Muhammed Butt joins 118 other council leaders in calling for urgent action by the Chancellor on councils' housing costs

 Brent Council was recently warned by its finance officers about the financial pressures on the Council and the need to make further ‘savings’ that will impact on services. The warning comes in the wake of a substantial increase in the Council’s housing costs as a result of the soaring numbers of homeless people, higher rents in the private sector when placing such families in temporary accommodation, and the shortage of private rented accommodation. There are also pressures on the Adult Social Care budget (higher charges are in the pipeline) and some local authority schools are running deficit budgets.

 

Faced with that situation the leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, has signed a letter along with 118 other council leaders to the Chancellor calling on him to address the homelessness and temporary accommodation crisis that threatens local government’s financial sustainability and the services upon which England’s most vulnerable people rely.

 

The letter is signed by councils from across the country led by Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, the Green Party and Independents. It follows an emergency summit held last week (Tuesday, 31 October), co-hosted by Eastbourne Borough Council and the District Councils’ Network. 

 

According to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the cost of temporary accommodation to councils reached £1.7bn last year and it is increasing rapidly.

 

The signatories included 108 district councils – two-thirds of the total. In many parts of the country, district councils are the tier of principal government closest to communities and they oversee services including housing, leisure centres and waste collection. The rising cost of temporary accommodation hits district councils particularly hard due to a large proportion of their budgets being devoted to housing.

 

The Councils are calling for a meeting with the Chancellor ahead of his Autumn Statement to consider their demands:

 

This is the letter:

 

 

Dear Jeremy,

 

The unprecedented pressure on temporary accommodation services

 

An unprecedented number of people are turning to councils as the last option for support when they face homelessness. As councils, we are proud of the help we give to people when they need it, but our situation is becoming untenable. We have had no option but to rapidly escalate our use of temporary accommodation, which is threatening to overwhelm our budgets.  

The level of concern was demonstrated when 158 councils attended an emergency summit on 31^st October, organised by the District Councils’ Network (DCN) and Eastbourne Borough Council. The scale of the problem was also shown by a recent DCN survey in which 96% of our member councils reported an increase in use of temporary accommodation – four-fifths of them describing this as ‘significant’. 

The ensuing increase in costs is a critical risk to the financial sustainability of many local authorities and we urge you to act swiftly to ensure we can continue our vital work. The pressure is particularly acute for district councils because housing costs constitute a far bigger proportion of our overall expenditure. 

Without urgent intervention, the existence of our safety net is under threat. The danger is that we have no option but to start withdrawing services which currently help so many families to avoid hitting crisis point. There will also be a knock-on impact on other cherished council services, which councils could also have to scale back, and on other parts of the public sector – such as the NHS – which will be left to pick up the pieces. 

Councils and our partner organisations in health, policing and education, as well as the voluntary sector, have had considerable success in recent years in moving the whole local system towards preventing homelessness, rather than just dealing with the consequences.  

However, the supply of permanent, affordable housing has fallen in many places while the impact of the rising cost of living is making housing too costly for many people. This impacts on the health and wellbeing of households affected. Some areas also experience added pressure due to the placement of asylum seekers in local hotels and other temporary accommodation. 

We do believe there is a way forward, as DCN set out to you in our Autumn Statement submission on 13 October. We are urgently calling on the Government to: 

·       Raise Local Housing Allowance rates to a level that will cover at least 30% of local market rent and commit to annual uprating. 

·       Provide £100m additional funding for Discretionary Housing Payments in 2023-24 and an additional £200m in 2024-25.  

·       Provide a £150m top-up to the Homelessness Prevention Grant for 2024-25. 

·       Review the cap for housing benefit subsidy rate for local authority homelessness placements. 

·       Develop policy to stimulate retention and supply in the privately rented sector. 

·       Give councils the long-term funding, flexibility and certainty needed to increase the supply of social housing. 

Considering the urgency and scale of these matters, we would welcome a meeting with you ahead of the Autumn Statement. 

We firmly believe that action on these issues will ensure that all councils can continue to provide an effective homelessness safety net. We also believe that these measures will be cost effective by ensuring homelessness is prevented, reducing public expenditure in future. 

The human cost of homelessness is immense. With your help we can prevent it worsening.

 

In total, 119 council leaders from across England have signed this letter.

