Keir Starmer voted against a Third Runway for Heathrow back in 2018 but has changed his mind as part of Labour's growth, growth and more growth agenda.
But how did our MPs vote in 2018?
Bob Blackman MP for Harrow East at the time defied a three line Conservative whip and voted against as did Dawn Butler ( Labour - Brent Central), Barry Gardiner (Labour - Brent North) and Karen Buck, then Labour MP for Westminster North.
That constituency is now largely Queens Park and Maida Vale represented by Georgia Gould, who is very close to Starmer.
How will they all vote this time? Will they forget the climate emergency out of loyalty to Keir Starmer?
There was a debate in Westminster Hall yesterday on Gaza and Humanitarian Aid instigated by one of the new Independent MPs, Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr), elected in the wake of the Gaza conflict.
Westminster Hall debates do not make policy but give MPs a chance to register their concerns.
As politicians, we talk of the international rules-based system, by which we
mean the World
Trade Organisation and the United Nations, but often we do so only when it
suits our position. When it does not, we ignore it. That is why it is crucial
that we grasp the legal implications of the decision promulgated on 19
July this year by the International
Court of Justice. It settled the law in its advisory opinion on the
legality of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
The opinion came from a request by the United
Nations General Assembly in December 2022, and I believe it carries immense
weight. It is the interpretation of our world’s highest court of law as it
relates to the occupation of Palestine.
The court ruled that the occupied Palestinian territory is to
be considered a single territorial unit, which means that the failure to
recognise Palestine as a state is now out of step with international law. On 10
September, Palestine took its seat at the 79th session of the General
Assembly of the United Nations. It is not yet a full member, because it has
been blocked by the United States, but it has the right to submit proposals and
amendments. The Government
of the UK still does not recognise the Palestinian state, and I believe
that that is now incompatible with international law.
The court ruled that settlements and outposts in the west
bank and East Jerusalem
were unlawful. It does not matter that Israeli law considers settlements to be
lawful; they are not, and they should be evacuated. The court ruled that
Israel’s exploitation of natural resources in settled land was also unlawful.
The court ruled that Israel occupied Gaza. It ruled that it occupied the west
bank and East Jerusalem. It ruled that that occupation was unlawful. It ruled
that the occupation must be brought to an end.
That also means that, in its actions, Israel must behave not
as a warring nation state against another warring state, but as an occupying
force, with all the obligations that entails about its conduct, including
ensuring that aid can get through to all who need it. Israel ought to cease its
unlawful activities, halt all new settlement activity and provide full
reparation for the damage caused by its wrongful acts, which includes returning
land, property and assets seized since the occupation began in 1967 and
allowing displaced Palestinians to return to their original places of
residence.
The court made it clear that other states also have
obligations. It emphasised that all states are required not to recognise the
illegal situation created by Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. That
means that they should not engage in trade, investment or diplomatic relations
that would entrench Israel’s unlawful presence. The advisory opinion is a
landmark in the legal and political struggle over the fate of the Palestinian
people and the integrity of international law. It highlights the obligations of
all states, including the United Kingdom, to ensure that the rule of law
prevails. We are all duty bound not only to act in the interests of justice and
human rights, but to uphold the very principles of international law. That is
the law. It is clear. It has been authoritatively stated by the court. What is
not clear is whether Governments will abide by it. The law can state, the court
can rule, but none of it brings about anything unless the power of enforcement
lies behind it.
In the UK we are very fond of saying that we respect the
international court and the international rules-based order. My challenge to
the Minister
is this: show it.
Graham Durham publicly calling for Brent MPs, Dawn Butler, Barry Gardiner and Georgia Gould, to vote to keep pensioners' Winter Fuel Allowance
Former Brent Labour councillor, Graham Durham, now a local National Pensioner Convention activist, has attacked his MP Dawn Butler for failing to oppose the cutting of the Winter Fuel allowance by the Labour government, and failing to respond to her constituents' concerns.
The cut has led to a storm of protests across the country. Many are predicting that the poorest pensioners will struggle to heat their homes this winter and over half a million people have signed an Age UK petition opposing the cut.
