Key questions remain unanswered about the Health & Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park

 

The proposed building

The proposed Health and Wellbeing Hub  in Gladstone Park has aroused some strong feelings on either side with debate on Wembley Matters and Next Door. In particular read the comments as well as the Letters:    LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub and  LETTER: Gladstone Park Medical Centre - Is there a Phase 2? What is it?

Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green councillor for Willesden Green ward where the Hub is planned to be situated, has been carefully considering the issues involved.

Cllr Mitchell writes:  

As Brent Council prepares to consider plans for a new Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I have written to the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Members and the Chair of the Planning Committee to set out a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before the application is determined.

To be clear, I support the expansion of local GP services and recognise the need for improved healthcare provision across Brent. However, I am not yet convinced that building on Metropolitan Open Land is the only way to achieve this.

My letter calls for greater transparency over how the site was chosen, fuller assessment of alternative locations, clearer evidence of the project’s environmental and community impacts, and a more informed public consultation before decisions are taken on the use of protected public land and nearly £3 million of public funding.

I hope the letter contributes constructively to the debate and helps ensure that residents have access to the information they need as this important planning application progresses.

Full text below:

 

To Cllr Muhammed Butt, the Leader of the Council, Cllr Saqib Butt, the Chair of Brent Planning Committee, Cllr Matt Kelcher, Lead Member for Planning and Regeneration, and Cllr Liz Dixon, Lead Member for Community Safety and Public Health.

 

As we imminently expect the submission of the full planning application for the proposed Willesden Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I wanted to set out my concerns, building on those I raised in my emails of 26 March and 28 April to the former Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

I fully recognise the need to expand GP provision in Cricklewood, Willesden Green and across Brent and support these efforts. However, there are a number of significant concerns that this plan raises, which I hope can be addressed through the provision of additional information to support the planning process, and made public to residents to ensure adequate transparency and scrutiny.

 

I believe that the Planning Committee should seek the following information before determining the application.

 

1. Confidence in the assessment of alternative sites

 

The proposed site is the former Gladstone Youth and Community Centre at 162 Anson Road, adjacent to the children’s playground. Although buildings currently exist on the site, it is designated Metropolitan Open Land.

 

Metropolitan Open Land benefits from the highest level of planning protection in London with Policy G3 of the London Plan affording MOL the same level of protection as Green Belt. Any proposal seeking to override that designation on the basis of “very special circumstances” must therefore be supported by compelling evidence and subject to exceptional scrutiny. Although every planning application must be determined on its own merits, approval of development on MOL in this instance would inevitably be cited in future proposals affecting similarly protected land.

 

At a time of increasing biodiversity loss, urban heat stress and surface water flood risk, it is essential that this designation is only overridden where the justification is clear and robust. It is therefore essential that the evidence underpinning site selection is robust, up to date and available for public scrutiny.

 

The Committee should require publication of a more recent NHS Estates options appraisal demonstrating why this site is the only viable location. The most recent feasibility work referenced dates from 2023 and, importantly, Brent Council confirmed on 14 May by email that it “does not hold the full NHS/applicant site-wide assessment or options appraisal.” It is difficult to conclude that the “very special circumstances” test has been met if the underlying evidence is unavailable.

 

The Council should also demonstrate that it has independently assessed alternative locations rather than relying solely on the NHS Estates process. If it is prepared to provide public land to facilitate the relocation of Willesden Green Surgery, it should be able to evidence that no other suitable site exists to serve residents in the Church End, Neasden Stations and Staples Corner growth areas.

 

In particular, I would welcome an explanation of why this flagship Integrated Care Centre cannot be accommodated within one of Brent’s designated regeneration areas. 

 

For example, Site Allocation BSSA2 within the Church End Growth Area Masterplan already identifies provision for a 1,855m² health facility. Likewise, the Council should explain why existing assets, such as the former Neasden Library within the Neasden Growth Area, have not been considered appropriate alternatives.

