Before you vote this evening in #Alperton #Barnhill #WembleyCentral Brent by-elections READ THIS!

Why Labour voters should support Andrew Linnie of the Green Party in Alperton after suspension of the Labour candidate

The Kilburn Times reports LINK that the Labour Party has suspended Chetan Harpale, its candidate in the Alperton by-election  over alleged anti-Muslim tweets. Wembley Matters  broke the story on the tweets on December 30th  LINK which apart from the anti-Muslim comments also suggested Jeremy Corbyn was pro-Jihadis and praised right wing Tory MP Bob Blackman.

Harpale remains on the ballot paper and suspension is not the same as expulsion. Due process means that there will be an investigation and Harpale will have the chance of defending the comments or perhaps claim that his Twitter account was hacked. 

Labour Party activists are unlikely to be able to stomach campaigning for Harpale given the allegations but under Labour Party rules are not able to openly campaign to support a candidate from a rival party. This does not apply to Labour voters of course, who can make up their own minds over which candidate from other parties standing in Alperton comes closest to reflecting their own beliefs.

A further consideration is that if Harpale is elected despite the allegations, perhaps through automatic support for Labour by habitual Labour voters, he could be expelled by Labour but attempt to keep his seat as an Independent. As an Independent action could be taken against him in the Standards Committee using the Code of Conduct for Councillors.  Ironically the previous Chair of the Standards Committee was James Allie who the Kilburn Times reports has also been suspended by the Labour Party. He resigned before Christmas following allegations that he has 'utilised' a dead woman's legacy for his own uses, including the purchase of a house. LINK

If Harbale is elected, but resigns immediately, there will need to be another by-election in Alperton ward.

WHY LABOUR VOTERS SHOULD VOTE GREEN IN THESE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

I would argue that the best way to solve this mess is for Alperton Labour voters to support Andrew Linnie the Green Party candidate.  Andrew has an excellent reputation as an Alperton resident who has campaigned on housing and regeneration issues.  He has addressed the Planning Committee on behalf of residents and issues a regular campaigning Newsletter in the locality.

More broadly the Green Party has national and regional policies which many Labour  activists would support. These include:

• ANTI-AUSTERITY The Green Party campaigned against the imposition of austerity from the outset while the Labour Party pre-Corbyn, was ambivalent to say the least. Locally we were members of the cross-party Brent Fightback. (Caroline Lucas addresses the People's Assembly Anti-Austerity march in 2014 HERE)  The Lib Dems were of course pro-Austerity.
• GREEN NEW DEAL Greens came up with the idea, in collaboration with trade unionists and other groups, a long time ago supporting One Million Climate Jobs and advocating a 'just transition' to a low carbon economy. Green Party statement on Green New Deal 2007 LINK
• HOUSING Greens have a range of housing policies LINK which start with the principle that 'affordable, secure and comfortable accommodation is a basic human right'. We reject the current misuse of the term affordable and through our GLA Assembly members are campaigning for the the London Mayor to have control over London's housing so renters are guaranteed decent homes and are protected from unfair evictions and unaffordable rents.
• DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF EDUCATION The Green Party adopted a policy of opposition to academies and free schools and their integration back into the local authority system well before the Labour Party and also opposed SATs because of their detrimental impact on both pupils and teachers. LINK

FOOTNOTE

This is the motion on Islamophobia adopted by Full Council on July 8th 2019:

“Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

Contemporary examples of Islamophobia in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in encounters between religions and non-religions in the public sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

·                Calling for, aiding, instigating or justifying the killing or harming of Muslims in the name of a racist/ fascist ideology, or an extremist view of religion.

·                Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.

·                Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.

·                Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.

·                Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

·                Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g. loyalty tests.

·                Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. the Prophet Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterise Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.

·                Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic.

Brent CEO attempts to clarify errors in FoI response on Butt's meetings with developers

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council CEO, has replied to Philip Grant's email about Cllr Muhammed Butt's meetings with developers and the accuracy of the FoI answer provided to Andrew Linnie LINK:

Further to your email, all of the information that was provided in the FoI has been checked, and where any was found to be incorrect, we have established how the error occurred.

