Pro-Israel legal group threatens 'further action' in bid to stop Brent residents' project to twin with Nablus

 UK Lawyers for Israel have been advising Ian Collier of Reform and Cllr Michael Maurice  of the Brent Conservative Group on their attempts to overthrow Brent Council's democratic decision to support a twinning project with Nablus, in the West Bank - a project that was initially proposed by a diverse group of local residents. The project, Brent Nablus Twinning Association, will be at no cost to council tax payers.

In an escalation of the issue the UKLFL, a controversial organisation (see LINK) has announced that it is involving the Board of Deputies and threatens further action:

UKLFI will continue to work with local residents to urge Brent to reconsider this divisive political posturing.  If appropriate, UKLFI will take further action to force Brent to see how its actions are unlawful.  We are working with the Board of Deputies and other non-Jewish organisations to understand what is happening at a Council which seems to run without accountability and transparency nor due regard for its residents.  This is another example of British local governments prioritising antisemitic and far left ideological pursuits over the needs of local residents.

Tory tea and biscuits for Reform supporters ahead of Nablus petition presentation

I understand that Tory councillor Michael Maurice commandeered the Tory Group's office office at the Civic Centre yesterday evening to offer Reform's Brent West Candidate, Ian Collier and his eight or so supporters tea and biscuits ahead of the Full Council meeting. Apparently, using his electronic tag, he then escorted them from the 4th floor into the 3rd floor Council Chamber where they were able to occupy the front row of the Public Gallery before admittance of the general public who had been queueing outside.

From that position the group were able to applaud every utterance of Cllr Maurice and Ian Collier and barrack Palestine supporters. 

Ian Collier, a former Conservative supporter, describes himself on LinkedIn as a retired actuary and investment banker but claimed to be a representative of the people of Brent when he presented his petition opposing the Brent-Nablus Twinning.  In fact in the Brent West General Election he came 6th out of six candidates with 4.98% of the vote, losing his deposit.

Presenting the petition Collier spoke about 'We British people' opposing sectarianism and divisiveness but then said that the names on his petition were 'almost entirely English sounding names, Jewish sounding, Hindu, Sikh, Jain sounding - an array of the richness of Brent's ethnic groups. There is one group that is missing, there are hardly any Muslim sounding names on the petition.'

He claimed that this indicated that the twinning had caused division and then in a statement that did not appear to help heal division, and amid cries of 'lies',  'rubbish' and 'that is a slur', said it was 'being pushed that the twinning arrangement is no more than a sham to transfer funds and resources to a proscribed organisation.'

He went on to say, 'Let's assume that this is not the case' but then suggested that the setting up of a Community Interest Company as part of the project was acknowledged to be 'far less regulated than a charity.'

Before his main response, Cllr Butt, leader of the council, said on the lack of Muslim names that his and other Muslim councillors' names had been added as signatories wihout their consent. (They had been removed after the petitioners had drawn attention to the matter).

Adopting an emolliative tone he said the council had been working with the petition organisers to resolve any misunderstandings and it was important that their voices be heard. He recognised that the petitioners cared deeply about the borough and its shared values and he emphasised that Brent is 'deeply proud' to be the home of a vibrant Jewish community with roots that go back generations.

He said the borough was a place of many cultured and faiths and it was the Council's to make sure every resident feels safe and heard.

He went on, 'I'm personally aware of the anxieties raised and we are not ignoring them. I will be meeting with representatives of the Jewish community to hear their concerns and my door will be open to meet with the petitioners.' 

Cllr Butt continued, 'I'm qute clear and Cllr Afzal (supporter of the twinning) agrees with me that if the twinning is to be a success it must be about peace, cultural exchange and mutual understanding...Brent has always attempted to build bridges where we can.'

He said that the Council had been in contact with the Nablus local government following the petition, and would ensure that the concerns were addressed if they had not already been answered.  He said that utlimately the aim is to builld relationships that support, not divide, and it will be the responsibility of the Brent Nablus Twinning association to do just that. 

The issue came back with a Conservative motion about the process of approving twinning arrangements later on the agenda, although Cllr Maurice managed a contribution that got applause from the Reform supporters. Later another Tory got a dig in by quoting Cllr Nerva's words opposing the twinning to Cllr Butt.