 

The Committee should also clarify why a single flagship practice serving upwards of 20,000 patients is considered preferable to a distributed “hub and spokes” model using smaller premises, potentially including Council-owned buildings such as 395 Chapter Road, a designated health centre that currently stands empty. Such an approach could reduce travel distances for patients while aligning with the Government’s “Health on the High Street” agenda.

 

2. Transparency about the scale and type of the proposed development, and the decision-making process that has led to this partnership between the Council and the Willesden Green Surgery

The Committee should receive full transparency regarding the process through which this site was selected and the basis upon which a 150-year peppercorn lease is proposed, enabling a private enterprise to profit from public land.

 

Given the value of both the public land being given to the GP practice with no yearly rental costs, and the proposed £2.97 million Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy allocation, residents are entitled to understand on what basis this offer was made, and whether this financial subsidy was also offered to other GP practices to enable their growth.

 

The patient catchment should also be clarified. Residents should note that the consultation catchment was amended only two days before the close of the initial consultation period, on 30 March, to include a 1.5-mile catchment area. This inevitably affects how residents interpret the scale and impact of the proposal.

 

Wider detail of how this site has been assessed and fits into the wider healthcare picture for Brent would increase transparency and help to provide confidence in this plan. Is this Hub designed to be a Neighbourhood Health Centre (with a minimum patient roll of 30,000 patients)? Guidance from NHS England on Neighbourhood Health Centres (NHCs) in April 2026^[1] states that where new build centres are proposed, locations including town and local centres and high streets should normally be preferred.

Where a new NHC is proposed away from an existing community focal point, a local authority assessment may be provided. There are requirements for Integrated Care Boards to propose a pipeline of NHCs and how they are organised across the footprint to deliver effective clinical strategies. If these activities have taken place, they have not been made public.

 

Furthermore the ongoing financial management and governance of the NHC should be made available, so as to assess the Council’s role in financially supporting it. It is noted that there is no reference to the establishment of an NHC in any public papers from the Brent Health & Wellbeing Board, Brent Primary Care Executive Group, or the North West London Integrated Care Partnership board meetings as would reasonably be expected.

 

3. A full assessment of impact

 

Before determining the application, the Committee should require a comprehensive Travel Plan demonstrating how patients from Church End, Staples Corner and the wider catchment will access the site. This should assess public transport, walking routes, parking demand and traffic impacts. 

For some patients, particularly those with mobility issues, attending appointments may require multiple bus journeys despite the proposal being intended to improve access to healthcare.

 

The application should also include a robust assessment of footfall on the park and the local area and knock-on impacts such as littering. The proposal represents a significant change in the use of the site, from recreation and community use to a healthcare facility operating seven days a week, employing between 50 and 100 staff and potentially attracting up to 1,000 visitors each day.

 

Although the building is intended to achieve a high BREEAM standard, this should not substitute for assessing the wider environmental impacts of the development itself. Construction impacts, biodiversity, urban heat, carbon emissions and surface water flood risk all require careful consideration, particularly as the site is identified as being at high risk of surface water flooding.

 

4. An updated and comprehensive view of community benefit

 

The proposal also involves the permanent loss of an existing community site on open public land. While the current buildings are no longer fit for purpose, this reflects decades of underinvestment rather than an absence of community need. The former community centre, with estimated repair costs of around £410,000, could potentially have been refurbished or repurposed to meet any of the very real community needs residents in Willesden Green and Cricklewood have, including youth services and recreation. This proposal should therefore be considered in the wider context of Brent’s continuing loss of community assets, including libraries and community centres.

The Committee should seek updated proposals for the café and first-floor community space, reflecting the feedback received during consultation. Although Cabinet has already approved £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding, the planning process should still consider whether the community facilities genuinely reflect identified local need.

 

Residents are entitled to understand why this represents the best use of almost £3 million of developer contributions when alternative investments across Willesden Green and Cricklewood, including youth provision, crime prevention initiatives and the refurbishment of existing community facilities, could potentially deliver greater community benefit at significantly lower cost.