In the FOI response, two meetings were referenced;

1)      5th April 2017; this meeting actually took place on 5th April 2016*. It was attended by Cllr Butt and Aktar Choudhury. The Executive Assistant who checked through Mr Choudhury’s outlook records accidentally typed the wrong year, and the error was then carried forward into the FOI response. The email chain that lead to this error has been seen. The diaries of the attendees have been cross referenced to confirm the date the meeting actually took place.

2)      23rd May 2017 - this meeting took place at the time and date stated in the FOI, and the attendees were correctly stated**.

The FOI also highlighted hospitality received by Cllrs Butt and Tatler from R55’s representatives, and the declaration forms and the various diaries to confirm the details of this have been checked. The hospitality records show that this meal was registered on the 10th May 2017. The FoI incorrectly used this as the date that the hospitality was accepted. However, the form correctly declares that the meal took place on 9th May 2017, and attendee diary records confirm this.

There are no formal minutes of the discussions that took place. Aktar Choudhury was the only officer present at the meeting on 5th April 2016, and he confirms that no note exists of this meeting. Amar Dave did make a handwritten note of the meeting he and Aktar attended on 23rd May 2017, which I have read.

* The question arises as to if this meeting did indeed take place on 5th April 2016 why did the October 31st FoI response say that 'the meeting was also attended by Amar Dave (Strategic Director - Environment and Regeneration)' when Dave although appointed in March 2016 did not take up the post until June 2016?

 ** On the meeting that was held on May 23rd 2017, the day before the Planning Committee where Downs said that Dave made a handwritten note, why did the FoI response on October 31st not include those notes?

Andrew Linnie, who  made the FoI request said, 'So the meeting that raised eyebrows did in fact take place on that day, and though they have a handwritten note they failed to release it.  Doesn't paint any better a picture!'

Linnie confirmed that despite Butt's letter to Philip Grant of December 1st stating that 'clarification and an apology is in the process of being issued' LINK as the author of the FoI he has still not heard anything from the Council.

-->
It is not only May's government that is a shambles.

Alleged political interference in Brent's planning decision making process brought to attention of Monitoring Officer

 From Philip Grant (first published as a comment on Andrew Linnie's psot)

Further to Andrew Linnie's post LINK, this is the text of an email I have sent to Debra Norman, Brent's Chief Legal Officer:-

Dear Ms Norman,

I am writing to you in your role as Brent Council's Monitoring Officer, to bring to your attention allegations of interference in decision making over planning applications, which, if true, are in clear breach of Brent's Planning Code of Conduct and Members' Code of Conduct.

You will remember that, on 3 October, you replied on behalf of the Council to a Freedom of Information Act request I had made, about hospitality received on 10 May 2017 by two Cabinet members and two Senior Officers from Terrapin Communications Ltd, on behalf of some of their developer clients. I shared the information provided, and my views on it, in a blog on the "Wembley Matters" site on 5 October, which I believe I drew your attention to.

As a result of my involvement in that matter, I received private email correspondence in early October from several Brent councillors, who shared information with me "in confidence". I responded to them, saying that I felt their allegations and supporting evidence should be passed on to you, as Monitoring Offier. I do not know whether any of them have done so, as they may be concerned about the personal consequences to their political careers if they were to "blow the whistle" on the Council Leader.

I was not intending to get involved further, but information from another FoI request has been shared today on the "Wembley Matters" site, in a blog headed "No records kept of Cllr. Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers", which I would suggest that you read at:
http://wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/no-records-kept-of-cllr-butts-closed.html

In view of the concerns raised in that article, I felt it only right to ensure that you were made aware of the nature of the information I was given by councillors early last month, so that you can consider what action should be taken to stop the potentially illegal manipulation of Brent's planning process, and help to restore trust in that process, which many Brent residents feel has been brought into disrepute. Even though I cannot give the names of my sources, I believe that the information they gave me was in good faith, and is probably true.

