Letter: Is this really what Brent residents voted for in May?

 

 

Dear Editor,

  

Labour’s AGM took place on Saturday, where Cllr Muhammed Butt was elected as group leader and Cllr Gwen Grahl was elected as deputy leader.

 

As per Philip Grant's report on Friday, there are rumours circulating that Muhammed Butt is actively considering a deal with the Tories to form an administration. This could involve Labour being propped up, in return for committee positions or even support for the Mayor of Brent.

 

Rumours are that Georgia Gould, MP for Queens Park and Maida Vale (and god-daughter of Tony Blair) is a key proponent of a deal with the Tories. This is not the first time she has intervened in the internal affairs of the Brent Labour Group.

 

Many are wondering, is this really what Labour voters voted for in May?

 

A Concerned Brent Resident 

Headache for the new Brent Council as opposition builds to 25 storey care home and co-living proposal on Holiday Inn car park

 

A campaign is building up over a developent planned for the space outside the Holiday Inn near Wembley Stadium Station. 

 

 

 

The Holiday Inn, Wembley

 

 The view from above (Google Earth)

 

The proposal: 

Clearance of site and construction of an interconnected building ranging from 8 to 25 storeys in height to provide a Care Home and Co-Living Accommodation, together with associated car and cycle parking (including within existing basement), hard and soft landscaping and communal amenity space.

There have been concerns about 'warehousing elderly people in the sky' as well as over-development and lack of amenity and infrastructure.  So far there have been 43 objections on the Brent Council Planning portal. This objection summarises some of the issues:

 I wish to formally object to planning application 26/0967 relating to the proposed development on land adjacent to the Holiday Inn, Empire Way, Wembley.

My objection is based on the following concerns:

The proposed height and scale of the development are excessive for this location. A building of up to 25 storeys would add further overdevelopment to an area of Wembley that is already experiencing significant density and pressure. The scale and massing of the proposal would negatively affect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and place additional strain on existing infrastructure.

I am also concerned about the impact on local services and community infrastructure. The development would significantly increase the local population without clear evidence that GP services, hospitals, schools, public transport, or other community services will be expanded to support this increase. Existing services in the area are already under considerable pressure.

Parking and traffic are already major problems for local residents. The proposal does not appear to provide sufficient parking for the scale of the development, particularly given the combination of co-living accommodation and a care home. Increased visitor, staff, resident, delivery, and service vehicle traffic would place additional pressure on surrounding residential streets.

In addition, the application does not clearly explain the operational nature and long-term functioning of the proposed care home use. If residents require regular carers, transport services, adapted vehicles, medical visits, deliveries, or frequent visitors, this could create further congestion and parking difficulties in nearby streets.

I also have concerns regarding the suitability of a very high-rise building for vulnerable elderly residents and whether sufficient evidence has been provided to justify this approach on public health and wellbeing grounds. While large-scale developments may increase capacity, there appears to be limited evidence demonstrating that a 25-storey care home environment provides better outcomes for elderly residents, particularly those with dementia, mobility limitations, or cognitive impairment, when compared with smaller-scale and lower-rise care settings.

Research and professional guidance relating to later-life and dementia-friendly environments often emphasise the importance of accessibility, ease of navigation, social connection, reduced institutional scale, and access to appropriate communal and outdoor space. The application does not appear to demonstrate clearly how these resident wellbeing considerations have been addressed within a development of this scale and height.

Given the vulnerability of many potential residents, I believe the public health and quality-of-life implications of this proposal require far greater scrutiny before permission is considered.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents overdevelopment and would have a harmful impact on the quality of life of existing residents, local infrastructure, traffic conditions, parking availability, and the character of the area.

I therefore respectfully request that Brent Council refuse planning application 26/096  

The Planning Statement for the developer from Carney Sweeney makes the case for not making any contribution in lieu of providing affordable housing:    

The [viability] assessment identifies that the scheme currently generates a deficit of approximately 22%.

