Monday's Cabinet to rubber stamp amalgamation of Malorees schools despite opposition at the Statutory Consultation stage

 

The Malorees Orchard - the freehold was donated to the junior school by Network Housing

A week into the school summer holiday the Brent Cabinet will decide to go ahead with the amalgamation of Malorees Infant and Junior Schools at Mondays Cabinet despite opposition from the majority of respondents to the statutory consultation and the NEU group at the schools.

The Cabinet report outlines consultation responses:

There were 89 individual responses to the formal consultation, compared to 115 during the informal consultation. Three respondents sent two separate responses and for the purposes of this analysis their comments have been grouped together and will be considered as a single response from each.

 

In addition, a bulk submission was received in the post of a duplicate letter that had been signed by 46 respondents, 5 of whom also submitted an individual response.

 

Of the individual responses, 18 (20.2%) indicated support for the proposal which was more than in the informal consultation and one from staff included12 signatories. 61 individual responses (68.5%) indicated an objection to the proposal and 10 (11.3%) commented on the proposal without indicating either support or objection.

 

• Of the individual respondents indicating an objection to the proposal:
• 43 expressed concern over the financial impact resulting from the amalgamation.
• 38 suggested that the consultation was either flawed or lacked clarity or transparency.
• 33 expressed concern over the uncertainty of the rebuild project.
• 32 suggested that an amalgamation had no benefit or was not in the school or children’s best interests.
• 24 expressed concern over the transfer of Malorees Junior School land to the council.
• 8 suggested that the assumptions presented in the statutory proposal were either wrong or optimistic.
• One suggested that the amalgamation would result in redundancies.
• Five respondents indicated an objection without including additional comments.
• In a letter to the Governing Board, 30 of the 67 staff at the school stated their objection to the proposal due to the loss of circa £180K of funding from the school budget because of the amalgamation, despite support for the whole school building project. This view was shared with the Local Authority outside of the consultation time frame by the school’s NEU representative.

The Authority admits to a mistake at the informal consultation stage (my emphasis): 

The Q&A section of the informal consultation document stated in error that if the majority of respondents did not support the proposal, then it would not proceed. The document should have made it clear that the merits of any concerns or arguments would also be taken into account. This was raised as a concern at the Cabinet meeting on 7 April, when the decision was taken to proceed to statutory consultation.

They argue that they went above and beyond what was legally required at the formal stage:

The formal consultation has been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 and by following the statutory process set out in Department for Education guidance Making Significant Changes to Maintained Schools and Opening and Closing Maintained Schools. During the formal consultation process, the Local Authority and the Governing Board did more than is required under the statutory process to listen to views and provide reassurance to stakeholders to address concerns that information had not been shared openly and transparently during the informal consultation. This includes a meeting with parent representatives and providing parents with a detailed Q&A document on 19 May 2025.

They admit that there may be refurbishment, rather than a completely new building for the amalgamated school;

Uncertainty over the capital investment proposals: The Governing Board and Brent Council acknowledge the responses that raise concerns about the certainty of the capital investment proposals, including whether the schools will be rebuilt or significantly refurbished. Whilst a new school building will always be a preference, and one that will be advocated by the Governing Board and the Local Authority, a significant refurbishment will also provide a vast improvement to the current buildings and the learning and working environment.

They rely on undertakings from the DfE although despite current very tight budgets and escalating building costs:

The Governing Board and the Local Authority have a written commitment from the DfE to the delivery of a single capital investment solution for both Malorees Infant and Junior schools as part of the School Rebuilding Programme if the schools are amalgamated as one school by April 2026. While the full details of the project are not yet known, the DfE is already progressing a one-school solution which has involved to date undertaking significant survey work of both school buildings and sites. The DfE has provided an indicative project timeline that anticipates the project scope to be determined in the autumn term, for planning permission to be submitted by June 2026, for construction works to start in September 2026 and project completion to take place by December 2027. The DfE is being proactive in ensuring the capital build project moves forwards swiftly with the full involvement of school leaders and governors in the decision-making process. As more information on the project becomes available this will be shared with children, parents and staff on a regular basis.