 

5. A new consultation process

 

Finally, I hope the Planning Committee will ensure that residents are able to comment on the application with all the relevant evidence before them. Without the Travel Plan, assessments of footfall and environmental impact, and with the patient catchment only expanded towards the end of the original consultation period, it is difficult to conclude that residents participating in the first stage of engagement were fully informed.

 

If Brent Council continues to support this scheme, including through the allocation of £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding and the proposed grant of public land through a long-term peppercorn lease, I would encourage those who have championed the project including the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning to engage directly with residents during the planning process. To date, much of the public advocacy has fallen to the Willesden Green Medical Practice. Those responsible for the Council’s decisions concerning public land and public funding must be prepared to explain and defend those decisions openly.

 

I remain fully supportive of expanding healthcare provision for Brent residents. However, I am not yet persuaded that the Council has demonstrated why this development must take place on Metropolitan Open Land, why alternative sites have been discounted, or why this proposal represents the best use of both scarce public land within the boundaries of a much used and much loved local park and £2.97 million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

 

I hope these issues will be addressed before the application is determined, and I look forward to continuing to engage constructively throughout the planning process to ensure that Brent delivers both the healthcare facilities and the public spaces that our growing communities need.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Councillor Mary Mitchell

 

Ward Councillor for Willesden Green

Extraordinary Labour Group meeting on January 7th to fill vacancies left by defections

Brent Labout Group will hold an extraordinary meeting on Wednesday January 7th at 6pm to fill vacancies caused by the defection of 5 councillors to the Green Party. The vacancies include Chief Whip and a Cabinet position. Cllr Liz Dixon (left) has applied for the Chief Whip position. She tells her colleagues that she sees this as an interim caretaker position until the next administrations and cites her role as Chair during Covid:

'I was group chair for a number of years and steered the group when we went through Covid which was a very turbulent and demanding time. It needed a strong and assertive chair. I learnt a great deal during that period which I can put into use as chief whip.'

Nominations will also be taken from the floor at the meeting. 
 

Tonight's Brent Council motion on housing fails to commit to council housing

 Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves today announced the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets on local authorities and changes in planning laws in favour of development, including a review of  land designated as green belt as well as  use brownfield and grey belt sites.

She indicated that local communities will only have a limited say (my emphasis):

It will still be in the first instance up to local communities and local authorities to decide where housing is built, but we will bring back those mandatory housing targets..it will be up to local communities where housing is built but it has to be built.

Clearly in areas like Brent, where available land is at a premium, there is likely to be pressure on some of our green spaces. Readers will remember plans to build on the Garden Centre land at the Welsh Harp at Birchen Grove, and the glass house land in Cool Oak Lane. The plans were defeated by a local campaign.

There was no mention in accounts of Reeves' statement that I have read, about the building of council homes. Similarly, a motion put by Brent Planning Committee member Cllr Liz Dixon to tonight's Council Meeting, written before the result of the General Election was known, but reflecting the Labour Manifesto, mentions 'affordable housing' without defining it, and does not mention council housing.

This reflects Cllr Shama Tatler's emphasis on building a range of home types, many of which would not be affordable for local people. Whether taking on the Building New Council Homes remit from Cllr Promise Knight, who is on maternity leave, will change her stance remains to be seen. Certainly her belief in the market: that more homes of any type will increase supply and lower prices, is challenged by some of her fellow councillors, who point to the distortions in the market caused by land banking and foreign investors' acquisition of new homes.

Tonight's meeting will also note the answers to questions to the Cabinet which includes Cllr Butt's advice to to evicted Brent tenants to move out of Brent to areas where rent is lower.

This is Cllr Dixon's Motion:

Declaration of a Housing Emergency

 

This Council notes:

 

* London is the epicentre of the country’s housing crisis, with a quarter of Londoners living in poverty after paying for their homes.

* In one of the wealthiest cities in the world, more than one child in every classroom is homeless and living in temporary accommodation, while rough sleeping is up 50% over this decade.

* Councils in London are spending £90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people - up almost 40% on last year.

*The dream of homeownership is out of reach for young people. The government have failed to act despite the housing crisis acting as one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.