I think Cllr Maurice's colleagues will not be entirely at ease with his flirtation with Reform and this may cause problems ahead of the 2026 local elections and some Labour councillors may feel that Cllr Butt should have objected strongly to some of Collier's more extreme comments and unevidenced allegations.

 

 PS Challenged on the checking of names on petitions Brent Council said there had been random checks but now new more robust checking procedures will be adopted,

 

 

 

Guest post: 'We cannot rely on the private market to solve the housing crisis. We must think outside the box and demand more from central government'

The former Liberal Democrat councillor for Alperton, Anton Georgiou,  drew on his experience in Brent when he addressed the London Liberal Democrat Summer Forum as part of a panel on housing. His address is published here as a guest blog post.  Housing is a major national and local issues and other guest posts on the issue are welcomed.

 

I am a former Councillor in a part of London that has experienced its fair share of development and building. In my time as a Councillor, I was a vocal, often lone voice, on the need to prioritise the delivery of genuinely affordable family homes and for local authorities to focus on increasing their own Council stock to address ever growing house waiting lists. 

 

The key to tackling the housing crisis in London and nationwide must be to vastly increase the type of homes our communities require. There must be recognition that most people who are trapped without a decent home, on housing waiting lists cannot afford to privately rent and they are not able to buy their own home. Saturating the market with more of the same, mostly unaffordable, unattainable properties, is not the answer. I know from personal experience that taking this line, does put you in direct conflict with the ‘build, build, build’ brigade, but I strongly believe we must, as a party, develop an approach that both ensures the delivery of more homes and most importantly what Londoners actually need – far more genuinely affordable homes and social/ Council properties.

 

The problem in a nutshell is that ever since damaging policies like ‘Right to Buy’ were introduced, Council and social housing stock across London has significantly depleted. We having been knocking down and selling off annually more social homes than we have been building. All governments, political parties have failed to address the diminishing Council homes stock problem, which is why we are now in a situation where local authorities are frankly unable to even begin to reduce the number of people on housing waiting lists. Every week, thousands of Londoners present at Town Halls, Civic Centres, across the city, as homeless. They join tens of thousands of Londoners who sometimes wait upwards of a decade for a suitable Council home to be available for them to move into. The problem is much the same in other parts of the country, and whilst we feel it acutely here, given our population, I can tell you from my time working in temporary accommodation hostels in other parts of the country – the situation is dire nationwide.

 

Local authorities are currently spending huge amounts of money on temporary accommodation, in the case of Brent, BnB’s outside of London, simply to ensure individuals who have no where to go, do not end up on the street. If local authorities had been prioritising the building of social homes, as they should have been for the past 40 years, we may not be in as bad a situation as we are now. 

 

Some will lead you to believe, that this is a simple supply and demand problem. Increasing the supply of all tenure types, including leasehold properties, which should be banned, Shared Ownership units, which simply put are a scam that should never be classified as ‘affordable housing’, as well as unaffordable for most, private market tenures, will deal with our current crisis. This could not be further from the truth. 

 

We will not tackle the housing crisis by continuing the path that London, the country, has been on since the 1980’s. Things are not getting better – they are getting much, much worse.

 

What needs to happen now, is a revolution in Council home building, but also in ensuring maximum use of existing stock, including bringing empty properties back into use. It will require bold action, and frankly for us to think outside of the box and demand much more from national government to make it happen.

 

The Chancellors recent announcement of £39 billion to drive an increase in the number of affordable homes across the country over the next decade, should be welcomed, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Detail that has not been very forthcoming to date. And I fear, like most of this Labour government’s announcements, when the detail is revealed, things will start to unravel.

 

Despite the £39 billion commitment, the government have not set a target for how many social and Council homes they will build with this money – nor have they been explicit about the tenure types, they will include as part of their affordable homes offer. I know from my time in Brent, that often a whole load of tenure types are lumped together within the ‘affordable offer’ to boost numbers and falsely project that those in power are meeting their housing targets. This must not be allowed to continue.

 

As Liberal Democrats we need to be clear in our resolve that we will only accept investment in high-quality, permanent Council homes, as the best use of this money from the Treasury, and indeed any further money that we must all hope will be identified to ensure the delivery of Council homes at scale.