 

However, the accompanying sensitivity analysis demonstrates that viability improves where co-living rents increase in 5% increments and construction costs reduce by 5%, with the scheme moving into a positive viability position under these scenarios. Given the rapidly changing economic environment, this sensitivity testing is considered a reasonable metric for illustrating the scheme’s potential deliverability.

 

Notwithstanding this, the scheme remains financially challenging due to the aforementioned inflationary and geopolitical pressures. In light of these sensitivities, a residential payment in lieu of on-site affordable housing is deemed unviable. As an alternative, the provision of discounted market rent for the care element of the scheme has been explored with Brent Council’s Adult Social Care team, who have expressed support for this approach. At this stage, the applicant proposes that 15% of the C2 care home units be made available at a discounted rate to Brent residents. This provision would be secured through the Section 106 agreement.

 

Given the current economic climate, this approach is considered appropriate and would deliver additional planning benefits as part of the scheme.

Here are some images from the Design and Access statements which give a general idea of the proposed scheme:

From Wembley Hill Road

 

Current view  from a street opposite the development

 

 View incorporating the proposed development

 

Holiday Inn on left and new development including care home and co-living on the right

The proposal to 'green' the site including terraces on upper floors 

 

 The rather meagre greening at ground floor level

 

 

An imaginative view of the 16th floor co-living terrace after dark!

 

The developer has had at least one meeting with members of the outgoing Planning Committee and a number with Brent planning officers ahead of the submission of this application. The new Planning Committee will be confronted with the constraints of the Local Plan with its tall building zones, as well as  those of the London Plan and a Governmenrt committed to reducing local councils' and citizens' say on planning applications.

 

LINK to this planning application on the Brent Planning Portal where you can make a comment in support or opposition to the application.

Contact your councillors over who should run the new Council!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Brent Council election results in seats.

 

There have been many comments under Martin’s recent posts about the local election results, with people giving their views on how the new four Party / no overall control Council should be run. The formal decisions on this will be made at the Full Council’s Annual Meeting next Wednesday, 20 May, beginning at 6pm.

 

If you feel strongly about something, why not let the decision makers know your views? It is something which I have often done, and it is something you have every right to do, by emailing the recently elected councillors for your Ward. You can check who they are, and get their Council email addresses on Brent’s “Find Your Local Councillor” web page. Even if you did not vote for them, they are your elected representatives for the next four years, and should be interested in what the residents in their Ward think on matters affecting the Council.

 

The choice of ways to find your local councillor on Brent’s website.

 

I happen to live in Queensbury Ward, which now has three Conservative councillors, so as I was concerned to see rumours that Cllr. Muhammed Butt might be trying to court that Group, I sent this email to them, with a copy to their fellow Conservative councillors, on 13 May:

 

‘Dear Queensbury Ward councillors,

 

Kanta and Jayanti have already come across me as a politically independent resident of your Ward, and I am writing to you, with a copy to your fellow Conservative members of the newly-elected Brent Council, to share my views on an important matter ahead of next week's Annual Meeting.

 

It may not be correct, but it has been rumoured online that Cllr. Muhammed Butt has been in contact with your Conservative Group, with a view to retaining the position of Council Leader for the next four years. If that is the case, I hope that no agreement has been reached with him.

 

I have observed, and interacted with, Cllr. Butt on a number of local issues for the past twelve of his fourteen years as Leader of Brent Council. I have watched, investigated and experienced a number of his abuses of power, to the detriment of Brent residents and the Council's reputation, and can provide detailed examples if you would like the evidence (although some of you will have witnessed this for yourselves).

 

I can imagine that Cllr. Butt will have offered inducements, such as the Leader of the Opposition role, nominations for Mayor, Chairs or Deputy Chairs of Committees. Please do not succumb to his temptations. Another four years of Muhammed Butt as Council Leader would do further damage to our borough, and facilitating it would be seen by many as unforgivable. 

 

I am also writing to the Leaders of the LibDem and Green Party Groups. If the Conservative Group stays strong, and votes with these two other Parties against any Labour proposal that Cllr. Butt should continue as Council Leader, he cannot be elected to that position of power. 