*The government has spent billions of pounds on housing benefit every year, which goes into the pockets of private landlords without creating any new assets.

*Without intervention, the number of new affordable homes built will fall sharply in  coming years thanks to high interest rates and runaway construction cost inflation.

 

This Council further notes:

 

*The Housing Needs Service in Brent has seen a 12% increase in homelessness approaches in 2023/-24 (7,300) compared to 2022/-23 (6,529). The total number of homeless families living in B&B and Annexe accommodation has risen to 485.

*Many Councils are being forced to book rooms in commercial hotels to meet statutory duties. In Brent this has driven a £13.4m overspend. These issues are not unique to Brent and have impacted the whole of the country – but especially London.

* There are 5,688 households in A-C banding on the waiting list. At Band C, the average waiting time for a 2-bed home is 8 years, with a 4-bed home rising to 24 years.

*GLA grant funding per unit of affordable housing is approx. £195k, with typical build costs per average unit in the region of £450k. Brent Council has planning permission ready or has submitted applications for 423 more affordable units, but many face a significant funding gap, and will not be viable without an increase in available subsidy.

 

This Council welcomes:

 

Pledges made during the current election campaign:

 

*To update the National Policy Planning Framework, including restoring mandatory housing targets.

*To get Britain building again, creating jobs across England with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.

*To work with local authorities to reform Local Plans and strengthen the planning presumption in favour of sustainable development, supported by additional planning officers.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1) Work with other local authorities in London that have declared a housing emergency to calling on the incoming government to unlock the funding needed to deliver the affordable homes Brent desperately needs.

 

(2) Write to the Secretary of State to recommend the following steps:

 

*The suspension of the right-to-buy discount.

*A new Housing Revenue Account funding settlement to increase the supply of housing, improve standards and support retrofitting.

*Financial support to immediately purchase more homes from private landlords.

*To review the Local Housing Allowance available for Temporary Accommodation.

 

Cllr Liz Dixon

Dollis Hill Ward

It is important to note the reference to viability as the remaining elements of the South Kilburn regeneration looks increasingly in doubt and the St Raphaels plans have been much reduced.

Leasehold reform, Shared Ownership issues, a rent cap, builders' responsiblity to fund fire safety work, including cladding remediation are issues still to be addressed in the ear;y days of this government.

Brent Fire Safety Update and latest on Special Meeting

--> Fire Safety Update for Councillors(Peter Gadsdon, Brent Council Director Policy, Performance and Partnerships)

Thank you to all members who attended the briefings during the week on the council’s response following the Grenfell Tower fire. Slides from the presentation are available for any members who would like them.

Brent Council has 37 high-rise blocks with only Watling Gardens cladded. The cladding at Watling Gardens is made of a non-combustible mineral wool material – completely different to that used on Grenfell Tower. Residents from Watling Gardens had a demonstration from Rockwool, the manufacturers of the cladding, at a public meeting on Tuesday to show the impressive fire resistance of the material.

An interactive map, including more information about the council’s high rise blocks and fire risk assessments, is available from the link at the top of this page:www.brent.gov.uk/grenfelltower.

In addition to the extensive double checks carried out on council blocks, the council has also asked all registered social and private housing providers in Brent to share details of any cladding used on their high rise buildings.

So far, only Octavia has told us that there are concerns with one of their properties. Octavia reports that there are concerns about two products used on their Elizabeth House development on Wembley following the Government’s testing of their samples.

Elizabeth House is a 13 storey new build block which was completed in July 2013 and comprises 115 flats mainly for affordable rent and private sale. The council has 23 families in the block.

The exterior of Elizabeth House is made up of a mixture of Alucobond, Vitrabond and Terracotta Ceremic. All of the products used have appropriate certifications. However, Octavia sent samples of the two Aluminium Composite Material products for testing (Alucoband and Vitrabond) and was notified today (23.6.17) that the DCLG has concerns.

