebuilding  programme for consideration between April and December this year.

There had been parental concern that because the two schools were currently separate that a small number of infants were unable to get a place in the junior school. As one school they would be guaranted a place.

The Governing Body was confident that it could manage the funding reduction over a period without impact on staff

Amalgamation would ensure that the new school would help build one community and the school would only have one Ofsted inspection [one for each part of the school at present] relieving stress on staff.

Interestingly, the documentation revealed that there was no parent governor on the Governing Body at present. This is similar to the Byron Court situation where parents were not fully represented on the governing body.

 

The extent of the land for the two schools

Cllr Muhammed Butt concluded by assuring the delegation that there were no plans to build  homes on the Malorees land. The Junior School Foundation would transfer their land to Brent Council. The situation at Kilburn Park, also a Foundation School, was different as the redesignation of the land for non-education purposes was a result of the South Kilburn regeneration.

On the issue that a 200 plus on-line petition against amalgamation had not been included in the documentation, Butt said that this was because it had not come via the usual route. It had been checked and the issues raised had been addressed in the Cabinet report.

There were no questions or comments from Cabinet members before they voted to go ahead with a one month formal consultation. 

If amalgamation goes ahead (likely whatever the outcome of the formal consultation) the combined school would open as Malorees Primary School at the beginning of Summer Term, 2026. 

Guest post: Concerns about contaminated land plansand airborne carcinogens in a densely populated area

 

This guest post by a local resident draws readers' attention to an issue of concern happening just over Brent's border.

 

PROJECT FLOURISH is a proposed housing development by Ballymore/Sainsburys in partnership with the Berkeley Group. But the small parcel of highly contaminated ex-industrial land at Kensal's old Gasworks site, at the northern top of Ladbroke Grove London W10, presents multiple serious health concerns. After a badly handled Southall gasworks site which was approximately 88 acres, the Kensal site is a tiny 12 acres, therefore the area of land contaminated, waste-pits and underground waste-tanks, is likely to be far more highly concentrated within this small space.
 

Airborne toxins, at this scale, are believed to continue to have a detrimental impact up to 7km away, depending on wind speeds/directions. So draw a circle, starting at Hendon, northwards, then clockwise to Highgate, Islington, Hoxton, Liverpool Street, Lambeth, Brixton Wandsworth, North Sheen, Kew, Ealing, Wembley, Kingsbury, then back to Hendon, don't forget to include everything within that circle.

PLEASE USE THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP. Please inform your friends in other parts of London.

 

Ballymore were investigated by the Financial Times in 2021 for a disreputable history of shoddy workmanship, with many expensive repairs needed, post-construction and occupation, paid for by the new lease-holding residents, who then could not sell-on their properties. Further, Conservative MP and (then) Levelling-up Minister, named and shamed Ballymore as one of the building firms who refused to sign the “safe building register,” post-Grenfell. 

 

THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PARTICULAR GASWORKS SITE MAY BE THE MOST CONTAMINATED OF ALL OF THE UK's OLD GASWORKS SITES – due to its industrial urban location, the area that it covered and its tiny size. 

 

At least 16 toxins are found in old gasworks sites.

 

Sainsburys, Ballymore's other partner, intend to keep either the current or their new, planned bigger store, open throughout the soil remediation and construction processes. 
 
The Sainsbury store at the top of Ladbroke Grove is built, along with it's extensive car-park, on what is likely to be the most heavily contaminated portion of the site (currently capped

 

The new development planned is for housing density, with multiple mega-towers (29 storeys, 98 metres from the ground). 2,500 new homes, no social housing.

 

LAWS CONTRAVENED OR BREACHED:

Environmental Protection Act 1990

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea's own “Climate Emergency Action Plan” -Written as a policy for protecting certain areas from over-population.