 

I was pleased to see Liberal Democrat MPs push for a vote to force the government to set a far more ambitious target on increasing social homes – 150,000 in this Parliament alone. This is something we also need to be demanding of every single local authority in London too, as well as from City Hall.

 

However, when targets are in place, it is essential that we hold those in power to account, in delivering them. There is simply no point in having targets, as most local authorities do, often wedded into Local Plans, that state private developers must deliver 50% ‘affordable’, which is an ambiguous term that has never been universally defined, when in the end most Councils let developers off the hook because of ‘ever increasing costs’ and the ‘financial viability’ excuse.

 

We cannot rely on developers alone to tackle this crisis. By their nature private developers are driven by profit, their interests are not often the interests of our communities. Therefore, local authorities need to have greater control when dealing with these profit minded organisations across the city. However, we can still make use of private developers. One thing I would want to explore is finding a way of negotiating with private developers to reduce Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 contributions, in exchange for them delivering additional genuinely affordable units, social homes, at or under the LHA rate. The concept of CIL is about offsetting the impact of development, well I see no greater way to payback to the community, than by potentially increasing the number of homes available in our communities – for people who desperately need them.

 

To add, Councils are always glad to collect CIL contributions, but what I have found from my time in Brent and in accessing the data from other London authorities, is that many tens of millions are hoarded rather than spent effectively quickly, as should be the case. I would much prefer to see developers guaranteeing the delivery of further genuinely affordable units, over allowing Labour Council’s to hoard money, because frankly, I do not trust Labour to spend money well.

 

The money that does currently exist, in Brent for example, over £100 million in the CIL pot, could and should be unlocked to assist the Council in ramping up its own Council homes building programme. Council’s need to be given greater tools and resource to build their own quality stock. The government and City Hall need to step in to realise this ambition. 

 

I will end by saying this. Every Londoner deserves a decent, safe, affordable place to call home. This after all is the foundation for all our lives. Without this foundation, people are massively impacted, one’s ability to work, to study, to feel secure, it robs our young people of the ability to not just get by but get on and take full advantage of living in the best city in the world. This is why we need to be bold and radical in our approach. There isn’t time to tinker around the edges, and place sticking plasters on this crisis. We cannot rely on the private market to solve this crisis. It will take an interventionist approach, and the Liberal Democrats in London must lead the way on this.

 

 

Tenants seek further information on Brent Council's follow-up to council housing management failures

 

Wembley Matters has recently pubished guests posts by Brent Council tenants of the St Raphael's and South Kilburn Estates  LINK as well as the findings of the Regulator of Social Housing on brent Council's serious failings in housing management.

Asif Zamir of St Raphael's wrote to Spencer Randolph, Brent Director of Housing about the issues. His reply is below along with Asif's response.

 

Dear Asif Zamir,

 

Thank you for taking the time to write on behalf of the residents of St Raphael’s Estate and sharing your concerns regarding the condition and safety of your homes on the estate. I want to begin by acknowledging the distress that the recent findings from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) judgment, have understandably caused. Please know that we take these matters extremely seriously, and yours and all of our tenants safety and well-being remain our highest priority.

 

When we identified inconsistencies in our safety data earlier this year, we acted swiftly and responsibly by referring ourselves to the RSH. This was not a decision taken lightly, but we believed it was the right and transparent course of action to begin addressing the issues at hand with the seriousness they deserve.

 

Since then, we have taken a number of urgent steps. We appointed an external health and safety consultancy with experience in supporting organisations in similar situations. They have engaged directly with the RSH and are supporting us in making rapid and lasting improvements. Their work includes helping us to verify and update our compliance data and to ensure all necessary safety checks are clearly recorded and acted upon.

 

We have also commissioned an audit of our systems and data, due to conclude in mid-July. This review will identify the root causes of the failings and inform a detailed recovery plan, underpinned by clear timelines and actions to ensure accountability.

 

In the meantime, we are reviewing all compliance data and building safety actions using a risk-based approach, prioritising high-risk issues. To help us move at pace, we are increasing capacity in our teams, including recruiting additional officers and contractors dedicated to this work.