Unite the Union October 7th Lobby of Parliament
Graham Durham, aged 70, said:
It is sadly inevitable that some old people in Brent will die as a result of this cut if we have a cold winter. Over 3,000 poorer pensioners in Brent East are affected so it is very sad that Dawn Butler did not vote against the cut in Parliament.
To add insult to injury Dawn Butler has failed to respond to constituents who wrote to her expressing concern over many months and failed to meet constituents when they joined the national lobby at the House of Commons on 7 October.
We need our local MP to stand up for us and oppose this cruel cut.
Graham Durham will be speaking about his recently published novel, A Peal of Socialism, at Kilburn Library, Salusbury Road, NW6, tomorrow 11am-12. The novel is set in Kilburn, Cricklewood and Willesden.
The fire at Petworth Court (Credit: London Fire Brigade)
Octavia Housing hit national headlines in January 2024 when Petworth Court, Elm Road, Wembley Central. It emerged that Barry Gardiner, MP, had repeatedly raised concersn about the block with Octavia with little response. The Fire Brigades Union warned of 'criminal complacency' on the part of the then government and some building firms regarding cladding.
Now the Regulator of Social Housing has issued a Regulator Judgement on Octavia Housing:
The Safety and Quality Standard requires landlords to have an accurate, up
to date and evidenced understanding of the condition of their homes that
reliably informs their provision of good quality, well maintained and safe
homes for tenants. It also requires landlords to identify and meet all legal
requirements that relate to the health and safety of tenants in their homes and
communal areas, and that all required actions arising from legally required
health and safety assessments are carried out within appropriate timescales.
Following a serious fire at one of its properties in January 2024 and wider
review of its landlord health and safety compliance, Octavia
made a self-referral to us in respect of fire, electrical and gas safety.
Having sought further information including assurances on other areas of
building safety, we have concluded that there are serious failings in the
oversight, management, and delivery in several areas of Octavia’s
landlord health and safety responsibilities.
London Fire Brigade has issued Notifications of Fire Safety Deficiencies in
respect of 13 of Octavia’s buildings since
May 2023. Octavia currently has over 1,200
overdue fire safety remedial actions categorised as either high or medium
priority and has failed to take sufficient steps to mitigate the potential
risks to tenants identified.
Octavia was unable to provide
sufficient assurance that it meets other landlord health and safety
requirements. Octavia has failed to hold
complete and accurate records to confirm where health and safety inspections
are required, whether they had been carried out within legally required or
recommended timescales, and whether smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are
installed as legally required.
Octavia has been proactive in engaging
external support, increasing staff resource, and creating improvement plans to
increase its oversight of its health and safety compliance. It is currently
undertaking investigations to identify and address gaps in its records, develop
an effective programme of health and safety assessments and confirm the full
extent of remedial actions required to meet all legal requirements.
Octavia has reported that it recognises
that it can deliver its purpose more effectively by joining another landlord
and following the September 2023 Regulatory Judgement has been progressing the
work needed to achieve this. Ahead of this being delivered Octavia
has been able to draw on significant support from its preferred partner
landlord to deliver the improvements required.
Our engagement with Octavia will
continue to be intensive. We will seek evidence that gives us assurance that Octavia
is making sufficient progress on its investigations and delivery of its
improvement programme so that it is meeting its health and safety legal
requirements and delivering the outcomes of our standards. We are not proposing
to use our enforcement powers at this stage but will keep this under review as Octavia
seeks to resolve these issues. Our priority will be that risks to tenants are
adequately managed and mitigated.
The housing provider that Octavia was engaged in partnership talks with is Abri that itself has been subjected to a finding of severe maladminstration in two cases by the Housing Ombudsman. This caused Michael Gove, the then Secretary of State to write in December 2023:
In one case, you left one of your residents
with faulty windows for almost five years, with the resident waiting up to a
year to hear from you on multiple occasions. They were left with a cold
property in the winter and issues with insects during the summer. I am
disappointed to learn that these issues became so severe that she was forced to
leave the property.
In the second case, you failed to deal with a
complaint about damp and mould from a vulnerable resident with a heart
condition and who is registered blind. You carried out the same ineffective
repairs year after year, and failed to address the root causes, leaving your
vulnerable resident living in poor conditions for far too long.