Sustainable Markets Initiative, as Prince of Wales (now King Charles) launched TERRA CARTA in 2021 – a mandate that puts sustainability at the heart of the public sector. “The TERRA CARTA offers the basis of a recovery plan that puts nature, people and planet  first,

Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Planning Regulations (Greater London Authority) as set out in London Plan Policy S1

Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Protection Act 1990. Part 2A Contaminated Land – Statutory Guidance.

The current plans to remediate the toxic soils of the Kensal Gasworks site is full of very serious health hazards. Dirty work, done cheaply, in a densely populated area, with an ancient Cemetery and listed Nature Reserve nearby.

 

The official planning process only considers objections from that borough's own residents, before granting planning permission. Located about as far north of Kensington & Chelsea Borough as possible, near the boundary, in a place where many boroughs meet, the toxic winds will not stop at Borough nor Constituency borders. This plan will impact severely and, here and there, to the cost of their health and well-being, on residents from all of the nearby boroughs. Considering that a north wind is relatively rare, the most-part of the Royal Borough, to the south, will be minimally impacted, it may well impact MORE on those living, to the north, west and east (driven by prevailing winds), in Brent or  Middlesex, and to the west, Hammersmith & Fulham (the Park) and Ealing.

After the Grenfell Tower disaster, after the following Inquiry, and after many promises from the Royal Borough, they should know, and do, much better than this.

 

Please check these 2 websites, with informative videos: keepkensalgreen.com johnclarkson@futureofenergycollege.com  

PLEASE USE THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP adding information as above or from the websites.

 

Dear  MP

 

I would like to draw your attention to plans involving an inevitable cocktail of dangerous airborne volatile toxins, contravening laws, aims and promises, in a densely populated area. 1 km from London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's listed Nature Reserve,  (Wormwood Scrubs Park) and spreading across London.

 

Project Flourish is planned by Ballymore/Sainsburys to excavate and remove by lorry, the heavily poisoned soils, underground chemical waste-tanks and spoil-pits from the dirty ex-industrial Kensal Gasworks site at the northern end of Ladbroke Grove. The worst of it is believed to be currently capped-off underneath Sainsburys car-park. 

 

With a Shang-Hei style housing density on the 12 acre site, the plans contain multiple serious health and safety concerns. Firstly, that Dublin-based building company, Ballymore, were investigated by the Financial Times in February 2021 for a record of shoddy workmanship.

 

The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea have supported and promoted the plans throughout, including gifting the developers some parcels of land and some of our roads (Canal Close and Canal Way). A valuable local community resource will disappear when the building used by many genuine community-based charities, gets demolished.

Sincerely.......

Willesden Green Gaudiya Mission expansion planning application refused permission

 

A delegated decision has been made by Brent Council planners to refuse planning permission for a major expansion of the Gaudiya Mission, in Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green.

The application for changes to the Edwardian suburban house was opposed by 25 residents. The modifications included partial demolition of existing kitchen and temple room, a proposed basement extension with rear lightwell and railing, a single-storey side-to-rear extension, a rear dormer extension, alteration to side fenestration, a single-storey outbuilding in rear garden and installation of 2 front rooflights, and refuse storage to the front and cycle storage to the rear of the mixed use place of worship and dwelling house.

The reasons for refusal of planning permission were:

1. The accommodation proposed at loft floor level does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of accommodation and internal amenity for future occupants. As a result, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. The proposal by not offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement of the premises is deemed to offer a poor level of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to policies DMP1 & BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance contained within Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

3. The proposal by reason of the insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BGI2 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

The final decision notice sets out the regulations regarding appeals and purchase notices.

UPDATED WITH VITAL INFORMATION: Changes to the Barham Park restricted covenant for payment of £200,000 goes ahead allowing the building of four 3 storey houses in the park

 

 Planning Committee  preliminaries and the section on the restrictive covenant.      (Video by Brent Council including  rather irritating facial focus. Captions by Wembley Matters)

At last night's Scrutiny Committee it was interesting to see Muhammed Butt, as chair of Barham Park Trustees sitting on the opposite side of the table to his brother Cllr Saqib Butt, a member of the Scrutiny Committee that was scrutinising the Trust's actions.