 

We are also taking visible action across the Borough and on St. Raphael’s Estate. Over the coming weeks, residents will see more surveyors and contractors on estates as we carry out:

 

A new round of Stock Condition Surveys to update our understanding of the condition of every home

Fire Risk Assessments for all blocks of flats on estates

Pre and post-inspections to make sure building safety actions are completed to a high standard

We will communicate clearly and in advance about any visits to our tenants homes or buildings, and we are committed to improving how we engage with you going forward.

 

Finally, I want to reiterate that Brent Council is fully committed to learning from these failings and to restoring your confidence in the safety and quality of your homes. We know that words alone are not enough, you deserve to see real, sustained improvements, and we are determined to deliver them.

 

Thank you again for sharing your concerns.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Spencer Randolph

Director – Housing Services

 

 

 

Dear Spencer Randolph,

 

Thank you for your prompt response to my letter and for acknowledging the concerns of St. Raphael's Estate residents following the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) findings. We appreciate your transparency in referring Brent Council to the RSH, and we understand that steps are being taken to address the issues.

 

While we acknowledge the measures you've outlined, including the appointment of an external consultancy, the audit of systems, and increased capacity within your teams, the residents of St. Raphael's Estate require reassurance and immediate, tangible results to ensure their safety.

 

The recent fire on St. Raphael's Estate in May, which tragically led to the tragic loss of life of our neighbours, has significantly heightened anxieties among residents. This incident demands an urgent and thorough investigation into why the building experienced accelerated combustion and further to this why the fire was not contained and spread to the ajoining property.  We need clear answers regarding potential concerns with insulation, cladding, or the overall build quality of the affected building and others on the estate. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about a potential correlation between this tragic incident and the previously identified lack of safety data from Brent Council.

 

While the planned surveys and risk assessments are a welcome step, residents need to see these actions translated into fast results. The fear of another incident is very real, and waiting for audits to conclude in mid-July and for the implementation of recovery plans does not alleviate the immediate anxieties.

 

We urge Brent Council to:

 

Prioritise the investigation into the St. Raphael's Estate fire, providing residents with immediate updates on preliminary findings regarding the cause of accelerated combustion and any links to building materials or construction.

 

Share a clear and accelerated timeline for addressing the most critical safety issues identified by the RSH and through your ongoing reviews, particularly those related to fire safety.

 

Demonstrate visible and proactive measures on the estate now, beyond just surveys, to address any immediate high-risk concerns.

 

Establish a direct and ongoing communication channel with residents to provide transparent updates on progress and address specific concerns arising from the fire and the RSH findings.

 

We understand that systemic changes take time, but the safety and peace of mind of St. Raphael's Estate as well as residents from wider Brent cannot wait. We look forward to seeing swift and decisive action that translates your commitment into demonstrable improvements in the safety and quality of our homes.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Asif Zamir

 

 An old map of the original estate

 

Meanwhile Pete Firmin, a tenant on the South Kilburn Estate,  has submitted a Freedom of Information request on the remit and makeup of the housing Advisory Board. LINK

  

Dear Brent Borough Council,
 

I understand a Housing Advisory Board has been set up. Can you please tell me:

1) Its remit.
2) Its composition - who is on the board and their qualification for doing so.
3) If there are residents on this board, how they were recruited and what qualifications they were required to have to be on the board.
4) All correspondence relating both to the establishment of this board and the recruitment of its members.

Bring back a Housing Committee so we have effective oversight and scrutiny!

 

 

There was something rather familiar about the issues discussed at the Audit and Standards Advisory Sub-Committee and the solutions put  forward. The Sub-committee were discussing the actions being undertaken following the Council reporting itself to the Regulator of Social Housing,

In March 2016 Brent Housing Partnership  was put into Special Measures after performance failings. BHP was an arms length adjunct of Brent Council.  Some of the Council's concerns were included in a report to Cabinet in June 2016:

Eventually Brent Council decided to bring housing management back in-house and BHP was dissolved in October 2017:

 

Tenants were promised:

• More investment in up-to-date technology, such as a new smartphone app for simple transactions
• More joined up approach between housing and other council services, to provide a better customer experience for tenants and leaseholders
• A more responsive and flexible repairs service
• More and better targeted investment in estates, blocks, and houses
• Review of service standards, to ensure we are delivering what residents want 

 

Better engagement of residents in decision-making about their homes and estates.