There has been confusion over the financial loss to the schools of amalgamation, tha basis of the NEU's fears,  and the details are set out:

Financial Impact: Upon amalgamation the combined school will only be eligible for one lump sum (an allocation from the Dedicated Schools Grant provided to individual schools to support fixed costs that is currently £170,000 a year) and one sports premium allocation (£16,600 a year). The lump sum reduction will be tapered over 3 years starting at the earliest in the 2026/27 financial year. From the financial year after amalgamation, as one school there would be a reduction of 30% of the lump sum currently allocated to the Junior School plus the whole of the sports premium lump sum, equating to circa £67,000 based on the current funding allocation. In the following year, the school would lose 60% of the one lump sum (£102,000) and by 2028/9 the whole of one lump sum.

Again the Council is confident that this can be handled:

Alongside potential savings from reduced administrative and subscription costs, a significant reduction in maintenance costs is expected following capital investment in the school’s buildings through a single capital investment solution within the DfE’s School Rebuilding Programme. The school currently incurs a minimum of £50,000 general maintenance costs a year linked to the poor condition of the buildings that will not be required going forward, with the current financial outturn confirming over £100,000 of spend. These costs would continue to increase given the condition of current school buildings. Capital investment will also make the school’s accommodation more energy efficient, saving expenditure on energy costs (estimated as up to £5000 a year).

 The Cabinet paper argues that an amalgamated school will be more popular with parents and that pupil numbers would increase when Islamia (if?) moves out of the area to the Leopold site (consultation in progress).

The Council states that they have no plans for the additional land, including the orchard that they would take over and promise it would remain educational land, needing permission of the DfE to dispose of for any other purpose. 

Cllr Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, summarises the local authority's perspective:

Where infant and junior schools choose to amalgamate, this is supported by the Local Authority for the many benefits for children, staff and the school,including consistent leadership and teaching practices, a single overarching identity for the school and the wider community and strengthened sustainability through economies of scale.

Northwick Hospital & NHS Trust 'disrespecting' staff and patients over what appear to be secret plans to close the much needed Hydrotherapy Pool funded by donations. Link to Petition.

November 2014: A hospital group held a party to celebrate raising more than £90,000 to buy new patient equipment.

The League of Friends of Northwick Park Hospital has donated the money to pay for a sensory room, a hydrotherapy pool and gym equipment. 

 

March 2020: Publicity after refurbishment of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Northwick Park

 

  JULY 2025: Silence from North West London University Health Care

Many readers have drawn my attention to a Change petition opposin the closure of the hydrotherapy pool at Northwick Park Hospital. I have spent the last few days trying to confirm the closure decision, seeking documents online providing reasons for the closure and details of any consultation undertaken and several times asked the Trust's press office for a statement.

The result has been silence so I have very little to go on but have decided to go public despite this and publicise the petition. Plans such as this should not be kept secret as they affect the public in Brent, Harrow and surround areas and, of course, the Trust should be publicly accountable. The Trust was not shy of publicising the pool in earlier years and its website still mentions the provision:

 The Northwick Park Hospital website today

 

   

The petition to NHS Trusts, Board of Northwick Park Hospital and Northwick Park Hospital:

Every day, I grapple with chronic pain and discomfort, and for me, and countless others like me, the hydrotherapy pool at Northwick Park Hospital is not just a facility; it's a lifeline. It's one of the very few forms of exercise that alleviates our suffering. Unfortunately, we are facing the closure of this essential service, an act of cruelty by the hospital board that could have severe consequences for our community.

Northwick Park's hydrotherapy pool is the only one of its kind within miles, providing a unique and irreplaceable service to those with severe pain. People from all over London come here to seek relief because other services are simply not available to them. This closure means taking away the only method of physical relief many patients can tolerate and benefit from.

But this pool is more than just therapeutic relief; it's a community hub. For many patients, this is their sole opportunity to connect with others who understand their struggles. The closure would not just remove a crucial health service, but also heighten the isolation faced by people with chronic illnesses.

The impending closure could also mean that patients would have to endure increased pain and reduced mobility, as they no longer have access to the specialized care provided by hydrotherapy. This decision could lead to deteriorating mental and physical health outcomes for many individuals.

Please join me in urging the board of Northwick Park Hospital to reconsider their decision. We need to keep this vital lifeline open for all those who rely on it. Sign this petition to keep the hydrotherapy pool at Northwick Park Hospital open and accessible for the community that depends on it. Act now to stop this closure. 