 

 

Brent Renters put a passionate and powerful case to Brent Council for action on health hazards in the private rented sector

 

 

In a unique event in Brent, around 100 people gathered in Willesden yesterday to negotiate the demands of Brent Private Renters for action by Brent Council against landlords who failed to remedy damp and mould in their properties. The meeting was a mixture of a detailed questioning akin to a Scrutiny Meeting, and a US style Town Hall meeting with passionate testimonies by renters about their treatment at the hands of their landlords and Brent Council officers.

One contributor said that this was an attempt to hold the council to account and to their credit Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council and Cllr Promise Knight, Lead member for Housing, took on the challenge. It is a strategy that other campaigns may do well to sdopt.

The councillors and representatives from Brent Renters sat around a large table on the stage and the lively audience witnessed the proceedings from the floor. The recording below gives you a taste - it is dark because slides were projected to show the evidence that had been gathered.

 

 Images of damp and mould projected on the wall

It was clear that Brent Renters had managed to organise a very broad cross-section of the community and I was struck by the passion and eloquence of the several Somali women who spoke, sometimes in Somali, with controlled righteous anger about their experiences.

Brent Renters had set out the basic facts and their demands:

Most of the Private Rented housing stock in Brent is old and very badly maintained. 65.7% is preWWII (relating to more than 100,000 residents), much of that 19th century. Landlords have no incentive to do repairs when the power to evict is so great, the demand is so high, and the punishment is so lacking.

 

The council estimates that 10,108 family homes have a serious health hazard in them, In the areas with the most dangerous housing (those that a selective licensing scheme has just been agreed within - Willesden Green, Dollis Hill, and Harlesden and Kensal Green) the council aims to deal with at most 10% of the most serious hazards this year.

. 

In the vast majority of the borough (everywhere outside Wembley Park) 1 in every 5 private rented homes contains a serious danger to the health and safety of tenants, more than double the London average (9%).

 

In the worst wards, there are an estimated 2374 properties with at least one Category 1 hazard. The council’s plans for this year involve dealing with 250 hazards of any severity- many properties have multiple hazards, and many hazards are category 2, so in fact the council is likely to make far less than 10% of these properties free from serious risk this year.

 

It’s outrageous that many of us are paying £2000 a month in rent to get asthma and mould poisoning - our housing shouldn’t make us sick.

 

We are all paying the price for dangerous housing. Because landlords aren’t reinvesting rental income into maintaining their properties, taxpayers are footing the NHS bill for the health problems they are causing. We can’t go through another winter like the last - our children deserve better.

 

Poor housing cost the NHS £340 million last year. The average cost of dealing with damp in a property is £3590 (BRE report). The total annual cost to the NHS is over £38 million, which would be paid back within 7 years were damp to be remediated. The total annual cost to society of damp is £96 million, which would be paid back within 2.8 years.

 

Brent Council must:

 

○      Agree a timeline with the London Renters Union for dealing with the 10,000 unsafe private rented homes in Brent, and recruit the staff to do it.

○      Ensure that Environmental Health cases can never be closed before sending a report on what has been done to the tenant and confirming it with them.

○      Make interpretation available for the PRS enforcement team, especially in,  Arabic, Somali, Portuguese, Romanian, Urdu and Hindi.

○      Inspect ALL properties where a landlord has applied for a licence within 1 year, instead of 50% over 5 years.

○      Issue Improvement Notices that protect us from eviction while dealing with disrepair, and fine the landlords that refuse to fix up.

 

The renters wanted faster action on the Category 1 homes that include a danger to life and pointed out that many homes have multiple hazards at Category 2. Renters spoke out about their own illnesses and those of their children as a result of damp and mould and the sometimes unhelpful assessments that has been made. One example was a claim by officers that the condition of one property was due to 'condensation' when they had been sent video of a leak.

 

 

Responding Cllr Butt referred to government cuts in council funding and £18m savingsthe council had to make. Cllr Knight said that the council were going to increase the number of enforcement officers by double the existing number (12 instead of 4) which would enable more inspections to be made.  Cllr Butt said that rather than instantly fine landlords they had to give them the chance to remedy defects.

Renters said that upping the number of fines would raise funds that the council could reinvest in enforcement, creating an income stream enabling employment of more enforcement officers. At present monies raised were not reinvested in the service. They also suggested an extension of landlord licensing across the borough and a higher licensing charge in line with other boroughs (£640 vs £750).  Muhammed Butt said the 2024-25 budget was in the first stages of drafting and without promising anything he would look at the possibiltiies.

