Cllr Gwen Grahl, Deputy Leader of Brent Council, backs Woodfield School strikers on eve of first of a series of strikes. Urges the Academy Trust to re-enter negotiations with the NEU

 

Note: Woodfield School is part of an Academy Trust, directly funded by the Government and does not come under local education authority oversight.

Brent NEU announced:    

NEU members at Woodfield School, run by Compass Learning Partnership- a special school catering for children and young people with complex needs and autism- are striking again, in their continued fight to retain their pay, resulting in the school being closed. The Trust have refused to negotiate further saying they will instead resort to a tactic of FIRE AND REHIRE (soon to be made an illegal practice).

Staff at the school believe their pay should not be cut whilst high executive salaries have been maintained despite the appointment of a new CEO who is not from a teaching background. The NEU has whistle blown over financial irregularities at the Trust and maintains that low paid frontline classroom staff and their pupils should not be the victims.

Jenny Cooper, local branch secretary, has stated:

We have the support of several local politicians including Barry Gardiner MP and we believe parents would prefer that the Trust negotiate their way out of this dispute. No one wants to see this level of strike action.

Drop-in Exhibition on redevelopment of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre June 3rd 4pm-7pm at the Centre

 I am looking forward to this exhibition to find out what space will be available to continue the primary school provision of the Environmental Education Centre.

 

 

Controversy over proposed demolition and redevelopment of the Mason's Arms pub in Kensal Green

 

The Mason's Arms in happier times

 The proposed new building of flats with pub on the ground floor

The proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms in Kensal Green with flats above a ground floor replacement pub is similar to the current redevelopments underway at the Queensbury in Willesden Green and the Showboat in Alperton.

The proposal follows the hard-fought battle in Kensal Green over Harriet Tubman House Community Centre.

CAMRA and Historic England,  a community run pub, as well as the Vicar of the nearby St John the Evangelist have all pitched in submissions alongs local residents and people from wider afield with family links to the pub.

 

 The redevelopment site is the pub itself and the adjacent vacant plot

 

Below are extracts from submissions to the Brent Planning Portal. If you would like to submit an objection or support you have until June 28th. LINK

 

HISTORIC ENGLAND

 

Historic England has concerns about the proposals on heritage grounds. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. We encourage you to defer determining these applications until Historic England’s listing assessment for the Mason’s Arms public house has been completed. We also recommend that further structural information regarding the rebuilding of a section of the listed cemetery wall is requested prior to determining the listed building consent application so that the impact on the wall itself and the adjacent grade-II listed catacombs of the North Colonnade can be fully assessed  

 

   

CAMRA  

 

Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch strongly object to the planning application to demolish the Masons Arms public house, Kensal Green NW10. The Masons Arms is an historic public house that has served the Kensal Green community for well over a century. Its long-standing presence, architectural character, and relationship with nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II listed horse trough and the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery wall, give it clear historic and townscape value. Although the building itself is not listed, national planning policy recognises that non-designated heritage assets can still hold local historic significance, and their loss must be taken into account in the planning balance.



The proposed pub area is much smaller, at 256.5 sq m, compared with 630 sq m in the current public house, resulting in a clear reduction in community floorspace, which is a material planning consideration. This is not an equivalent replacement and therefore conflicts with both the London Plan Policy HC7 and Brent Local Plan Policy DMP21, which requires that any redevelopment of a public house must provide a facility of comparable or improved size, layout. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable and unjustified loss of a public house that has community value and which contributes to the economy and in particular the night time economy of the borough.



The proposed six storey development is excessively bulky and out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, its height, massing, and overall visual dominance would create an overbearing presence that disrupts the established character of the area. This is a material planning consideration, as national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan all require new development to respect local context, respond positively to existing townscape, and avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.



The application removes the existing function room, a space that has historically supported community meetings, funeral wakes, weddings, birthdays, and local group activities. Its loss would permanently diminish the pub's role as a multi functional community venue, further undermining the policy requirement to retain or enhance community value.



No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing pub is unviable or that it has been properly marketed, as required by Brent's planning policies. Without such evidence, the demolition, or change of use of the Masons Arms cannot be justified. The proposal therefore fails to meet the tests set out in national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan for the protection of public houses. The lost of pub's garden, which was sold off and permission granted for change of use, means having a function room will be important to aid the long term viability of the pub.



CAMRA also notes the frequent risk that promised replacement pubs are delayed or never delivered once residential units are occupied. To prevent this outcome, and to ensure compliance with policy, it is essential that if permission is granted, Brent Council imposes a condition requiring that the new public house is fully fitted out, let to an operator, and open for trading before any residential units are occupied. Without such a condition, the community asset is at risk of being lost in practice even if nominally replaced on paper.