When your residents report an issue, and
especially when vulnerable people are involved, it must be acted upon swiftly
and effectively. The tragic death of Awaab Ishak has shown that we must not be
complacent about issues that risk residents’ health.
I understand you have addressed all the
orders and recommendations made by the Ombudsman, including overhauling your
approach, processes and policies regarding damp and mould. I expect the changes
to make a significant difference to the service you deliver to your residents.
NEU members at Byron
Court Primary School, who have already taken 10 days of strike action are due strike
for the three days running up to the General Election in a fight to save their
local community school from a takeover by the huge Harris Federation chain of
academies, a company whose CEO donated to Tory funds. Strikes are continuing on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week.
Campaigners will
take to Parliament Square and the DfE on 2nd July in a big red
vintage routemaster bus to gain publicity to ask the incoming education
minister to overturn their “academy order”.
The school’s forced “academy order” follows an
intimidating Ofsted inspection which, for staff, had parallels with the
experience of Ruth Perry and resulted in the same “inadequate” one word
judgement. They are hoping for a new Labour government, who have promised to
get rid of Ofsted one word judgements, to intervene and revoke the academy
order to keep this as a community school.
118 campaigners wrote to the DfE prior to the
decision being taken, to oppose the move, but a recent FOI request for
information on how this was presented, has been snubbed. There have been two
complaints against Ofsted but so far Ofsted have not investigated the process
that took place.
NEU members, parents, councillors and the local community have been turning out to support picket lines and prtotests at the school, Brent Civic Centre and Central London. They have been supported by Barry Gardiner.
Jenny Cooper of the NEU national executive has
stated:
The
“SAVE BYRON COURT” campaign has found itself on the frontline of defence
against privatisation, since the election was announced, and school staff
around the country are watching to see what the next government will do. We do
not want this to be the last community school to be given to private hands- we
want it to be the last time this battle has to be fought.
NEU
members at Byron Court Primary School are striking again in a fight to save their
local community school which is threatened with a forced privatisation by the
huge Harris Federation chain of academies. PICKET LINE OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL FRIDAY
14th JUNE 7.30-9.30am! [Subsequent
dates: 18th/19th June, 25th/27th
June and 2nd, 3rd and 4th July]
Staff at Byron Court Primary
School in Wembley continue to strike to save their local community school from
a forced “academy order” following an intimidating Ofsted inspection. They are
striking following their protest,
alongside parents and the NASUWT outside the DfE last week in which a petition
of over 2000 signatures was handed over, supported by Barry Gardiner, the
constituency Labour Candidate.
THE
NEU HAVE YESTERDAY LAUNCHED A “GO YELLOW” CAMPAIGN ACROSS ALL BRENT SCHOOLS in
which staff are asked to wear yellow or black as an act of solidarity with
striking members at Byron Court. Yellow and black are the current Byron Court
uniform colours and the campaign is launched on the day that Harris Federation
are forcing their way into the school to “consult” pupils on a new uniform.
Staff have today heard that
the proposed TUPE consultation will not conclude until AFTER the general
election, bringing real hope that the incoming Secretary of State will pause
this forced academisation process.
Jenny Cooper of the NEU
national executive has stated:
Forced academisation is a process opposed by most education unions and
flies in the face of democracy; this should not happen in a civilised society.
We call on all political parties to reverse this policy if elected and to start
by intervening to save Byron Court
Barry Gardiner made a statement on Twitter yesterday following what he said was a 'very positive discussion' with Labour's Shadow Education Secretary about the forced academisation issues at Byron Court Primary School.
In a letter to Gillian Keegan, Secretary of State for Education, Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, calls for Byron Court to be given a chance to improve with the assistance of govrnors and the Rapid Improvement Group that is now in place. He suggests a period of six months, two of which are holidays, before an Ofsted reinspection takes place. If successful this could mean that Byron Court remains a community school rather than face the disruption and turmoil of academisation.
Gardiner cites the rapid expansion of the school to 5 form entry (opposed by the local community) that made it bigger than some secondary schools and the absence of the headteacher through sickness as contributing to the problems of the school. A falling school roll, after the expansion, put additional pressure on the school as it attempted to manage a much bigger school estate.