 

As Labour has the largest number of seats, but no overall majority, it is entitled to seek to have one of its councillors as Council Leader; but as Labour candidates only received 30% of the total votes cast in the 7 May Brent Council elections, the other three Parties can rightly ask the Labour Group to propose a candidate for the role who will work cooperatively with all three of them. That candidate is NOT Muhammed Butt!

 

In my view, as a long-term resident who prefers to take an independent view on any particular issue, a fair way forward for Brent Council over the next four years would be for positions of responsibility to be shared. That would be a condition which a prospective Labour Council Leader would need to agree, although they would be free to appoint their own Cabinet. 

 

If the three "opposition" Groups cannot agree on who is best suited for the role of Leader of the Opposition, I would suggest that the Leaders of each of the Conservatives and LibDem Groups should each have the role for two of the four years. The Green Party's candidates received more votes across the borough than either of those two, so the Green Group Leader should have the choice of Chairing one of the main Council Committees, such as Planning or the two Scrutiny Committees, with the other two opposition Groups nominating the Chair of the remaining two.

 

As there are now four Parties with at least nine seats on the Council, it would not seem unreasonable that each should nominate one of their councillors to serve as Mayor during the four years to 2030. I would suggest: for this coming municipal year, a Labour Mayor with a Conservative Deputy; for 2027/28, a Conservative Mayor with a LibDem Deputy; for 2028/29, a LibDem Mayor with a Green Deputy; for 2029/30, a Green Mayor with a Labour Deputy.

 

I hope that you, and your Conservative colleagues, will seriously consider my views and suggestions, along with your fellow councillors from other parties, particularly my strongly held belief that Cllr. Muhammed Butt should not be allowed to continue as Council Leader, Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

 

Cllr. Muhammed Butt refusing to respond to a Point of Order I raised, as a petitioner at the May 2024 Cabinet meeting, when he declared his preferred option agreed, despite no Cabinet members raising their hands or speaking, and without even seeking a vote on the second option in the Officers’ Report. (Screenshot from the Brent webcast recording)

 

You may not agree with what I wrote, and will probably not wish to go into as much detail, but if you have a view on who should (or should not) be Leader of Brent Council for the next four years, or how the new Council should be organised so that the views of the 70% of residents who did not vote for Labour candidates are properly represented, you have just as much right as I have to let your councillors know what you think. I hope that at least some of you will.

 

As I said in my email above, I have also written to the Leaders of the Lib Dem and Green Groups on the new Council, and have heard back from both of them (although I have had no response yet from my Conservative councillors, or any of their colleagues). Cllr. Anton Georgiou let me know what his Group’s position is, and said I could share it publicly:

 

‘To be absolutely clear, the Lib Dem Group that I lead will never make any deals or arrangements with Cllr Butt’s Labour Group. The time has come for Cllr Butt to vacate the position of Leader of the Council and allow fresh, new leadership in Brent. That is what residents voted for last week.’

 

Cllr. Mary Mitchell asked me not to share the details of the Green Group’s position publicly, but in general terms they believe that the Brent’s voters have demanded change. They want to see that change brought about in the way decisions are made, including genuine collaboration, scrutiny and accountability. 

 

The Lib Dem Leader has already shared his views publicly with our local newspaper, as you may have seen on the front page of this week’s “Brent and Kilburn Times”:

 

The front page story in Thursday’s local newspaper.

 

Will Cllr. Butt still be smiling after next Wednesday evening’s meeting at the Civic Centre? We may not have a vote at that Annual Meeting, but we have the chance to influence the outcome, if we share our views with our councillors!

Philip Grant.

Twenty years ago: Lib Dem-Tory Coalition takes over Brent Council

 

Last week's Brent Council election result re-called the 2006 election that also resulted in No Overall Control. In the 2006 case Labour did not want to go into coalition with anothe party after losing 14 seats.  There was an interregnum when officers ran the council and eventually a Lib-Dem Tory Coalition was formed with Paul Lorber (Lib Dem) as leader and Bob Blackman (then leader of Brent Conservatives) as deputy leader.