The proposed development would harm the setting of the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery boundary wall, which runs directly behind the site. As a Grade I listed structure, it is of exceptional national importance, and national planning policy requires that great weight be given to its conservation. The existing Masons Arms forms part of the traditional low rise townscape that frames and supports the historic character of the cemetery wall. Replacing it with a six storey building would introduce an intrusive and disproportionate mass that would dominate views, disrupt the historic scale of the street, and erode the legibility of the cemetery wall as a heritage asset. The development would harm the setting of the Grade II listed horse trough located immediately outside the Masons Arms. This heritage asset derives its significance not only from its physical form but from its historic relationship with the surrounding streetscape and long established public house. Demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a six storey structure would fundamentally alter the scale, character, and visual context of the trough, diminishing its historic setting and eroding its legibility as part of the area's traditional streetscene. This impact is a material planning consideration and is contrary to national policy on heritage protection, which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. If permission is granted, the developer should submit a plan for storage of the Grade II listed horse trough, so it does not get damaged during redevelopment of the site, the Brent Conservation Officer should oversee the plans for the trough, to endure it is not harmed by the new development. Original bricks should be used where possible in the repair of the listed boundary way, overseen by the Brent Conservation Officer.



A further material planning consideration is the significantly higher carbon footprint of demolition compared with retrofitting. National planning policy requires decision makers to support development that moves towards a low carbon future and to give substantial weight to reducing embodied carbon. Demolishing the existing Masons Arms and constructing a new six storey building would generate a far greater volume of embodied carbon than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure. Brent Council's own climate emergency commitments, all of which expect applicants to demonstrate that demolition is the least carbon option. No such justification has been provided, and the application fails to show that demolition is necessary or environmentally responsible.



The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises public houses as essential community facilities and expects local authorities to guard against their unnecessary loss. It is also contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy HC7, which requires boroughs to protect public houses and resist proposals that would lead to the loss of their community, cultural, or economic value.



For these reasons, CAMRA North London Branch objects to the application and urges Brent Council to refuse planning permission.

 

SUPPORT

 

I am writing in support of the proposed redevelopment of the Mason's Arms on Harrow Road.

The building is a locally significant former public house with clear architectural and historic value, and I fully recognise and respect its heritage importance. In its earlier years, it was a well-loved and attractive feature of the area. However, in recent years it has suffered from a prolonged period of vacancy and deterioration, despite repeated attempts by various owners to restore it to viable use.

At present, the building is in a poor state of repair and has remained empty for extended periods. Its current condition has contributed to significant issues around the site, including ongoing anti-social behaviour. There have been instances of unauthorised occupation associated with the building, and the immediate surroundings have suffered from visible neglect, including graffiti and general deterioration. There have also been concerns about unsafe activity taking place in and around the site, including fires being lit nearby. Taken together, these issues have had a negative impact on the immediate environment and have contributed to a feeling that the area is unsafe.

The condition of both the Mason's Arms and the adjacent Hazel Road open space is a significant concern in terms of public safety and community use. The area can feel unsafe after dark, and this is a concern shared by many local residents, particularly women, when walking through or near the space in the evening. Anti-social behaviour in and around the site contributes to this and limits the ability of the open space to be fully enjoyed by the community.

I understand that concerns regarding heritage and local character are important considerations in relation to any redevelopment of the site. However, it is also clear that the existing situation is not sustainable, and that the building is no longer serving the community in a positive or functional way.

The proposed redevelopment offers a credible opportunity to bring the site back into productive use. I understand that the developers have engaged with the local community over a sustained period, including holding meetings and responding to feedback. This has resulted in revisions to the scheme, including a reduction in height by one storey, which demonstrates a willingness to respond constructively to local concerns.

In addition, the proposal includes commitments to improvements to the nearby Hazel Road open space and playground, including investment in new play equipment, improved lines of sight to increase natural surveillance, and, of particular importance, significantly enhanced lighting. These improvements would make a meaningful difference to safety, visibility, and overall usability of the space.

The scheme would also provide much-needed new housing in the area, including a significant proportion of family-sized homes, which is particularly welcome given the ongoing local shortage of suitable housing. I also understand that efforts are being made to retain and incorporate important historic features of the original building, such as the trough, which is appreciated.

Overall, I believe this proposal represents a balanced approach that respects the heritage of the site while addressing its current dereliction and unlocking wider benefits for the local community.

 

ANTWERP ARMS (OBJECTS)

 

I represent a successful community pub in north east London.