Quoting the NEU's criticism of the Ofsted inspection process and its impact on the staff's wellbeing, Gardiner says that if the inspection had taken place under the new guidance issued after the death of Ruth Perry, the inspection would not have found as it did.
The arguments against the expansion of Byron Court into a 'mega-primary' were reported on Wembley Matters in 2016 HERE.
LEASEHOLD
is the new 42-minute documentary which tells the story of the millions
of leaseholders now trapped in their own homes, unable to sell or move
apartment. The programme examines the need for better rules to govern
apartment management and construction.
Since
the Grenfell disaster, the government has introduced legal changes
which have meant many homeowners are now unable to secure a mortgage on
their property and face mounting new costs.
The
show is presented by Labour MP Barry Gardiner and visits residents
across the UK from London to Manchester meeting those affected by years
of uncertainty, building misery and increased bills.
At least 125 firefighters and 20 fire engines were called to a cladding fire in Wembley yesterday, 29 January.
Matt Wrack, Fire Brigades Union general secretary, said:
Firefighters have once again been called to cladding fire which could have resulted in tragedy.
The Fire Brigades Union warned of the risks of flammable cladding
many years before the terrible Grenfell Tower fire. Decades of
deregulation have created unnecessary risks to residents and
firefighters, and put homes and lives at risk.
Government ministers and building companies have been criminally
complacent. We will continue to demand justice for the victims of this
situation, and urgent action to ensure that buildings are safe.
Meanwhile speaking to the Kilburn Times LINK, Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North, slammed Octavia Housing who manage the block:
Our worst fears have happened. The nightmare that residents have been living with has become a reality.
Octavia Housing, who manage the block, were repeatedly warned this
could happen. Yet they sat on their hands and did nothing. This will be
traumatic for all the residents who live in Elm Road.
Six years on from Grenfell, three years on from being advised the
cladding was unsafe, Octavia has done nothing to remove the cladding or
even make any attempt to advise residents trapped in their small flats
when the work would commence or who would pay for it.
Octavia responded to me in December and said they
were unable to share any information on the fire safety reports on the
advice of their solicitors
On Twitter Peter Apps commented:
Note:
Brent Council have a statutory duty to publish a safety case report for all the 41 buildings in scope of the Fire Safety Act by the 6th April 2024.
The replacement of leasehold by commonhold came up yesterday when Martin Boyd, chairman of the Government's Leasehold Advisory Service appeared before the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee LINK.
Asked about the risks in the switch Boyd said:
Yes, there are risks.
Currently, we do not have a viable commonhold system. Even if the Government
were to come forward with the full Law Commission
proposals, those had not reached the point where they created all the systems
necessary to allow the conversion of leasehold flats to commonhold flats. I see
no technical reason at the moment why we should not move quite quickly to
commonhold on new build for extant stock. I think it will take longer—and, at
the end of the day, conversion will be a consequence of consumer demand. People
would want to do it. On my side, I would not want us to convert to commonhold,
because I could not yet be sure that it would help to add to the value of the
properties. It would make our management of the site a lot easier, but I could
not guarantee to anyone living there that it would add to the value of their
property—and that is what people want to know, before they convert.
Later in the session he added:
I am proud to say that it was LKP that
restarted the whole commonhold project in 2014. At the time, we were told, “The
market doesn’t want commonhold.” The market very clearly told us that it did
want commonhold; it was just that the legislation had problems in 2002. One of
our trustees, who is now unfortunately no longer with us, was part of a very
big commonhold project in Milton
Keynes that had to be converted back to leasehold when they found problems
with the law.
I think the Government have been making it
very clear for several years that they accept that leasehold’s time is really
over. I do not see any reason why we cannot move to a mandatory commonhold
system quite quickly. What the developers had always said to us—I think they
are possibly right—is that they worry that the Government might get the
legislation wrong again, and they would therefore want a bedding-in period
where they could test the market to ensure that commonhold was working, and
they would agree to a sunset
clause. They had fundamentally opposed that in 2002, and we managed to get
them in 2014 to agree that, if commonhold could be shown to work, they would
agree to a sunset clause
that would say, “You cannot build leasehold properties after x date in the
future.” I think that that is a viable system.