How far those promises have been kept can be judged by the contributions to this blog by tenants on the St Raphael's and South Kilburn estates as well as the findings of the Housing Regulator.

Audit set out to ask frank and honest questions. It emerged that when Spencer Randolph became director of Housing Services some 11 months ago, he discovered the failings in the council housing service and saw no option but to report them to the Regulator.  During the meeting he remarked that he had previously held private landlords to account via the licensing scheme, and now in his role as a 'landlord' in change of Brent council housing, he had to hold the council to account. He had previously been unaware of the gravity of the situation.

Rather than going over old ground (presumably including who was to blame for the failures) he wanted to move on, and the Council will begin again to carry out assessments on all 33 of their high-rise blocks and pick up the required actions now. 

He said that the reason the fire risk assessments were not done properly was in the way they had been recorded - issues, actions taken and closed down (completed). The new system introduced two years ago should indicate when information is missing but had only been in active use since he came in 11 months ago and wanted up to date and robust information.

Cllr Malloy asked if staff had been recording that they had taken an action when they hadn't. Randolph said they didn’t know yet, that would come as a consequence of the audit that was being undertaken.

Cllr Long recognised that he had inherited the problem and asked it the issue was lack of tenant engagement and scrutiny. Randolph said it was probably lack of oversight of data management from a management perspective and inadequate training of staff. An engagement team had been brought in in March 2025 and were doing lots of engagement. In fact, the Regulator had complimented the authority on the engagement approach they were now taking.

 The audit currently taking place would take 6-8 weeks including report writing and he expected it would take a year to 18 months to achieve a C2 or C1 compliance rating.

He listed the 'Big Eight' that were being audited: fire safety, asbestos management, electricity and gas safety, water, lifts, damp, mould, smoke and Co2 detectors.  There would be a 'deep dive' into these compliance issues.

Cllr Kabir said that housing was the most important part of the council's work. Years ago, there had been a Housing Committee and personally, she though it should be brought back. Housing needs far more scrutiny and overview than it has now, given that it is of huge importance to the council. 

The councillor asked about the additional resources needed to address the issues, how much money would it cost, and where would the money come from?

Spencer Randolph said that the Regulator would want a plan in place to achieve compliance within the next 2 to 3 years. Many compliance posts had not been filled so he was recruiting to those. A new Strategic Compliance Manager had been recruited as well as an interim head of service. He would be bringing in additional posts in the Compliance Team over and above current structures. 

Cllr Smith asked about the 12,500 fire safety actions that had not been carried out, what proportion of the total were they? She agreed with Cllr Kabir over the need for a Housing Committee and asked about contractor management - Wates was often frequently the offender in complaints.  Randolph said that there were c36,000 repairs per year and wates would be named as it was the only contractor. There would now be two contractors in future with more robust management. Some of the 12,500 actions could date as much as 3 years.

Many London boroughs were in a similar position to Brent due to lack of investment in stock, ageing housing, and frozen rents. The London outlier was Newham with a C4 judgment.

 Cllr Malloy asked about the money needed for all the above and whether it would have to be funded from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA),

It is worth recording Randolph's reply for future reference:

Our business as a landlord is based upon our rents and how much it costs to run our business. So, we will need to make sure we are very stringent on where we can make savings elsewhere, better contract management, making sure we are maximising our rental income, maximising the payments we're getting from leaseholders and works we're carrying out there. These are all changes we’ve got in our Business Plan. 

Responding to Cllr Patel he said:

We can't kick this can down the road. If money needs to be spent to make people's houses safe, we can't keep putting it off and putting it off. If the root causality [of the failure] is that we find it was put off because we didn't want to spend the money, then that's not a good position to be in. 

I think that with proven financial management and a realistic timetable then things can be budgeted for within our existing HRA budget.

Spencer Randolph did not think that the Regulator's judgement would impct on the councils housing projects but another member of the corporate team said it was still a risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tenants hit back regarding 'serious failings' of Brent Council Housing management

The judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing on Brent Housing Management has not received as much pubicity as it deserved. Below residents from St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn voice their concerns.