Thirteen years ago our pub was purchased by a developer who planned to close it and turn the site into a block of flats. The Antwerp Arms Association was formed as a community benefit society and the pub building listed as an asset of community value. We purchased the building from the developer using a community share issue and social funding. We have been in business for 11 years trading as a cooperative venture.



So the Mason's Arms doesn't have to be a block of flats with a basement bar that will struggle to be viable.



Wait for problems from operating a commercial bar under a housing development as the licensing complaints for noise, smells and nuisance rack up from those living above.



Where will all the storage and kitchen facilities go in a single storey new pub ?



Where will the manager and staff (on London living wages) live when there is no accommodation for them above their bar ?



This pub could have a new life. It could provide a really nice bar and food outlet, a safe community space, along with housing on its upper floor. It would provide much needed jobs by directly employing a range of people. It could deliver skills and training in the hospitality and bar sector and it could benefit small companies in the local area by stocking their beers and produce.



The benefits to the community from saving this pub as a community enterprise would, in my view, outweigh the advantages of providing a few extra housing units. It would also save a locally important building.



Our association would be happy to help those in the local community who want to save the Masons Arms as a pub and community hub.

 

OBJECTS

 

I object against the demolition of another Victorian building in Kensal Green. For that reason the Mason's Arms should keep its Victorian features and charm. After the Council allowed the demolition of Harriet Tubman House we don't need another Victorian landmark to disappear from Kensal Green. It was a betrayal from the Council to allow the demolition of Harriet Tubman House after the vast majority of people consulted objected. What is the point of a consultation if you do not listen to the results? Victorian buildings are in line with the Victorian terraces, save your modern buildings for empty spaces. Respect the views of those who love historical heritage and want to protect them. The existing building looks more charming that the proposed tall block of flat. I'm afraid the council is only interested in the council tax they'll receive by the new tenants which is greater than from a pub. Greed is a deadly sin don't you forget.

 

SUPPORTS

 

I would like to express my support for this proposal.

I have a personal emotional connection to this pub, as it is actually where I first met my partner many years ago. Because of that, it has always held a special place in my memory, and it has been genuinely sad to watch it struggle over recent years despite multiple attempts to keep it going successfully.

Having worked in hospitality myself, I understand how incredibly difficult it has become to make pubs and restaurants financially viable, especially independent venues. While it is always unfortunate to see change happen to places with history and memories attached to them, I honestly believe this proposal represents the best and most realistic long-term use for the site.

I particularly appreciate that the scheme still re-provides a pub space in a more modern, energy-efficient and practical format that has a much stronger chance of succeeding. It feels like a balanced and sensible approach rather than simply removing the use altogether.

I am also very happy to see a fresh supply of modern, energy-efficient apartments being delivered in what is genuinely my favourite area of London. The area badly needs new homes, especially homes designed to modern environmental standards, and I believe this proposal will make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Architecturally, I think the scheme has been handled thoughtfully and with sensitivity to the surrounding character.

Overall, while there is naturally some nostalgia attached to the existing pub, I believe this proposal strikes a fair balance between preserving community use, delivering much-needed homes, and improving the long-term future of the site. I strongly support the application.

 

OBJECTS

 

I am Vicar of the Parish of St John the Evangelist, Kensal Green, the boundary of the parish extending to close to where the Masons Arms is situated. The parish sits in both the City of Westminster and the Borough of Brent. I say this, as although I write in a personal capacity, I have seen many developments in the 13 years I have held my post and the loss of two buildings of note. I believe this application should be seen in the context of the loss of historic buildings for flats and any impact documents should relate to the broader area of Kensal Green and not simply a closely defined locality. I note the present closure of another pub closer to the church on the Harrow Road, the area behind it being (at one point) the last remnant of Kensal Green itself.



I object to this proposal on two grounds. First the Masons Arms )in its current building) could be a viable and successful venue as a pub. It is situated next to the All Souls Cemetery and West London Crematorium. I have attended receptions at the Masons Arms and as I meet many families in relation to funerals I believe the Masons Arms could serve, if properly managed, a place for post service refreshments (amongst other things). I know that demand locally is not being met. I should add that it is of regret that the council gave planning permission for the building in the pub garden, thus adding to the sense of inevitable closure and demolition. In an area with such little green space I simply cannot comprehend this decision.



Secondly the building itself is worthy of retention even if my point above is ignored. It could be converted to other use and an attractive building retained. I note that the interior of the Masons Arms is listed as a "One Star pub" on CAMRA's National inventory as having "special historic interest".

Brent Council Committee Appointments

 This is a selection of the Committee appointments approved yesterday. Note where there is a tied vote the Chair will have a casting vote:

 

Greens hail first Green Manifesto win with all-party support for a Housing Scrutiny Committee

 

 

From Brent Green Party:

 

This evening the Green Group proposed an amendment to the constitution to adopt a new scrutiny committee in Brent. 