Earlier in the Committee hearing Barry Gardiner, MP for Brent North, had asked about a potential right of leaseholders' right to withhold service charges:
You nicely lead me to my
other question, which concerns something else that was in the 2002 Act but was
never brought into effect: the provision that, if the landlord had not complied
with the rules around service charges and the charges were unfair, leaseholders
should be able to withhold their service charge. I have no idea why that was
never brought into effect, but would it be a good idea? The Bill sets out
extensive obligations that have to be followed in relation to service charges.
If those are not followed, should leaseholders have the right to withhold the
service charge?
Martin Boyd replied:
I can tell you why it
did not move forward. One of the reasons it did not move forward is that, when
there was a consultation, the organisation that I now chair argued very
strongly against the implementation of that section. That was one of the things
that annoyed me when I found out about it over a decade ago. It is not
something that we would argue for now.
Asked by Gardiner if this would be a good clause to insert into the Bill, Boyd replied, 'It was a very good provision, yes.'
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) and Dawn Butler (Brent Central) are among 66 MPs (SNP, Labour, Green and Independent) who have signed Early Day Motion EDM 177 on Arms to Israel.
The motion reads:
That this House notes with deep concern that UK-made military equipment
and technology is being used by Israel, including in its most recent
bombardment of the occupied Gaza Strip which has resulted in thousands
of deaths and injuries; expresses alarm at reports by the UN Commission
of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Human Rights Watch,
Amnesty International and others of violations of international
humanitarian law and human rights law by Israel, including apparently
unlawful attacks that may amount to war crimes; further notes that
Israel uses military technology and weaponry, including surveillance
technology, in the broader repression of Palestinians across Israel and
the occupied Palestinian territory; is therefore alarmed by the granting
of and continuation of extant UK licences for export to the Israeli
military of arms and arms components including for aircrafts,
helicopters, drones, missiles, military technology, armoured vehicles,
tanks, ammunition, and small arms; reminds the Government that under
international and domestic law, the UK is required to prevent the
transfer of military equipment where there is a clear or overriding risk
that such exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious
violation of international humanitarian law or international human
rights law, as affirmed by Articles 6 and 7 of the Arms Trade Treaty,
and criteria one and two of the UK’s Strategic Export Licensing
Criteria; and therefore calls for the Government to immediately halt all
transfers of military equipment and technology, including components,
to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences.
inews is reporting that St Gregory's Catholic Science College is desperately trying to get portacabins for Tuesday's return to school after being informed that they are one of the school's affected by the government announcement on lightweight concrete (reinforced autoclave aerated concrete - RAAC) in school buildings.
I understand that it is the Maths Block at the school that is affected. Brent Coucil said that efforts are being made to prop up the affected areas and children should be able to return on Tuesday as planned.
Help from the
Department of Education has not been quick enough, Barry Gardiner, Labour MP
for Brent North, told inews.
The MP said the Department of Education should have been working to help the
school, and others affected, to put measures in place swiftly over the summer
break.
That work is going on tomorrow and over the weekend – but this is what I
mean, the department is leaving this absolutely to the last minute and is
trying to say it’s the responsibility of the schools.
No it’s not, it’s the responsibility of the department to be helping the
schools. The schools have no budget for this.
He said three other schools in his constituency were suspected of having
RAAC – St Joseph’s Primary, Michael Sobell Sinai School and Kingsbury High
School. Those schools require survey work to investigate whether they contain
the at-risk material.
Wembley Matters has contacted the school for a statement once parents have been informed of arrangements.
None of the school's named are the direct responsibility of Brent Council being voluntary aided or academies, but the council does have overall responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of the borough's children.
Apologies for sound quality - not very good PA combined with traffic noise. Speech summaries below.
Workers for the homelessness charity St Mungo's, currently striking for a decent wage when the charity's executives are paid large salaries, received support in Wembley on Friday when a solidarity rally took place outside Brent Civic Centre.