1) It is "common knowledge" among Brent councillors that there is "political interference" with the planning process at Brent Council.

2) A former planning officer and a former legal officer at Brent Council have confirmed that there was direct interference by Cllr. Butt in planning decisions made.

3) At least three current or former councillors on Brent's Planning Committee have admitted that Cllr. Butt has told them how to vote on planning applications - but none of them are willing to speak out publicly.

I will copy the text of this email as a comment on today's blog article (see link above), so that it is in the public domain that this information has been given to you. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

No records kept of Cllr Butt's closed-door meetings with Alperton tower developers

Plans for Minavil House site in Alperton

-->

Guest Post by Andrew Linnie

It has emerged that, contrary to Local Government Association advice, no minutes or notes were kept of three meetings between Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt (Labour) and the developers of a controversial £150m tower in Alperton. Not only were there no notes kept, but the meetings took place in a short period before the project was due to be deliberated on by the planning committee, including one meeting the day before the decision was due to be made.

The LGA advises that such meetings, which can be beneficial in allowing councillors and developers to discuss pertinent matters, should take place in the formative stages of a plan. However, meeting with developers and their representatives the day before the council is due to rule on a scheme, especially one of such scale, is unprecedented and brings the entire planning process into disrepute. Councillors are expected to ensure that there is no possibility of predetermination. The final meeting took place on May 23^rd of this year, the day before the committee met to decide. The two previous meetings were in the preceding weeks, on April 5^th and May 10^th respectively. At the latter, Butt and the council’s lead for regeneration Cllr Shama Tatler also accepted lunch as hospitality from the developer’s representatives.

The 26-storey tower is well above the 17-storey limit Cllr Butt and his colleagues promised for the area when they adopted the Alperton Masterplan in 2011. It was opposed by dozens of neighbours, and a petition I arranged, previously discussed on Wembley Matters LINK, gained over 200 signatures. The development was also criticised for failing light tests and being twice the maximum density for the area. Cllr Butt’s colleagues representing Alperton admitted in a letter that many concerns were ignored, but claimed that there was nothing they could do. A freedom of information brought the lack of record keeping to light:

Uproar over Brent's Alperton high rise approval, despite application “failing to meet requirements in 13 different matters”

Guest post by Alperton resident Andrew Linnie

Once again questions are being raised regarding the scrutiny under which Brent Council Planning Committee examines applications in the Alperton growth area, after the approval on August 9^th of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road. 

The site is formed of two small plots separated by a private laneway, one section a disused HSBC bank and the other formerly a pub called the Plough. As was the case with Minavil House in May, I was speaking on behalf of locals in opposition to the proposal. Neighbouring residents objected for a wide variety of reasons, and the planners at Brent Council conceded that the plans for the development, which will feature 92 flats in two towers over 9 and 10 stories, failed to meet a large number of planning regulations and considerations.

 

144 neighbouring windows failed light assessments, yet were deemed acceptable anyway. Some homes, between this scheme and the impact of 255 Ealing Road, are losing almost all of their direct sunlight. It was asked at the meeting of August 9^th what the point of such assessments is, if even the worst affected windows are to be deemed “acceptable given the context”. The effect of the buildings’ imposing height is exacerbated by the fact that their positioning fails to meet standards – none of the nearby existing buildings is 20m away as recommended by the London Plan, and one building, the currently-under-construction 255 Ealing Road, is less than 10m away from the proposed towers, failing to even meet the less stringent 10m separation guideline required elsewhere.

 

Residents also raised concerns over the legality of access through private land to the new development. According to the submitted plans, the emergency exit at the rear of Block A of the building opens directly into garden beds owned and maintained by residents of the 243 Ealing Road development, though the plans incorrectly show this as being paved. The residential and commercial refuse stores on the side of the same block open facing a privately owned laneway connecting Hatton and Ealing Roads. The access to these stores along the side of the building is less than 100cm wide at its narrowest point, narrower than Brent Council’s 1100 litre bins. 