 

Letter to Kim Wright, Brent Council CEO:

Urgent Concerns Regarding the Safety and Condition of Homes on St. Raphael's Estate

Dear Kim

We, the residents of St. Raphael's Estate, are writing to express our profound and urgent concerns regarding the safety and overall condition of our homes. These concerns have been significantly heightened by the recent findings from Brent Council's self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), which have brought to light serious inadequacies in the management of housing safety.

We understand that Brent Council proactively referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing in April 2025, specifically concerning the quality and accuracy of its fire safety data. While we acknowledge the council's transparency in making this self-referral, the subsequent findings by the RSH are deeply troubling. The Regulator has issued a C3 grading, signifying "serious failings" in meeting consumer standards, particularly the Safety and Quality Standard, and has mandated "significant improvement."

Of particular alarm are the RSH's findings that:

Data for critical safety areas, including fire safety, smoke and carbon monoxide safety, asbestos management, and water safety, "could not be reconciled." This raises serious questions about the council's ability to accurately track and manage essential health and safety risks within its housing stock.

The council is currently "not able to determine which legally required checks and assessments have been completed," which is a fundamental requirement for ensuring tenant safety.

Despite the council reporting that it holds stock condition data for 95% of its properties, the RSH's engagement revealed that "almost half of its homes have not had a recorded survey." This significant gap means that the council lacks a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the condition of a substantial portion of its housing, making it difficult to assure residents that their homes meet the required standards.

These deficiencies, as highlighted by the Regulator, have directly "negatively affected service outcomes for tenants." For residents of St. Raphael's Estate, this translates into real anxiety about the safety and structural integrity of our homes. The lack of reliable data and recent surveys creates an environment of uncertainty, undermining our confidence in the council's ability to fulfil its responsibilities as a landlord.

We acknowledge the public apology from Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, Cabinet Member for Housing and Resident Services, and her commitment that the council is "determined to improve the quality of council homes." However, we urge you to translate these words into swift and demonstrable action, particularly for estates like St. Raphael's.

 

We request a clear and comprehensive plan outlining the specific steps Brent Council will take to address these critical issues on St. Raphael's Estate, including:

Immediate verification and rectification of all outstanding fire, health, and safety actions for properties on our estate.

Expedited completion of recorded surveys for all homes on St. Raphael's Estate that currently lack them, ensuring a full and accurate understanding of their condition.

Improved communication channels with residents regarding ongoing safety works and the progress made in addressing the RSH's findings.

Assurance that robust data management systems are in place and functioning effectively to prevent similar issues in the future.

The safety and well-being of the residents of St. Raphael's Estate are paramount. We look forward to your prompt response and a clear commitment to resolving these serious concerns to ensure that all our homes are safe, decent, and well-maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Asif Zamir

 

Letter to Kilburn Times LINK from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association (South Kilburn)

 

I’m surprised 2 weeks have passed and you still haven’t published anything on the Regulator of Social Housings’ damning judgement on Brent Council. I would have thought this an important issue for a local paper to cover, especially as you have reported on individual cases of neglect by Brent in the past. This report shows that the problem goes much deeper than individual cases. Their report concludes “Our judgement is that there are serious failings in the landlord [i.e. Brent] delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvement is needed.”

 

Brent tries to excuse itself by pointing out it referred itself to the regulator, admitting failings. But Brent is itself unaware of the extent of its own failings. Or perhaps, as with so much else, in denial.  Council tenants are aware of these failings, so when Brent claims it carries out electrical checks in homes every 5 years, many tenants know this doesn’t happen. While tenants have annual gas checks, Brent carries out no checks on leaseholder dwellings in Council blocks, rather undermining the point of the checks which do happen. Council Officers not knowing the layout of buildings where they hold safety meetings doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

 

Around the same time, the Housing Ombudsman reported that complaints by social housing tenants about shabby repairs have risen by 474% over the last 5 years. While that figure is national, Brent tenants are all too familiar with that problem too. Delays and botched repairs are par for the course. Brent’s own surveys of satisfaction among tenants reflect this.