It was clear from the contributions that intimidation from landlords and threat of eviction if they complained was a real problem. If evicted, homeless families then had to deal with housing officers who had a huge workload. The council was urged, 'Put more people out there so officers  are not so over-stretched that they treat people badly.'

At present the licensing system covers only three wards: Harlesden and Kensal Green, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill. Renters wanted to see the number increased but Prmise Knight said that this would have to be agreed by the Secretary of State. She urged that residents provide evidence to the council to help them make their case.

800 people have signed the Brent Renters petition and this shows the strength of feeling. One renter summed up, 'People have complained and feel like Brent Council doesn't listen to them. Perhaps, here today, maybe they are listening.'

LINK TO THE PETITION

After the meeting London Renters commented on what they had gained from the meeting:

What did we win in our negotiation? 

🔰 A plan with targets on dealing with Category 1 hazards and unsafe homes for borough-wide licensing by the end of the year 

🔰 A commitment to a pilot project in Harlesden and Kensal Green, Willesden Green and Dollis Hill, including increasing current targets for dealing with unsafe homes.

🔰 Council leader Butt to talk to finances side of council about increasing enforcement capacity, and whether income from fines can be included to increase budgets. 

🔰 Improvement notices to be issued every time there is a Category 1 hazard!

🔰 Interpretation to be offered for main languages so that people can access the Private Housing Service and complain, and forms reworked in plain English.

🔰 An aim to ensure that cases are not closed before speaking to the tenant, by discussing with senior officers and creating a concrete plan.

'Not ANOTHER winter with damp and mould' - Brent Renters negotiate with Brent Council on Saturday 30th September 10.30pm to 1pm

 The Brent branch of the London Renters Union are meeting with Muhammed Butt, leader Brent Council, and Cllr Promise Knight, the Cabinet lead on housing on Saturday.

The aim is to negotiate action on the pressing problem of mould, damp and other health issues in private housing,

The group have produced a powerful video that shows how renters are suffering at present. LINK

The campaign is pushing for Brent Council to take much stronger enforcement action against landlords who are breaking the law. They don't think renters should be paying upwards of £2,000 a month to get asthma and other chronic health conditions.

Brent Renters urge the public to sign their petition HERE that states:

BRENT COUNCIL: Not another winter with damp and mould

 More than 10,000 private rented homes in Brent have a serious health hazard. Damp and mould are making us sick, leading to asthma, respiratory issues, skin conditions, and  mould poisoning. 

Our children’s health is in crisis because landlords are being allowed to get away with not keeping our homes safe. Damp and mould mean people can’t use some rooms, and are overcrowded in the others. This meant that Church End had the highest Covid death rate in the country. 

Brent council has a legal duty to make sure our homes are safe but their current plan isn’t good enough. In the areas of Brent where housing is most dangerous, they’re only promising to deal with 10% of the most serious problems this year. What about the other 90% of renters left with unsafe homes?

It doesn’t have to be like this. Members of the London Renters Union in Brent have come together to create an action plan for how the council can hold landlords accountable and keep us safe. Add your name to our campaign. Together we can win safer homes for everyone. 

If you are part of an organisation, please ask them to support the campaign by sharing this petition, and by signing the open letter here.

For background info, see our factsheet here

 

 

 

Butt again refuses representations on Barham Park. Time for the Charity Commission to intervene?

 

 Thanks to Rucksack Traveller for this video taken a year ago LINK

 

The Barham Parks Trustees Committee meets again tomorrow (10am Brent Civic Centre) as a result of the Trusts's accounts being pulled from the last agenda because of a considerable number of errors. 

 

Francis Henry requested to speak at tomorrow's meeting but the request was refused by Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council and Chair of Trustees.

 

It is normal practice that representations can be made to local council committees on items that are on the Agenda of a particulat meeting. At the previous meeting Muhammed Butt refused representations (and indeed stopped Francis Henry from making them) on the plans for the future of the parks that were on the agenda. This time Butt refused despite the fact that the only item on the agenda is the accounts and Henry's submission deals  with serious shortcomings regarding them.

Surely it is time for the Charity Commission to look into compliance issues around the Trust. LINK

 

Henry wrote to the Council to express his diasppointment:

 

 

It is disappointing that once again Councillor Butt is refusing to listen to a local representative of local people who uses and cares about Barham Park.

 

It is clear that he wants to hide and not acknowledge that Barham Park is being neglected and mismanaged and faces ruin under his stewardship.

 

We will not allow this to happen.