Octavia is working with the DCLG and council to ensure that the building is safe and moved quickly to communicate with residents. Octavia has told us that the Fire Brigade has double checked their plans of the building and is confident that any fire risk is being appropriately managed. Unlike Grenfell or old blocks that have been refurbished, Elizabeth House is a modern purpose built block with a comprehensive fire strategy and a range of 21^st century fire safety features in place including:

•           Sprinklers in all flats
- Automatic smoke ventilation systems in common areas to ensure they remain smoke free in the event of fire
- Smoke and heat detectors in all flats as well as fire entrance doors
- Smoke detectors in common areas linked to a central control panel
- A design that includes fire stopping and compartmentalisation

Octavia has arranged for people to make patrols 24/7throughout the day and night at Elizabeth House for added safety and reassurance. A site visit with the Fire Brigade has also been arranged where the Fire Brigade will be advising Octavia on next steps.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Thanks

Cllr Shama Tatler
Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills

Meanwhile Cllr John Duffy is in correspondence regarding a Special Council Meeting about the issue on July 3^rd.  This could be at 6pm ahead of a Labour Group Meeting at 7.30pm.  

Responding to Cllr Dixon's suggestion and request for questions, Cllr Duffy said:

How on earth can you have questions until you have a full explanation from officer with clear options and a strategy?

Liz it's not a show  with premeditated questions this has major implications for the re-gen and repairs programme. We have to set up a safety audit on some of the tower  block we need to look at our landlord certificates . We need to see if we have up to date RCDs and our maintenance/repairs programme is of a high standard.we have high rises that are due to decanted and demolished next year and I feel these blocks may have let Standards slip  because of changes  to the management 
I think your decision not to change the Labour group meeting to Tuesday  means that the council meeting will be shortened.This sends out a bad message  to residents about our priorities.

I have no question because I have not seen the officers report or recommendations and I will certainly not conform to your one question 3 minute  clock watching meeting as this is far to serious. This should be a examination of the proposal and Cllrs should be able to raise as many questions as they think are relevant.John McDonnell has just said these unfortunate council tenants were murdered by political decisions or in my opinion lack  of political decisions and it’s our duty to ensure we robustly question officers, how ever long it takes.

When you all troop of to your group meeting, I am requesting the CEO and officers stay behind to answer further questions even if it’s block by block, road by road until councillors are satisfied.

DAWN BUTLER URGES INSTALLATION OF SPRINKLERS IN ALL BRENT'S HIGH RISE BLOCKS LINK

Contesting the Prevent Strategy in Brent and the Labour Party

I haven't reported back on Monday's Time to Talk about Extremism Meeting LINK because, to be honest, it was hard to get motivated as very little happened.  The three expert speakers said not much, but at some length, and seemed curiously detached from real events on the ground.

Cllr Michael Pavey, at the time the lead Cabinet member for Stronger Communities, (I wonder who will replace him? Will the Labour Group decide or will s/he be appointed by Cllr Butt?) in his breezy way said that he would be very disappointed if Prevent made any Brent students feel they could not express themselves. There were murmers of dissent from the audience. He accepted that Prevent was not ideal but claimed, Sinatra fashion, that Brent could do it its way. Prevent was a statutory responsibility and the Counci had to comply.

Similarly in his introductory remarks Cllr Butt said that didn't like Prevent but he wanted to engage with the community and have a frank discussion about it. He also cited the statutory duty.

Interestingly, and I hope to get further information on this, a Muslim solicitor challenged Butt and Pavey saying that while it was a duty for local authorities to prevent recruitment into extremism it was not statutory that to do so they had to follow the Prevent Strategy.

A passionate speech by Humera Khan of the An-Nisa Society challenged the basis of the Prevent Strategy, its stereotyping of the Muslim community as potential terrorists, its impact on pupils' confidence in expressing their views and the failure of the Council to respond to her organisation's request for a dialogue on the issue. An-Nisa, who have been active in Brent for 30 years, run a Sunday School in Wembley that has been attended by hundreds of young people.