Currently the petition has 1,995 signatures. The issue is urgent as I understand the plans is to close the pool at the end of August when so many people will be away. SIGN HERE  

A contribution from a member of staff under the comments section of the petition suggest that both staff and patients have been treated wuth disrespect in the way te proposal has been handled:

I left the LNWH NHS Trust yesterday and I still feel the urgent moral duty to protest the closure of the hydrotherapy pool that I have referred patients to countless times. It is a vital treatment method for the physiotherapy department. The patients that are referred to hydrotherapy are often post-traumatic injury, or people with severe arthritis, or severe back arthropathies which cannot be managed surgically. This means they rely on the pool for their only possible form of exercise to maintain a sense of a community, enjoyment, and slowing their condition worsening. With no appropriate alternative, many of these patients will not leave their homes other than hospital appointments and feel even more isolated. 

I believe the executive board are closing it as a change of strategy to move any service that can be managed in the community, to the community. The announcement has been immediate and without due process which should have included stakeholders in the community, the physiotherapy department, the 'League of Friends' charity (who paid to refurbish the pool and were not informed of the plan to close it), and the local council. I am aware that this is not an essential part of the process to close the pool and the Trust is trying to cut their overheads as soon as possible given the recent political manifest. 

However, the method that they are using goes against all of the Trust's own values, and having spent the last 5 years abiding by the same values, the disrespect to both staff and the community alike is astounding. Personally, I have no issues with the change of strategy, However, I believe the pool should remain open. Whether this remains under the  Trust's management, or until an appropriate community trust / organisation can take over, or a suitable alternative is provided. Please show your support for the physio team at the NHS trust and for the patients we try to help.

 Another comment  stresses the contribution of local fundraisers to the Hydrotherapy Pool:

As a NPH disabled staff member of 44 years and a hydro patient for roughly 25 years (until covid started) I am disgusted to hear of the threat of closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool. This pool has been a lifeline for thousands of patients over the years. If it had not been for the hydro pool i would of been disabled off early retirement years ago as nothing else helped with my multiple joint pain from various forms of arthritis. A bit of a back story. This pool would not have been built in the first place if it was not for the charity work of the League of Friends for round about 5 years of buy a bug campaign. Back then this was on all the news channels and you could not walk the high streets in Wembley or Harrow without seeing charity bug sellers. Even Wembley stadium and arena events they had bug sellers. It will be such a shame if this closure goes ahead.

A patient I see regularly at my allotment site and have noticed the improvement in her condition wrote:

I am so disappointed to read this news!! Over the past 21 months my hydrotherapy sessions at Northwick Park have been so therapeutic and have improved my mobility tremendously allowing me to walk and move around without constant pain. Regular sessions have helped me not only to improve physically but have also provided mental health benefits through speaking with others in a similar situation. This form of non weight bearing exercise is essential. Please reconsider your decision NPH.

A member of the public has filed a Freedom of Information request asking who is responsible for decision making about the service, reasons for closure, what consultation had been done and what other alternatives were considered. They also asked for minutes of relevant meetings.

In a message to Wembley Matters, Linda writes:

I have been going to the hydrotherapy pool for a long time. I am not sporty and not good at exercise, so it helps me by providing a routine of exercise each week. We have an intensive half hour led by a physiotherapist. I go to a lower limbs class because I have had two hip replacements, and it has helped to strengthen my muscles and improve my balance, both before and after operations. Balance is fundamental because hip replacements are never as strong as your original ones, so you must not fall. The support of the warm water helps you to do things that are too difficult to do in normal exercises on the ground. I also have some problems with my knees, but it has helped me enormously to do exercise without pain. The water supports you, so you don't hurt yourself by falling whilst doing the exercises. If I miss a week or two I can feel stiffness coming back, so I need to go regularly.

 

The people who go to the same weekly sessions also get to know each other. There was a very elderly woman who came recently who had a lot of trouble walking and needed help to get into and out of the pool. After a few weeks she was getting in and out easily by herself and was much more mobile. Most people are older, but sometimes younger people come for the therapy after accidents and injuries.

 

I would hope that Brent Council and our councillors will be taking up this issue and the decision called in for scrutiny.

 

 

Desultory response from Cllr Krupa Sheth on the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre despite passionate pleas for children's engagement with nature

 

 

Leo Batten, who helped set up the Wesh Harp Environmental Education Centre more tha half a century ago made a passionate plea for its continuation at yesterday's  Welsh Harp (Barnt and Brent) Consultative Committee.