Planners recommended in a supplementary report that access should be added into the refuse stores from the private laneway bisecting the site, ignoring the fact that it is privately owned and maintained by residents of the development next door. This was just one of many design flaws in the plan, including a wheelchair accessible unit included on the ninth floor of a building with just one lift, and the fact that, although obscured windows are planned for the rear of block A to avoid encroaching on privacy in neighbouring Braunston House, there are still balconies looking directly into nearby homes.

The mix of housing was another concern which failed tests. Just 16% of units are family sized, well short of the 25% requirement, and the affordable housing provision fails to meet expectations by some distance, at 26%. The density of surrounding schemes is 260 housing units/hectare, the maximum recommended in the London Plan. The scheme approved this week is 800 units/hectare. Planners said this is mitigated by the community space provided, a community space which less than a quarter of respondents in the public consultation said they wanted, and which is only 166sqm.

The current non-residential space provided on the site is 832sqm, so this “mitigation” actually represents a loss of over 80% plus added demand, while Alperton still has under half the open space of an average London ward. Saying that the density is similar to nearby developments ignores the fact that those developments included a significant provision of open space and retail units, which are still unused due to a lack of access.

 

This, like other developments nearby, is described as ‘car-free’ and provides 10 disabled spaces for accessible units, but no parking for the other 82 homes. The impact of this is estimated to be 66 additional cars parking in neighbouring streets, leading to an extension of the Controlled Parking Zone. There is a large provision for cycle parking, however the roads nearby are all marked red in the lowest category for cycle safety by TFL, and the only segregated cycle lane in the ward of Alperton, along the canal, is unlit and dangerous at night. 

While the buildings are close to Alperton Station, TFL say Alperton ward has one of the lowest average PTAL (Public Transport Access) scores in all of Brent. Hundreds of new homes have been approved in the area without any plan for improved services, notably the 251 units in the controversial 26 storey Minavil House tower, approved in May despite widespread opposition and a limit of 17 storeys in the area’s Masterplan. According to an independent transport assessor the figures presented at the council for the transport impact of Minavil House nearby were out by a factor of 8. Once again, there was much debate at planning committee level regarding the quality of transport services in the area, particularly with regard to the accessibility of Alperton Station and the lack of night services. The state of medical services in the area, already severely stretched, was also raised.

 

The Plough Pub, which has been closed for over a year, was open until developers purchased the site. Cllr Mary Daly pursued the planning officers on the issue of the pub’s upkeep, and the fact that it was not advertised for lease for the statutory 24 months after closure. The building has been allowed to decay since its closure, according to residents. 

Cllr Michael Maurice at one point of the meeting counted off 13 matters in which the proposal failed to meet guidelines and requirements.

The developers of the scheme failed to take into consideration the views put forward in the initial consultation. The design is seen by many as inappropriate for the site and lacks context, to the point that the area will become a patchwork of clashing styles. There are five unrelated styles of high rise architecture already approved or constructed, this adding yet another. The developer made no effort to gather views from residents until the week in the run up to the planning meeting, at which point it was much too late to make a difference. 42 addresses objected to the scheme, none responded in favour. Many also raised concerns as to the safety of residents during the construction phase, as the buildings occupy the entire site and will necessitate external building space, impacting on the ability of emergency services to access neighbouring homes.

 "Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, 

or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

When speaking at the meeting on behalf of objecting residents, I concluded by asking our representatives what their duty in the process is, in the their opinion: “This scheme fails light, massing, density, air, noise, access and other tests, yet is recommended for approval. Are our councillors and planners here to enforce the laws and guidelines for local people, or to make excuses and exceptions for private developers?”

The Planning Committee was split three votes to three, with Cllr Daly abstaining despite raising many concerns. At that point the chair, Cllr Agha, cast a deciding vote in favour of the development proceeding, and in doing so gave me an answer to my question. One wonders at this point just how many guidelines and regulations a developer would have to ignore for Brent Council Planning Committee to refuse them permission.