Scrutiny is one of the vital checks and balances in local government, where Cllrs hold officers and cabinet members to account and work to get the best outcomes for residents.

London boroughs typically have three to five. Brent has two. This is not enough time to engage properly with all the important work that the Council does. 

Housing is under scrutinised, and is an area where numerous external bodies have called for change. Brent spends £100K a day on temporary accommodation a day. The Regulator of Social Housing gave Brent a ‘serious failings’ grade, and complaints upheld by the local government and social care ombudsman have doubled. 

This new housing scrutiny committee will give adequate time and attention to this vital area in Brent’s remint. It was a key item in our manifesto. 

We are delighted to have received unanimous support from all parties in approving this amendment and we hope that this signals a desire for cross-party collaboration in the best interests of all our residents. 

Despite the stich-up we saw this evening where the Conservatives did a deal with Labour to support their minority administration, multi-party politics in Brent is here to stay. Voters are moving away from the two-party system and all four parties in Brent are going to have to collaborate, seek consensus and work together for better outcomes for residents.

 

The proposal will be taken away by officers who will work on plans for its implementation to be brought back to the July Council for consideration,

Tories enable another Labour administration despite Labour's local election losses

 

Tonight's 'arrangement' 

Cllr Mistry, Deputy Mayor (Conservative) on the left, Cllr Agha, Mayor (Labour) on the right

 

A minority Labour administration led once again by Muhammed Butt, was installed this evening, with the help of an 'arrangement' with the Conservative Party. The arrangement saw the Conservatives installed as the official Opposition (with appropriate allowances), despite the Lib Dems having the same number of seats; being given both Scrutiny chair positions (with appropriate allowances) and the position of Deputy Mayor.

Brent Green Party issued the following statement:

   

On May 7^th  residents gave a resounding response to the question of the type of leadership they want in Brent. Labour lost twenty four seats and their control of the Council, securing under thirty percent of the popular vote. This is not a mandate to continue the status quo. Brent voted overwhelmingly for change.

 

Muhammed Butt has been leader of Brent Council for fourteen years. In any other circumstance, a political leader who led one’s party to such defeat after such long tenure would resign and pass the mantle on to a new leader. 

 

This evening, enabled by a deal with the Conservative Party, instead of change Brent residents have been given more of the same – a minority-led Labour administration under Muhammed Butt – rather than the collaborative model of governance they voted for.

 

This is not the transformation in the way decisions are made in Brent that residents voted for. This does not signify the cultural shift for cross-party collaboration, scrutiny, and accountability that Brent Green Party had hoped for, and indeed that we believe Brent needs.

 

We have been open to a formal arrangement with Labour with policy commitments and governance changes, but their national party would rather they strike a deal with the Conservative Party than the Green Party, ignoring the progressive values of its supporters.

 

What further sign could there be of the moral decay within the Labour Party?

 

Multi-party politics in Brent is here to stay. Voters are moving away from the two-party system and all four parties in Brent are going to have to collaborate, seek consensus and work together for better outcomes for residents.

 

More people voted for the Green Party in Brent than ever before, and our role here on Brent Council is vital. Opposition councillors are essential in keeping this new administration in check, and standing up for democratic decision-making and justice for Brent residents. We are not here to play political games, but to work hard to protect local services and public spaces, stand up for local communities against extractive industries, and protect our natural environment.

 

We are disappointed in today’s outcome for Brent’s residents, and what this means for democracy – but we remain ready to collaborate with anyone who shares our principles of environmental and social justice and a commitment to the best outcome for residents, rather than for a particular political party.

Brent Conservatives likely to prop up a Butt led Brent Council

 

It appears that Labour have likel y made a deal with Brent Conservatives that potentially will give Cllr Muhammed Butt another four years as leader of Brent Council. Not a position that many residents and members of the local Brent Conservatative and Brent Labour parties will find palatable.

In the deal it appears that Brent Conservatives will chair each of the two Scrutiny Committees and possibly be given a Mayor or Deputy Mayor position. There is no news of any detailed policy matters agreed between the two groups.

What is really astonishing, given the huge drop in the Labour vote in the local election, is that Muhammed Butt has made Cllr Matt Kelcher, former Planning Committee chair lead member for Regeneration. Furthermore (surely not!) he has appointed his brother, Saqib Butt, to replace Kelcher as Chair of the Planning Committee (he was vice chair in the outgoing administration).

This marks the continuation of the Towerblock Tatler approach to development now headed by the Towerblock Triad! 

 

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.