 

When Brent’s lead member for housing, Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, says “we will continue to work proactively, positively and in an open and transparent way with our residents and with the Regulator to fix the issues identified. Council tenants are at the heart of this improvement work through the new Housing Management Advisory Board. By listening to their experiences and ideas, we can make better decisions and build a housing service that residents can trust”, Council tenants are aware of how little openness and transparency there is in Brent housing, and how Council officers rarely work positively with tenants and their representatives, often the opposite.

 

While these reports vindicate what tenants have been saying for years, and Brent has denied, we would much prefer if Brent had got its act together in the first place. Brent has said it has new procedures in place to rectify the problems. We hope so, but excuse us if we don’t hold our breath, we have heard such claims many times before.

 

I, along with hundreds of others, took part in the Silent Walk for Grenfell on Saturday, 8 years after the terrible fire which killed 72 people. One of the many lessons of Grenfell is that the local authority did not listen to warnings from tenants and their representatives. A lesson that Brent should learn too.

 

Pete Firmin,

 

Chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

BREAKING: Brent Deputy Mayor suspended as previous Deputy Mayor re-admitted to Labour Group

 

Results of search for Barnhill councillors

Sharp eyed readers may have spotted that Cllr Kathleen Fraser's party designation has changed overnight from Labour to Independent.

Cllr Fraser, like her predecessor, Cllr Diana Connolly, has also been removed from her role as  Deputy Mayor  and membership of committees.

She continues as a member of Full Council, albeit as an Independent rather than a member of the Labour Group.

Cllr Fraser was a popular choice as Deputy Mayor, with her experience and deep community roots seen as complementing the youth and comparative inexperience of the Mayor, Cllr Ryan Hack.

Hokey-Cokey style, Cllr  Diana Collymore, in the wake of a formal warning by a Labour NEC Panel at the conclusion of disciplinary proceures, was yesterday readmitted to the Labour Group.

Labour sources are unable to give further details of the reason for Cllr Fraser's adminstrative suspension as the investigation is ongoing and confidential to Cllr Fraser herself and the Labour Group.

This latest news undermines Labour Party members who wanted to challenge the London Region's decision to remove rank and file members from having a say in selecting candidates to fight  the 2026 council election. 

Instead, selection will be be made by assessors from outside the borough and imposed candidates are expected to be in place by the end of July. See an account on Labour Hub Brent Labour members denied the right to choose candidates as Partyapparatus takes control of council selections

 

Cabinet ratifies temporary closure of Bridge Park Leisure Centre

 

 Brent Cabinet yesterday made the decision to close the Bridge Park Leisure Centre pending its redevelopment. Although tribute was paid to the young people from the Black community of Harlesden and Stnebridge who started the centre in the 1980s it was  clear that the Cabinet wanted to close this chapter. Cllr Butt said that a new centre was needed for 'our changing community'.

The meeting was notable for a very long speech by Cllr Nerva who seized on a comment from a speaker from London Roller Derby about the flooding and heating in Bridge Park to justify demolition and rebuild, forgetting perhaps that Brent Council was the landlord that let this happen.

No start will be made on the site until Historic England has made a decision on a community bid to give Bridge Park heritage status because of its genesis.

A plaque was promised by the Council commemorating the contribution of the late Leonard Johnson to the founding of the centre.

Wembley Housing Zone – Estate Management Company and The Pages. Will the arrangement leave Brent Council at risk?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Work in progress on the Cecil Avenue site (aka The Pages Wembley), 9 June 2025.

 

I was in the High Road on Monday, and discovered that the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development at Cecil Avenue is now being marketed as “The Pages Wembley”. More on that later, but Cecil Avenue is also on the agenda for next week’s Brent Cabinet meeting, over an Estate Management Company.

 

Readers may remember that although Brent Council owns the Cecil Avenue site, and received full planning consent for the development there in February 2021, it was not until March 2023 that it entered into a WHZ partnership agreement with Wates. Work did not actually start on site until February 2024, and by that time I’d found out (through a Freedom of Information Act request) that under this “partnership”, 150 of the 237 homes would be for Wates to sell, and of the 87 Brent Council homes, only 56 (half of them family size units) would be for letting at London Affordable Rent level. Of the other Brent Council “affordable” homes, 28 would be for shared ownership and 3 would be sold at a discount from market price.