Today's situation is different with multiple parties but there are also similarities.  In 2026 Brent Greens won a higher percentage of aggregate votes than Lib Dems or Tories but fewer seats. 20 years ago Labour won a higher perceptage of votes than the Lib Dems but fewer seats.  This comes from their vote being more widely spread across the borough rather than concentrated in a few seats.

In 2006 there were only three main parties jockeying for position  but this year there are five. A Lib Dem - Tory coalition this year would not produce a majority council (22 councillors againt Labour's 26). If Greens joined them they would have a majority (31against 26), alternatively a Labour-Conservative coalition (one has been rumoured from several sources without any evidence) would have a majority (37 against 20)

Other arrangements, short of a formal coalition, are also possible but concerns over the stability of the council over a 4 year period would arise. 

The Annual General Meeting of Brent Council is timetabled for Wednesday May 20th when leadership and committee positions will be decided.

 

 

Lib Dems elect Anton Georgiou as new leader of the 11 strong Lib Dem group on Brent Council succeeding Paul Lorber

Lib Dem campaigners after the count

The Brent Liberal Democrat Group grew by 8 Councillors at this election, taking them to 11 in total. The result means they are now the joint second largest party on Brent Council.

Following what they termed an exceptionally successful election for Liberal Democrats in Brent, Paul Lorber has stood down as group leader.

At a meeting today Liberal Democrat Councillors unanimously voted for Anton Georgiou to succeed Paul Lorber.

Commenting on the decision Paul Lorber said:

 

The Liberal Democrats have had an incredibly successful election, winning in 8 seats from Labour, and playing a key role in Labour losing their majority. I take great pride in my contribution to this success and feel this is the right time to hand over the leadership.  Among our 11 strong Liberal Democrat Group we have many talented people.

I am pleased that Anton Georgiou was elected unanimously to take over from me and to tackle the new challenges facing our area. He will lead a confident group that will challenge Brent Council to deliver much more for our residents.       

New Brent Liberal Democrat leader, Anton Georgiou said:
 

This election has been a milestone for my party. We have more than trebled Liberal Democrat representation in Brent and have a team of great Councillors who are dedicated to being real champions for their communities.

I want to pay tribute to Paul, who has been a mentor and friend for well over a decade. His commitment, over many years, to working in the interests of local people and to holding Brent Council to account, will continue with the Brent Liberal Democrat team that I proudly now lead.

 

In other news there are whispers that Muhammed Butt has been talking to Brent Tories.

FINAL: Brent Labour lose council seats to Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens. No overall majority.

Source: Wikipedia

Labour has lost control of Brent Council though still the biggest group on the council. They now have 23 seats fewer compared wit 2022 (26/49). They lost to Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens. Greens were elected for the first time and gained 9 councillors. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both increased their number of councillors.

Notable Labour losses were  Deputy Leader Mili Patelt, unseated by Green Amandine Alexandre in Harlesden and Kensal Green, Cllr Krupa Sheth (Cabinet member for Environment)  in Tokyngton, Cllr Neal Nerva (Cabinet member for Adult Social Care) in Queens Park,  Cllr Rita Conneely (Chair of Scrutiny, Resources and Public Realm)  in Kilburn and Cllr. Ketan Sheth (Chair of Scrutiny, Community and Wellbeing) in Wembley Central.

Greens took all 3 seats in from Labour in Kilburn and Lib Dems from Labour in in Queen's Park. Greens won both Northwick Park seats with veteran ex-Labour councillor and cabinet member, Keith Perrin, one of the victors. Reform and independents won no seats, though the latter achieved some substantial votes.

Only two of the five Labour councillors who defected to the Greens won their seats although the results were close apart from a large personal vote for current Mayour Ryan Hack in Brondesbury Park.

 

The Kilburn Declaration 

 

 

Brent Council Twitter posts of results

 

and after

And after recounts:

 

 

Brent Council Elections Hustings video: Climate and Nature

 

 Thanks to Brent ACE and Brent Friends of the Earth for this video of the hustings held inperson and online on April 14th.