Dawn Butler, Brent Central MP, spoke first but had finished by the time I got there. Brent North MP Barry Gardiner told the rally that the government was trying to make people insecure in their employment as a way of keeping them down. He said, 'We won't buckle down, we won't touch our forelock and say if that's all you can afford, thanks very much then. Because that's not the way trade unions operate, so I stand with you, keep up the fight and solidarity.'
Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, in a speech that was hard to hear, said that the work at St Mungo's was important. He said that as a council they would take the dispute up with St Mungo's to make sure that the dispute process was open, fair and transparent. He, councillors and the Labour Group were commited to fair pay: 'We'll make sure you guys get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.' [St Mungo's get a good proportion of their income via contracts with local councils.]
A Unite organiser said that the workers had a mandate for indefinite industrial action. He said that there had been other issues as well as the current pay dispute with the charity including a glass ceiling on pay, bullying and harassment and dismissal and attemnpted dismissal of their union members. They had made it clear to the employer that enough was enough and they were not going to put up with it anymore.
The employers thought the strikers would buckle within a couple of weeks and brought in agency workers, ahead of the workers being forced to return. Instead the strike and the momentum of the campaign had grown.
The union was now looking at what extra steps they could take and had a plan to take the fight to the directors, the trustees, and the funders who hold the purse strings. They would be contacting those with whom St Mungo's had business links, the City of London, and other charities linked to St Mungo's.
He concluded by saying that a 10% salary increase was needed at the very minimum/
Jonathan Ffuxman, Secretary of Brent Trades Council and a member of Doctors in Unite, said that this was a battle for control of the charity. He said that it beggared belief that a respected charity was a cash cow for its executive while the workers, who helped people off the street to restore their lives, got the minimum wage, were bullied and harassed and were completely over-worked.
As a GP he had seen the work St Mungo's did from his Practice. Life expectancy for homeless people was just 45 years. St Mungo workers are the people who are picking them up from the street, giving them somewhere to stay and helping them. It was an essential service and, 'What do they get? The minimum wage.'
He appealed for support from the labour movement against the background of strikes by doctors, nurses and others who are fighting back.
'If you are not in a union - join one. If you are in a union - get active. Make your union do stuff. Every union needs to be fighting hard and showing solidarity.'
Cllr Gwen Grahl, a member of the Brent Cabinet with a background in working for charities said that over the last few decades the charity sector had become more like corporations with executive earning big salaries while there were povery wages for the workers and the use of fire and rehire and zero hours contracts. She said some charities then undermined the permanent workers by introducing agency staff: 'I fully support you and will join your picket line on Friday.'
Cllr Jumbo Chan, who is a member of the NEU which is also currently in dispute, said that workers were being blamed for other crises that were going on at the moment including the economy.
He told the strikers, 'The bosses think they are getting away with it, but by say "No!" you are doing something powerful. You are puncturing not just the bosses but a powerful narrative that is supported by politicians, economists and academics. There is no law that says bosses can earn whatever they want and workers always have to take what they are offered.'
Chan said that the strikers were facing a titanic struggle but have the labour movement behind them and full support.
Responding to the speeches a St Mungo's worker thanked the speakers and those attending and said it really meant something to the strikers. He said they were fed up with the lie that they had to accept 3% a year when price rises were in double figures. 'Enough is enough' had to start meaning something. They had gone into a meeting with management on Tuesday really hoping that there would be a sensible offer but nothing came. It was a waste of time and they now had no option but to escalate the action.
He concluded, 'We are getting more confident as this dispute goes on and we are not going back in there until we have won.'
Supporters are asked to join the picket line from 8.30am on Friday at the St Mungo's facility in Pound Lane Willesden, just opposite the bus garage entrance.
I am grateful to a Wembley Matters reader for the link he sent to a letter from Barry Gardiner opposing one of the proposed planning applications for the site in Barham Park, The letter was sent to Gerry Ansell, Brent Council's Head of Planning in May 2021 LINK.
Although the specific application was different (larger and higher) to that approved yesterday, most of the arguments used still apply. I draw attention to the last line of the letter: 'I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be
returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus
Barham's bequest.'
The letter:
Planning Application 21/1106 776 and 778 Harrow Road.