Unfortunately the responses were far from positive. Leslie Williams, from Brent Council, made it clear that there would be no daytime space for the WHEEC in the new SEND 16-25 building saying that it would be 'fully utilised' during curriculum time by the 16-19s and available for education groups only at other times.

This would be of no use to the primary schools that have been using the centre for morning and afternoon sessions for decades. Initial discussions envisaged shared use of the new building with the WHEEC and I understand that current plans include provision for 60 local school children to visit each day during term time. Thames21 withdrawal from running it seems to have led to the dropping of the idea. 

Cllr Krupa Sheth, Cabinet lead on the Environment, made it clear that the Council would provide no money to keep the WHEEC going but campaigners. who are getting together now (despite it being the holiday season), will be urging the Council to  shake off its lethargy and start searching for solutions.

 Thames 21 who usually attend the Committee were not present last night.

No statement from Brent Council on the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Study Centre as schools break up for the summer holiday

 

Pond dipping nets stand ready for what may be the last groups to use the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

 

Today marks a week since Brent Council were asked for a statement on the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre.

 

Today also marks the last day of term. A lively crocodile of excited primary children walked by the nearby allotment this morning, oblivious to the fact that they might be the last to make use of the Centre.

 

As far as I can ascertain local schools have not yet been informed of the withdrawal of the charity Thames21 from managing the  Centre or of any transitional arrangements while a new sponsor is sought.

 

A prettty poor show that raises doubts about Brent Council's commitment to our young people and their education  about the climate and ecological emergencies that will shape their future lives.

 

 

 

Kenton Residents' Association formed

 

From Kenton Residents' Association Brent

A group of Kenton residents had an initial gathering on the evening Wednesday 9th July to discuss the formation of the ‘Kenton Residents’ Association Brent’ at the Harrow Masonic centre in Northwick Circle, Kenton.

 

A packed hall of well over 100 residents gave support to the initiative led by local Kenton ward councillor, Sunita Hirani, and long-standing Kenton resident, John Poole.

 

Shirley Holmes, Brent Council neighbourhood manager for the Kenton and Kingsbury Connects Area, chaired the first part of the meeting before opening up the meeting for questions and discussion.

 

There was strong support for the idea of Kenton Residents’ Association Brent (KRAB) and several residents came forward to volunteer in a temporary capacity to help set up the association with the aim of having a formal meeting in September where a constitution will be presented and adopted and officers elected.

 

Speaking after the meeting, Cllr. Hirani said she was amazed at the turn out and that it clearly indicated a desire from local residents for the formation of a residents’ association.

 

The meeting was sponsored by the Harrow estate agents, Empire Chase.

 

 

What our children will miss out on if the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre closes

 There were two primary classes happily engaged at the WHEEC today when I popped by after watering my allotment on Birchen Grove. I thought it would be useful for the general reader to know what their offer to local schools and nurseries is.  This brochure is from 2019 but I suspect little has changed, except perhaps for the very reasonable pricess.

 

 

BREAKING: Thames21 confirms it is withdrawing from running the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre at the end of this month

 Following my request for information on Friday, Thames21 today released this statement:

 

Thames21 has given Brent Council notice that it is withdrawing from running the WHEEC at the end of this month.  

 

After recent discussions with Brent Council, Thames21 is sad to announce that it will no longer continue to support the operation of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre as of from the end of July 2025. 

 

Unfortunately, Thames21 has been operating the centre at a loss for several years. Despite the value of the work being done, we simply cannot continue to sustain these financial losses. We had hope—and still hope—that the Council might step in, especially given their plans to redevelop the site. 

  

Chris Coode, CEO at Thames21, said: 

 

Over the last nine years, the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre has had a significant impact on the local community and is a much-loved facility.  

 

I want to pay a special thanks and tribute to the schools, schoolchildren, volunteers, employees (especially Debra Frankiewicz), members and local community who have made this place so great. 

 

We hope that the Council will work with local partners to find a long-term suitable solution to keep the Centre open and offer vital opportunities for children and local people to learn and spend time in nature. 

Thames21 remains committed to working in the borough and will continue to focus on working with communities to restore and care for our rivers.

Brent Council was also asked for a statement on Friday bit so far has not responded, 

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.