WAYMO: Is this the way to go, Mo? Petition launched reflecting concerns over experimental 'robo-taxis' in Harlesden

 

Cllr Krupa Sheth and Cllr Muhammed Butt pose at Waymo's Park Royal HQ

An incident in Harlesden when an experimental autonomous vehicle drove through a police crime scene accidentally revealed a scheme that has been foisted on Brent with little or no consultation with residents raising fears of another Lime Bikes type debacle.

Brent Council was clearly very pleased with itself according to a public relations post:

 

Brent Council wrote, 'We know that new technology brings new questions as well as new possibilities, which is why early engagement matters.' 

 The robo-car drives through the crime scene

 

Now Green Party council candidate, Amandine Alexandre, has launched a new petition addressed to the London Mayor raising pertinent concerns.

Harlesden says no to Waymo LINK

We petition the Mayor of London to:

• Implement an immediate moratorium on the expansion of the Waymo pilot until a transparent safety audit is completed.

 

• Publish a full log of all safety breaches, "near misses", and traffic violations involving autonomous vehicles in London to date.

Why is this important?

Over the last few weeks, American company WAYMO has been testing autonomous vehicles in Harlesden and across London. On 22 April, a WAYMO vehicle drove through a live police cordon on Harlesden High Street while officers were investigating a double stabbing.


We, the undersigned, call on the Mayor of London and Transport for London (TfL) to immediately suspend the trial and roll out of Waymo autonomous vehicles on London’s streets. We further request a police investigation into near misses and other incidents where public safety was at risk. 

REASONS FOR THIS PETITION

The current rollout of Waymo autonomous vehicles (AVs) across London, and specifically within the Harlesden area, is proceeding without adequate democratic oversight or proven safety protocols for complex urban environments. Our concerns are based on the following:

1. Breach of Police Cordons: Footage has emerged of a Waymo vehicle in Harlesden breaching a live police line. Such actions constitute "wilful obstruction" of the police. If a driver of a regular vehicle had committed this act, they would likely be under investigation and could face criminal prosecution. We cannot allow a "two-tier" justice system where corporate AI is exempt from the laws that govern Londoners.

2. Unresolved Safety Risks: Autonomous vehicles are struggling to navigate the "edge cases" of London’s busy streets, including responding to emergency sirens, physical police barriers, and the unpredictable movements of pedestrians and cyclists in high-density areas like Harlesden.

3. Lack of Community Consent: Residents in Brent have not been adequately consulted on this trial. Public streets are being treated as a laboratory for unproven technology without a clear framework for liability when things go wrong.

4. Extra traffic on our roads: if Waymo or any other autonomous vehicles are allowed on the streets of London, that will lead to extra traffic on our roads. It will further compromise the Mayor of London's traffic reduction aims, led by Sadiq Khan, focus on reducing overall traffic volumes by 10-15% by 2041 and cutting car kilometres by 27% by 2030 to meet Net Zero and health targets. We need more accessible and affordable public transport, instead of more cars on our roads.

5. Vision Zero Compromise : The Mayor’s "Vision Zero" strategy aims to eliminate road danger. Introducing vehicles that fail to recognise and respect police cordons is a direct contradiction of this safety goal.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

 

 Sky News reported on April 14th 2026: 

Autonomous taxis are now driving themselves around London streets, the American company behind the technology has announced.

The self-driving cars have been in the capital since last autumn, but until now, they were under the manual control of "safety drivers".

Now, Waymo says, they’re being controlled by artificial intelligence, albeit with a human sitting in the driver’s seat just in case.

 

With concerns increasing over the the loss of jobs to   artifical intelligence, such as that used in robo-taxis, it is ironic that Labour Brent is promoting a project that will threaten  the jobs of local taxi, minicab and Uber drivers.