 

These are the main recommendations in the Report to Brent’s Cabinet, and the “Cabinet Member Foreword”, which gives the Council Officers’ “spin” on why they want our top elected councillors to agree the recommendations they have made:

 

 

 

All of the WHZ Council flats in Ujima House and the Council’s London Affordable Rent homes at Cecil Avenue will come under Brent’s Housing Revenue Account, but the Estate Management Company (“EMC”) will also require payment of service charges from tenants living on that site. As the services provided by the EMC are quite broad, and it appears that it will hire a managing agent to carry out some or all of those services, tenants at the Cecil Avenue site are likely to face quite high service charges on top of their “genuinely affordable” rent.

 

 

As ‘Wates have experience of setting up similar companies’, Brent will let them take the lead on setting up this EMC, but once Wates have sold all 150 of the 237 homes at Cecil Avenue (which our Council allowed them to have under the 2023 partnership agreement) they will walk away from the EMC. ‘Brent Council will then have full control, ownership and responsibility for the Company’, which in turn means that the Council will have full responsibility ‘for repair and maintenance of the structure’.

 

I may be a pessimist and a cynic, but I can’t help feeling that this will leave Brent Council, through its by then wholly-owned EMC subsidiary, at risk of a situation similar to that experienced when it had to bail out its First Wave Housing subsidiary over Granville New Homes. Those homes had been built through a partnership between Brent and the developer, Higgins. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Wates workmanship is on the same level as that of Higgins on that 2009 South Kilburn project!)

 

 

Turning to “The Pages”, when I was in the High Road, trying to take photographs of the Cecil Avenue site hoardings across the street (through the traffic tailed back from road works at the Ealing Road junction!), a visitor to Wembley asked me if I knew why the development had been given that name. Was it because it used to be a printing works, or something like that? I said it was the first time I had seen “The Pages Wembley” name, that there used to be a school on the site, and my guess was that it might be a reference to the Page family, who were major landowners in the area several centuries ago.

 

Sure enough, when I searched for "The Pages Wembley” online, I found that: ‘The name is a nod to the Page family, who became major landowners in Wembley in the 16th century.’ I also found that Savills are already marketing the private homes here on their website. This is a small sample of what is on offer:

 

Composite of images from a Savills video and Savills sales website.

 

It is interesting that the top image, from the video, shows that it was issued by Savills International Realty Limited, and the black letters under the Savills name in their logo appear to be in Chinese characters! Echoes of Brent’s “partnership” development at Willesden Green Library? The video showcases Wembley as a “world class location”, and most of its filming appears to have been done at Quintain’s Wembley Park development, with just a handful of CGI pictures of what “The Pages” is meant to look like when it is completed, which should be in late Summer or Autumn 2026 (not March/April 2026, as implied in the video)!

 

The opening line of Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”. (Image from the internet)

 

I can’t help thinking that the link between Brent Council’s development at Cecil Avenue and the Page family is ironic. The last of the wealthy Wembley Pages were four brothers, who were contemporaries of Jane Austen (the 250^th anniversary of whose birth is being celebrated by the BBC at the moment). As I showed in Part 2 of The Wembley Park Story, in 2020, they seemed to have overlooked the important truth that rich families needed to produce an heir, to pass on their wealth to. The will signed by the final Page brother left all of the family’s wealth to his solicitor (or so the solicitor claimed – he went on to live in one of their mansions in Sudbury, and became a governor of Harrow School). 

 

It is a truth (almost) universally acknowledged that a London Borough has thousands of people in want of an affordable home to rent. And if you look at some of the signs on the hoardings outside “The Pages” in the High Road, that is what you would think Brent Council was building there.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet made its formal decision on the WHZ development in August 2021, they knew what the borough’s housing needs were. These had been spelt out in the Brent Poverty Commission report, whose recommendations (including borrowing when interest rates were low to build more Council homes, especially those for social rent level, which was all that many local people could afford) the Cabinet had accepted less than a year before. 

So what was ‘the Wembley Housing Zone Vision’ which they were delivering? I think that the deal they signed with Wates has “swindled” many Brent residents in housing need out of a home that they could have had (and could have had by 2024, if the Council had not gone down the “developer partner” route). What do you think?

Philip Grant.