I am writing to express my strong personal objection to Planning Application 21/1106 which concerns the former park keepers' houses in Barham Park. I understand that the applicant is seeking to demolish these houses and erect a four storey residential building comprising 9 self-contained flats with roof top terrace and associated access, parking and landscaping.
I originally objected to the sale of the properties in 2010 and I was advised the following year that they were to be leased to a housing association for reuse by families on the Council's housing register. I was therefore appalled when, contrary to assurances, it became apparent that the sale had gone ahead in 2012.
I then objected to Planning Application 14/2078 in 2014 arguing that the Housing was only ever appropriate on this land as it was built as tied accommodation for the park wardens and it would be totally wrong if the site were to undergo extensive redevelopment, I was therefore pleased when planning permission for application 14/2708* was rejected.
Having seen the proposed plans for this current proposed application, my strong objections to the redevelopment of this site remain. I am very concerned by the height of the new proposed development, which is one-storey higher than the proposals in 2014. I also fear that the inclusion of a roof top terrace on a building within a park, may lead to visitors of the park feeling uncomfortable and overlooked.
Barham Park is extremely important within the local community and has a specific historial significance which appears to be lost on the developer. Barham Park is also home to the war memorial where every year services are held and wreaths laid to remember those who, at their country's call, left all that was dear to them to hazard their lives in the cause of freedom. For all these reasons the Park should be regarded as a special place within the Borough and should be protected from this development.
While I appreciate that it was a council of a different political complexion which originally sold off the existing properties in the Park, the current Council should not allow that negative event to set a precedent for further despoilation. The existing houses and their gardens are within the Barham Park Estate and the Planning Committee are fully aware that this was bequeathed to the people of Wembley in 1937 for their use and enjoyment in perpetuity,
I would ask that the application be rejected and the use of the land be returned to the people of Wembley in deference to the principle of Titus Barham's bequest.
*discrepancy in the application reference numbers is in the original letter
Yesterday I tweeted Barry Gardiner MP to ask him to intervene in the Barham Park issue where George Irvin has applied to build four 3 storey houses in a site in the park. The existing pair of modest houses were originally for park workers so had a connection with the park.
Today an election leaflet from 2010, when the General Election and local elections were held on the same day, has come to light that shows that 13 years ago the Brent North MP made an election issue of what he claimed were Lib Dem plans to build on the park:
Apparently the then Brent Council Executive (Lib Dem-Conservative Coalition) had rejected the proposal to build in the park.*
The question now is, 'Why is Barry Gardiner silent on plans going forward to Planning Committee to build houses in the park? He could make his views known to the public and it is open to him to make representations at the Planning Committee. He could even write to the Trustees of Barham Park, chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, to ask them to fulfill their obligation to protect the park and enforce the covenant protecting the park from development.
I presume Barry Gardiner still believes what he said in the 2010 leaflet, about protecting the park - surely it cannot be just something he said at election time?
* In 2010 Barry Gardiner was attacking Liberal Democrat and Conservative councllors who decided to use the two empty houses in the park for decanting purposes as part of the total rebuild of the 215 crumbling flats in Roundtree and Saunderton Road council estate on the opposite side from Barham Park.
Barry Gardiner was opposing the sale of the two houses to the Notting Hill Housing Association and claimed that Brent Council was planning to build a massive 20 storey tower (see leaflet image) block in Barham Park.
In reality I understand the then Executive was advised that Notting Hill was interested in the two houses and wanted to redevelop the site for a "small" number of flats to help with the decant while the Estate was being rebuilt. When Notting Hill overstepped the mark and proposed a block of 14 flats on the site they were turned down and the proposed sale to them was aborted.
When I was young newspapers used to publish long account of parliamentary speeches but this has long ceased to happen, instead we have the BBC Parliamentary Channel that few watch, except on special key or theatrical occasions.
I think it is worthwhile to publish in full Barry Gardiner's speech on government proposals to impose minimum service levels on strking public service workers. He pinpoints the weaknesses and dangers in the proposed legislation.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests as a proud union member.