Most questions  and contributions from the floor were critical of the Prevent Strategy whilst also clearly opposed to young people getting involved in extremist activities (although 'extremist', 'terrorist', 'radicalisation' were never clearly defined).  Cllr Liz Dixon recognised the problems with Prevent but asked what would replace it.

In my contribution I asked how the community organisations that Brent engaged with over the strategy had been chosen, remarking that it would be a temptation to unconsciously choose those that were easiest because of existing political, religious or friendship links - ignoring those hard to reach. When Monitoring Prevent in Brent LINK had asked which organisations the Council worked with they had been told the Council were not allowed to give that information. I remarked that I was shocked to discover from members sitting at my table that the Brent Youth Parliament had not been consulted - surely given the concerns abnout young people they should have been first in line?

Cllr Pavey responded by saying that he was frustrated by the restriction on revealing who the Council engaged with and feared that fed suspicion. He said if they were allowed to reveal the information he was sure people would be reassured. He accepted the need to consult with young people through the Brent Youth Parliament - but now of course he is not in the role.

The second half of the meeting were group discussions which were reported back to the whole meeting. Most centred around enabling the different communities of Brent to speak to each other and learn from each other, engage in mutual festivals and cultural events as a way of breaking down barriers. To do this the Council should provide neutral affordable public spaces and facilities - a problem when cuts have meant that Brent Council has closed several  such spaces and others such as Granville and Carlton Centres and  Preston Community Library Hub are under threat of closure.   The young people at my table were particularly concerned about what happened in schools regarding breaking down barriers and wanted higher quality religious education as well as opportunities to meet, discuss and socialise across schools.

Chris Williams, the head of Community Safety in Brent (having previously worked for the Local Government Association and National Policing Improvement Agency), is a passionate advocate of the Prevent Strategy, often active on social media (Twitter @SaferWilliams) in its defence. He may have been disappointed that there was not a more robust defence of the Prevent Strategy at the meeting. (See his comment at the end of the Labour Against Prevent statement below).

The flip-chart recorded suggestions made at the meeting will be written up into a report to inform the Council's approach.

It will be interesting to see how Labour Party policy develops in terms of Prevent. Andy Burnham, shadow Home Secretar, was very critical and Diane Abbott has now been given his post.

A Labour Against Prevent group LINK has been formed.  I do not know how representative it is, or how much support they have, but this is what they have to say:

-->

We are a group of Labour Party members and supporters who recognise the racist and destructive intent of the PREVENT duties, as laid out under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, and who seek to oppose and repeal them through Labour Party channels, connections, and communities.

We recognise that these duties were brought in by a Labour government under Tony Blair in response to the 2005 London bombings, with the wider intent to undermine opposition to the Iraq war and British foreign policy in the Middle East through the racist portrayal of Arabs and Muslims as inherently violent and drawn to ‘extremism,’ ‘radicalisation’ and ‘terrorism.’ The PREVENT duties are intrinsically Islamophobic as they explicitly target Muslims and those of perceived Muslim backgrounds as imminent threats to security, and falsely conflate expressions of Islam with an increased tendency towards extreme ideologies and violence. We believe that the discriminatory and repressive foundations of PREVENT present a fundamental threat to our civil liberties and, as such, we call for the full repeal of the PREVENT legislation.

We recognise that British foreign policy is a root cause of the threat of violence to Britain. We further acknowledge that violence from individuals and groups on the fascist far Right pose a severe threat to the peace and stability of Britain. The PREVENT legislation does not reflect this and, thus, we conclude that its aim is not to combat ‘terrorism,’ but rather to stifle dissent through the creation of a surveillance state by blurring the line between welfare provision and national security. Furthermore, we recognise that the continued propagation of the controversial and widely criticised PREVENT duties, brought into statutory law by the Conservative government in September 2015, is used to feed into the wider government Islamophobic narrative that seeks to deflect responsibility for the harsh austerity measures through blaming Muslims, refugees, and immigrants for the social problems caused by failing neoliberalism, economic recession and ideological cuts to welfare services.