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behlf of Brent Green Party and its 2026 council candidates c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, HA9 9JJ 

Brent's Hidden Gems - check out these green spaces

 From Brent Council

 

Brent Council declares a temporary moratorium on councillors' enquiries on housing needs until May 11th 2026 as unprecedented numbers of residents ask for support

The extent of the housing crisis in Brent has broken through some of the 'feel good' election publicity coming out of Brent Labour Party.

Brent Chief Executive, Kim Wright,  has written to all councillors detailing changes to the system where they pass on residents' concerns over housing to the Housing Department. Ms Wright says that the 'sheer volume' of members enquiries is taking her colleages away from giving direct resident support and that the temporary moratorium on councillors making enquiries will stabilise support and ensure urgent cases are managed safely.

The position will be reviewed post-election on May 11th.

Furthermore,  the council cannot guarantee that it will meet the current 10 working day deadline for enquiries already lodged. Enquiries will be triaged to identify any safeguarding concerns and other urgent issues so they can be dealt with quickly.

The CEO asks councillors to direct resident who need housing help to the Brent Council website.  She warns councillor not to try and work around the moratorium by contacting officers directly or contacting the lead cabinet member for housing.

Kim Wright says the service is currently experiencing 'unprecedented' numbers of residents who need help, advice and support with homelessness and housing options. The implementation of the Renters; Rights Act that is due on May 1st is increasing demand, reflecting a rise in private sector evictions.

In addition to the pressures cited I think it is like that existing councillors out on the election campaign trail, knocking on doors, are being confronted with the reality of the housing crisis as residents complain about their housing conditions, soaring rents and charges, and the behaviour of some rogue landlords.  

  

 

 

Mature and healthy trees to be removed tomorrow on King's Drive estate due to subsidence damage to council block.

 

The tree on left is close to a block (out of picture) but the one on the right is far away from any block. 

I have waxed lyrical on this blog before about the beauty of the King's Drive council estate in Wembley with its mature trees. Carved out of a corner of the lower slopes of Barn Hill the council planners of the time left a numbr of mature trees.

With little notice and no formal consultation notices went up last week asking residents to move cars from the car park  due to tree works incuding tree removal. There were no details of which trees were to be removed but today notices from Brent Council and Grist and Toms were fixed to trees:

 

 

One of the ash trees assumed to be removed - near the block

 

The other ash tree is well away from the block on a mound

I assume this is the horse chestnut to be removed at the rear of the block

I contacted Brent Council and they passed on an email from Gary Rimmer, Brent Trees Officer who said that that the works had been commissioned directly by Brent Housing Management from Brent Council's  contractors Gristwood and Toms, following internal investigation into subsidence damage to the block. A third party arbocultural report had suggested the removal of two ash trees and one horse chestnut. Anecdotally there appeared to have been concerns from tenants and leaseholders within the flats and enquiries to councillors about the issue. I visited a neighbour in the block this afternoon and there is no doubt that there are subsidence issues.

My email to the council was also sent to councillors but so far there has been no response. 

Gary Rimmer added that he was willing to talk to me about replacements for these trees and planting elsewhere on the estate. Clearly the canopy of these trees is very large and will take years to replace in terms of their shade, air cooling, air cleaning, flood mitigation and aesthetic amenity value.

Clearly the case raises several issues including public notice, consultation and publication of evidence. Very importantly we need evidence that alternative approaches had been considered including reduction of the trees or underpinning of the block, and of course control of the trees over the years through crown reduction.

When I went to take photographs for this article this afternoon a young neighbour was chasing her nephew near the ash tree. When she heard what was to happen to the trees she said, 'They can't do that. It's the trees that make this estate so special.' 

I asked Brent Parks Forum, a member of Brent Tree Champions and ACE Brent for a comment: 

The Tree Canopy Campaign state that  in some cases poor foundations get disturbed by tree root  removal, especially of established significant trees such as Ashes -  Fraxinus excelsior which could lead to heave ( lifting)  due to no water uptake from the felled trees,  and then as the roots die you get further subsidence that would still render a building in need of being  underpinned.

https://canopy.org.uk/threat/subsidence-advice