The Bill is an affront to Parliament. It will not protect the
public, it will worsen industrial relations and it will undermine the unity of
the United Kingdom. It should be voted down tonight. There has been much heated
argument about the provisions in the Bill. On all the moral and pragmatic
arguments, I stand firmly on the side of working people and their right to
withdraw their labour, and against what the Government seek to do in the Bill.
However, I do not consider that those moral and pragmatic arguments are likely
to change the minds—or more importantly the votes—of Conservative Members. I
therefore want to put forward an argument against the Bill that I believe they
both can and should accept: it is damaging to our constitution and to the
Union.
The reason the Bill is so short is that it delegates to the Secretary
of State the power to set out all the relevant law in regulations through
statutory instruments—regulations which receive only the most minimal scrutiny
in this place and cannot be amended. So it is
the Secretary of State, not Parliament, who will make regulations to determine
the levels of service in relation to strikes, who gets to define the nature of
the services to be provided, the number of people who are to provide them, the
time at which they are to be provided and the manner in which they are to be
provided during a strike. Extraordinarily, the Bill also proposes that the
Secretary of State should have the power by regulation to
“amend, repeal or revoke
provision made by or under primary legislation” in this House. So statutes
passed by Parliament can be amended by regulations drafted by the Minister
without full parliamentary scrutiny. In a recent report by a Committee of the House
of Lords, “Democracy Denied?”, their lordships state:
“A substantial groundswell of
concern is developing about the shift in power from Parliament to ministers.”
This Bill is perhaps the most egregious example yet of a
measure brought forward by an increasingly autocratic Executive to strip
Parliament of its role in determining what, for many of us, is a critical area
of employment and human rights.
It gets worse. The primary legislation that the Secretary of
State can amend or repeal is defined to include an Act of the Senedd or
the Scottish
Parliament. That should set alarm bells ringing for all of us, nationalists
and Unionists alike. What is being proposed is that the Secretary of State in
Westminster should have the power by regulation to override devolved
legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd—and to do so with
minimal scrutiny in this House. If the Executive had intended to provoke
constitutional outrage and call into question the very basis of the
devolutionary settlements, they could not have designed a piece of legislation
better guaranteed to do so.
That the Secretary of State in Whitehall
should claim the power to legislate by regulation to interfere in devolved
areas of government and to impose restrictions in different parts of this Union
on the right to strike in transport, education, health and other public
services in Scotland and Wales is more than unwarranted. It is more than
inappropriate. It is a deliberate provocation and offence.
I call on all Conservative Members, if they care about the Union at all, to
vote against this wrecking ball of a Bill, which will only provide succour to
those voices seeking to destroy our constitutional settlement and our United
Kingdom. Under the Bill, the employer has the unilateral right to identify in a
work notice the individual workers required to operate the MSL. A worker who refuses to
comply after having been requisitioned in this way will lose unfair dismissal
protection.
The Government are thus authorising employers to do what not
even a court in this country can do. Under the Trade
Union and Labour
Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992:
“No court shall…compel an
employee to do any work or attend at any place for the doing of any work.”
However, once the union is notified of the identity of the
workers to be requisitioned, the Bill requires the union to take “reasonable
steps” to ensure that all its members identified in the work notice comply with
it. It is ironic that, under the Bill, the same trade union may be required to
discipline or expel— (cut off by Speaker).
I wish to raise the granting of planning permission by Brent Council for
a 4 bed house at Minterne Road, Harrow, HA3 9TAin your publication Wembley Matters.
All the neighbours of adjoining properties have raised objections on two
occasions with Brent Council and in total there are 8 objections. In spite of
this Brent Council has made a one-sided decision to proceed with
this development as it suits their interests and without giving any
consideration to the objections of residents in the area.
I had also participated in the Brent Planning Committee meeting in
person on 16th November 2022 plus this objection was also raised in March
2022 with MP Barry Gardiner and Cllr Eleanor
Southood but unfortunately there was no response.
This development is an eyesore and will affect the neighbour’s privacy,
overlooking into their garden, kitchen, dining and bedrooms. None of the
houses on Dorchester way have such a development overshadowing more than half
of the immediate neighbours’ gardens so it is naturally out of character for
the area.