In the event, as the video shows, Cllr S. Butt, along with Cllr Dixon and Clr Maurice were excluded from the section of the meeting regarding the restrive covenant because they were members of the Planning Committee that had approved George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. A decision that could only implemented by removal/amendment of the restrictive covenant, an action subsequentally approved by the Barham Park Trustees on payment of £200,000. Cllr S. Butt is vice chair of the Planning Committee. Legal officers felt that the three should not take part because of how a possibe conflict of interest could be perceived by the public.

Cllr Lorber declared an interest but continued to take part as a member of the Scrutiny Committee after being warned by legal officers that a complaint might be made about his participation.

Sorry if this is confusing, it is complicated, but Philip Grant's address to the Committee, read for him by former Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd, sets out the issues:

The Report to the 24 February Trust Committee meeting states:

‘The restrictive covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and limit development.’

Those aims are just as important now as they were in 2011.  Barham Park is one of Brent’s Historic Parks and Landscapes, a heritage asset which  the Council promised to protect.

The covenant does that by prohibiting ‘any development in or upon the Property’, which is inside the park and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Planning Committee were misled into granting the development consent in 2023 and I’ll explain why if you ask, so the covenant is the last line of protection.

The Trust’s February decisions appear to mirror the Council’s Property Strategy, which Cabinet approved last year. They do not reflect the charitable aims of the Trust, or the wishes of residents who are meant to be its beneficiaries.

The Charity Commission recommended local people should have a voice in the Trust’s decisions, and two years ago I suggested to Debra Norman how this could be achieved. My idea was ignored in the Governance review later that year, and the Chair refused to allow my suggestion to be heard by the Trust Committee in September 2023.

Other residents and councillors have also had requests to speak refused. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and as the Trust Committee are not acting in the Trust’s best interests, I would ask you, please, to refer the matter back for further consideration.

When officers were challenged by Paul Lorber to publish Charity Commission advice on the covenant removal they referred to Commission's inquiries after a complaint from a member of the public. They had sent a response and the Commission was satisfied with the Trust's processes.  They appeared to be referring to the letter published on Wembley Matters  where the Commission said they were taking not further action 'at this time' but would keep the complaint on file in case there were other concerns in the future. LINK.

The detailed discussion included much confusion, particularly over whether the proposed development was car/garage free or not and comments made by the Planning Legal Officer that statements could have been drafted more clearly, can be heard in the video.

The final decision, made by the the Scrutiny Committee's three members left standing - Cllr Long, Mitchell and Malloy, plus Chair Cllr Daniel Kennelly voted NOT to refer the matters covered in the Call-in back to the decision maker, Barham Park Trust, or Full Council. Cllr Lorber voted to refer it back.

The decision took immediate effect so the changes to the restricted covenant and its purchase goes ahead and the four houses will be built.

 

 UPDATE WITH COMMENT FROM PAUL LORBER

 This comment was too long for the normal comment word limit so published here instead: 

Anne Wade (comment below the article) explains very clearly how important Barham Park is to local people and why it is important to keep up the fight to preserve it for the benefit of local people and not of private developers or Councillors who simply do not care.

If the Labour Councillors who act as Trustees or Council Officers managed the affairs of the Barham Park Trust ( a charity) effectively there would be no issues and no need to carry out any Scrutiny.

As I have pointed out for some time (and Wembley Matters has covered my concerns) the Barham Park Trust is managed very badly by both the Labour Trustees and by Brent Council Officers. I will give you some examples:

1. When Labour closed the Public Library in Barham Park they brought in a tenant who took over the Library space and most of the rest of the building. The Council claimed that dealing with just one tenant would make things simpler.