PREVENT claims to offset the risk of terrorism by challenging its apparent roots in ‘extremist’ ideology, however this ‘conveyor belt theory’ has no empirical support and, as such, has been widely discredited. We acknowledge that there is no evidence that PREVENT actually can or has prevented acts of ‘terrorism.’ As such, we maintain that the best strategy to tackle such threats is to recognise the role of British foreign and domestic policies that target British Muslims and Islamic countries in causing disillusionment and disagreement with the British state, and to work proactively at both national and grassroots level to ensure the safeguarding and social inclusion of those disillusioned and isolated by such policies.

We recognise that the role of Labour in the Iraq war is an indelible stain on our party’s history. Furthermore, the lack of sincere apology or remorse from those responsible, the damning conclusions of the Chilcot report, and Labour’s continued neo-colonialist and oppressive policies, including the lack of any formal commitment to tackle the oppressive PREVENT legislation, and indeed the vocal support for it from many prominent Labour politicians, continue to isolate and anger our BAME members and supporters. For too long, we have taken BAME votes for granted and ploughed ahead with such policies in the knowledge that BAME members sympathetic to the Labour Party will continue to vote for us. This is not good enough. We must work for these communities, as we work for all others. We must recognise the wrongdoings of Labour, apologise and work to rectify them and to support our members in the face of state sponsored racism. We therefore call on all Labour members and representatives to join us in our fight to for anti-racism and equality, to oppose and undermine this legislation at every opportunity, and to ultimately force the reppeal of the PREVENT legislation. 

What is Prevent?

• ‘PREVENT’ refers to Section 26 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act of 2015 that contains a duty on specified authorities – including local authorities, government departments, and ‘education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health sectors’ – to have ‘due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism.’
• PREVENT is a key component of the Government’s 2011 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, known as CONTEST. It builds on the previous PREVENT strategy brought in by Tony Blair’s Labour Government after the London bombings in 2005. It is a dangerous form of intelligence gathering directed at individuals who are, by definition, not suspected of involvement in criminal activity.
• The PREVENT strategy has been widely criticised for its McCarthyist tendencies to cast all Muslims and those of perceived Muslim background as a suspect community, and particularly for its use of ambiguous and politically charged language – notably British ‘values,’ ‘radicalisation,’ and ‘extremism’ – that are routinely and intentionally weaponised by the state for its own political ends.
• The government can provide no legal definitions for such terms that do not contravene basic freedoms of speech and thought. As such, their definitions remain vague and open to abuse, enabling the government to control the language and debate surrounding Islamic ‘extremism,’ and thus to adapt its definition to suit its political agenda.
• Training ranges from e-learning, private or in-house trainers, to a government DVD and script based training programme known as WRAP (Workshop to Raise Awareness of Prevent).
• The success of PREVENT is difficult to measure as it seeks to tackle the cause of ‘terrorism’ before the act occurs. However, it is widely accepted that there is no evidence to demonstrate any link between religious or ‘extreme’ ideology and acts of terrorism.
Our Aims:
• To pass motions at our local Constituency Labour Parties to put the fight back against the PREVENT laws on the national Labour Party agenda with the ultimate aim of gaining a commitment from the Labour Party to repeal the racist PREVENT agenda in its manifesto for the next general election.
• To lobby our MPs and councils to support our cause through advocacy, protests, policy motions, and public statements of support. MPs such as Jeremy Corbyn and Andy Burnham have already indicated their adversity to PREVENT, we demand a full and public commitment from all Labour MPs to oppose, undermine, and repeal these laws entirely.
• To work with Labour Party members, Trades Unions, and local communities through meetings, conferences, workshops, lobbying, trainings, and protests to demand full transparency and accountability in the implementation of the PREVENT policy in the different local institutions and sectors, and to combat the implementation of PREVENT through disengagement and boycott of the duties.

 Chris Williams Have you thought about learning about Prevent? How it doesn't use the conveyor belt theory? How it's a safeguarding process, designed to protect people who are vulnerable to being radicalised because (in many cases) they have mental illness or learning difficulties? How it works with this vulnerable to ALL forms of radicalisation including far-right (by far the majority in some parts of the country)? Or that hundreds of vulnerable people have been protected from travelling to join ISIS in Syria - and therefore saving lives?

Let me know if you need any info

UPDATE; Newly elected Chairs of Brent Council committees and an audacious nomination for Standards Chair

Cllr Allie at Full Council  February 22nd

More appointments will be made this evening but I now have fuller information for readers on appointments to positions on Brent Council committees etc.

One nomination, if true,  is particularly audacious - that of Cllr James Allie who sat reading the Catholic Herald through much of the budget setting meeting on February 22nd, which included discussion of the impact of  cuts to services.

A complaint was made to Fiona Alderman who replied:

I have considered the complaint under the Members’ Code of Conduct complaints procedure and have consulted the Independent Person, the Chief Whip and the Chief Executive. In all the circumstances, I have decided that on this occasion your complaint does not warrant any further action under the Code of Conduct. I have, however, reported your complaint to the Chief Whip for the Labour Group and written to Councillor Allie to advise him that the conduct you complained of must not be repeated.

Cllr Butt has apparently nominated Cllr Allie to be chair of the Standards Committee which may well be charged with responding to complaints about Cllr Butt's conduct over the Tayo Oladapo case as well as the  double Planning Committee shenanigans. Sandra Kabir, the Chief Whip who managed the Cllr John Duffy case, is nominated as Vice Chair. Other members are Cllr Krupa Sheth and Cllr Tatler.

Cllr Allie has been a staunch Butt supporter following his defection from the Lib Dems and was one of the few to support Butt's bid to end elelctions for Deputy Leader.

Although Allie was never charged with any offence in a 2011 fraud case, he was referred to the borough solicitor for not declaring an interest by the then Labour leader Ann John. At the time Allie was a Lib Dem councillor for Alperton and chaired the budget scrutiny committee. LINK

Krupa Sheth is a close relative of Cllr Ketan Sheth and replaces Bernard Collier who one councillor said was known to 'ask tough questions'.

Many observers thought Cllr Liz Dixon, a woman of principle, would have been a more independent occupant of the position.

The chairs of the  two Scrutiny Committees elected on Saturday are Matt Kelcher and Ketan Sheth. Kelcher is the chair of the present single Scrutiny Committee and Sheth previously chaired Planning.

Sarah Marquis was elected as Chair of the Planning Committee.  She was interrupted mid-speech  on Saturday by applause when she promised that she would be politically independent in the role. Cllr Agha was challenged to distance himself from Cabinet pressure if he got the role but replied that it was important that all members contribute to the Planning Committee, including the Council leader.

The leadership are claimed to have ignored Marquis' plea that the process of appointing members to the Planning Committee should be opened up to reassure the public that there was not a lack of independence from councillors which would open up claims of political interference in the Committee's work.

I understand that one Cabinet candidate, who was not elected to a position, when asked which other council they admired, replied 'Tower Hamlets.'

Given Cllr Butt's narrow majority for leader and the tied vote for deputy it is not certain that his nominations will get through this evening  but doubtless considerable pressure will be applied on individual councillors.

Brent Council Standards: After the 'Missing Minutes' the 'Missing Agenda Items'

The Agenda for the October 1st Meeting of Brent Standards Committee LINK  has now been published and surprisingly does not include any reference to the case of Dr Helen Carr, nor a referral made by Philip Grant.

On September 18th Philip Grant wrote to the chair of the Standards Committee:

Dear Councillor Dixon,

I am writing to you in your role of Chair of Standards Committee.

On 18 June 2015 I wrote to Brent's Monitoring Officer to complain of multiple breaches of the Members' Code of Conduct by one of Brent's elected councillors. I have since made further allegations of breaches, or potential breaches, of the general conduct principles in the Code by the same councillor.

I would be grateful if you would liaise with the Monitoring Officer, please, to ensure that this matter is referred to Standards Committee on 1 October 2015, so that your committee can decide whether the alleged breaches should be investigated. Thank you.Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

I expect we will hear more of this.