Over a number of years that tenant failed to pay their rent and built up arrears of over £60,000. A large amount is still outstanding today - this has cost the Council/Trust thousands of pounds in lost interest.

2. Most tenants occupying the building have Leases which state their rent and the service charges. The rents are subject to regular reviews. Council Officers working on behalf of the Trust failed to carry out rent reviews (until I pointed it out to them) and failed to charge service charges. This has cost the trust many thousands of pounds.

 

3. The Trust was persuaded to employ consultants at a cost of over £20,000 to undertake a major feasibility study to upgrade the buildings to generate commercial rents. The proposal is to replace the space occupied by long standing community organisations with Hotel Rooms and Shops. The Trust was told that a Silver Option would cost £3,162,000 and the Labour Trustees gave this a go ahead. While the consultants said that to deliver this option would require 'vacant possession' NO one bothered to ask when vacant possession could be achieved. As  the Barham Community Library lease does not expire until October 2031 and much can change in 7 years this was a pointless exercise.

 

BUT it gets worse. Having told the trustees that the Council and not the Charity would pay the £20,000 consultancy fee - they charged the £20,000 to the Charity anyway "because the Council had no authority to pay it". Yet it is the same Councillors and same Officers who advise and make decisions for the Trust and for the Council.

 

AND to top it all - 2 years after the £20,000 was spent on the consultants and the Trustees accepted the £3 million option it turns out that the £3,162,000 cost is exclusive of VAT and that the  Barham Park Trust would have to cough up over £600,000 in VAT extra on top if the daft project was proceeded with.

I could go on listing a catalogue of disasters inflicted on the Barham Park Trust as a result of poor management and poor  oversight by the Trustees but I will save that for another day.

I will however say something about the saga of the Covenant.

The first point to make is that it was put in place to prevent further building work in the Park. It was part of the deal with George Irvin and he knew full well what the restrictions were when he bought the two existing houses. That was it - NO more!

If he does not like it he could always sell the two houses back to the Council - after all the Council has two Companies specifically buying up properties in the open market and there is nothing to stop the purchase of these two with the restrictive covenant in place.

The Council has now been dealing with the Covenant issue for 4 years. Council officers have spent vast amount of their time on this. Their time has not been costed but it won't be cheap and is met by Council Taxpayers and not by George Irvin.

Almost two years ago Council Officers advised the Trustees that it is normal for the development gain arising from varying the Covenant to be split on a 50/50 basis. The Trustees agreed to proceed on the basis of this advice.

The Trustees were presented with a 'revised' (it is not clear why it was revised) valuation showing the Development Gain/Profit that would arise after all the demolition, rebuilding and other costs at their meeting in February 2025. They have decided to keep the valuation and the figures confidential from the eyes of the public.

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were provided with a copy of the valuation a few days before the Scrutiny Meeting.

At the Scrutiny meeting I challenged Councillor Butt, Chair of the Trustees and Councillor Officers about the 50/50 advice and why the Trustees (all members of the Labour Cabinet) were prepared to accept a gross payment of £200,000 when this was a very long way from a 50/50 split. While I cannot disclose the exact figures I can say that my intervention at the Scrutiny Meeting was because the difference is MASSIVE! - and it is the Barham Park Charity which is the big loser.

On a final point it is important to stress that the £200,000 selling price is the 'gross' amount before expenses of the valuation and much more. The Trust will therefore benefit by much less than £200,000 although through another 'oversight' this is not mentioned in the Trustee Meetings either.

I (and others) have now been challenging Brent Council about the mismanagement of the Barham Park Trust and the neglect of Barham Park since at least 2011 (the year they closed Barham Park Library). Vast amount of money has been wasted on mismanagement and pointless consultants reports.

I am sorry to say that Barham Park is not safe in the hands of Brent Council or its self appointed group of Labour Councillors as Trustees.

It came as no surprise that the Labour Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee voted on block in support of their Leader.

There is however only so much that can be covered up. Watch this space.