 

I enclose a summary of the issues I want you to present to the Trustees and to be reproduced as a submission (in full )as part of the minutes of the meeting.

 

Regards

Francis Henry

 

 

 

Dear Councillor Butt and other Trustees

 

I am writing in my capacity as Chair of a recently formed Friends of Barham Park (FoBP). The President of FoBP is Allan Barham who is the great grandson of one of Titus Barham's cousins. His grandfather worked for Arthur Barham (brother of Titus Barham ) who was the Managing Director of United Dairies (later Unigate). in the late 1800s and early 1900s both Titus and Arthur lived in the buildings currently occupied by Friends of Barham Library and the other tenants. He is concerned about what his going on with the Titus Barham bequest and wishes that the memory of Titus and his contribution was better looked after.

 

In the short time since its creation FoBP has signed up 150 supporters. The number is growing every day. We also have the support of numerous local groups operating in the Sudbury and Wembley area.

 

I originally came to speak to the Barham Park Trust Meeting on 5 September following an invitation from the Council. That invitation did not give any restrictions on what issues I could speak on.

 

It has always been the practice for invited representatives of existing tenants to speak on any issue of concern on the Agenda. The minutes of previous meeting (Page 1 of the Agenda that was before you) make this absolutely clear.

 

I came  to speak on behalf of Friends of Barham Library (FOBL) - an active community organisation providing invaluable services to local people from our premises in Barham Park.

Despite of this you both interrupted my contribution and them prevented me from speaking. I came to raise concerns about the recommendations before you that will deprive Barham Community Library, run by FOBL, of our hard won space in Barham Park.

 

FOBL, and the tenants were neither informed or consulted about the proposals before the Meeting on 5 September. What are now described as "hypothetical" proposals require all tenants to be removed with no guarantee of return.

 

Officers failed to advise you that the proposals could not be implemented in the foreseeable future because has ACAVA has 6 years remaining on their Lease and FOBL has 8 years to go. There are no break clauses in favour of the Trusts and the tenants have the right of "quiet enjoyment" - i.e. no noisy or disruptive building work permitted. The £20,000 + cost of this consultancy work (apparently charged to the Trust) has been wasted. While the recommendations may be "hypothetical" the large sum of money spent is real and could have been used on much needed repairs instead.

 

There have been earlier consultancy "vision" exercises and condition surveys in the past 10 years. These also recommended pie in the sky ideas - a large pond with a viewing platform for example. This was never implemented for obvious reasons - it was a mad idea.

 

Recommendations to carry out essential repairs and maintenance to the plaster work and wooden features of the buildings and repair and upgrading of the crumbling paths and walls have never been carried. Instead of undertaking essential works the Trust under your stewardship has wasted around £40,000 on these type of pointless consultancy exercises.

 

Barham Park is neglected and faces ruin. Yet the bronze option which was meant to develop a repair and maintenance plan has been inexplicably dropped.

 

The excuse for this is the claim that the Trust is not generating enough income. This is partly because it is YOU who decided to implement a policy of rents based on social value and because officers have failed for years to collect the correct income that is due to the Trust. ACAVA was allowed to build up rent arrears equal to much more than their annual rent due. They were not charged interest on these arrears. Their rent review due in 2019 was overlooked - losing the Trust in excess of £5,000 in rent each year since then. (£20,000 lost income in the 4 years since). Who made the decision to forget or ignore the terms of their lease?

 

There are many more examples where correct income has not been charged or recoverable expenses have not been recovered. Officers do not bother to tell you and none of the Trustees bother to find out the truth.

 

Local people love Barham Park and are angry at the way Brent Council as Trustee and Managers of the Park allow it be neglected and run down. 

 

Those local people, with much greater local knowledge than either you or the other Trustees, are ignored or not allowed to speak at the Trust meetings.  

 

The Accounts presented to the Trustees are misleading and fundamentally wrong. They had to be pulled at the last moment on 5 September. The revised Accounts are still wrong as they do not reflect the reality and are completely misleading.

 

Where for example in those accounts or those for previous years does it show the Income (grants) received to undertake the work on the Barham Park Pond or the ongoing work on the QE II Silver Jubilee Garden and where is the expenditure shown and included. The total sums involved exceed £100,000 and yet the accounts do not show any of this financial activity. In both cases the Accounts should show 'restricted' income and the ongoing expenditure that the income is being used for.

 

As Paul Lorber has already pointed out to officers the 2022/23 revised Accounts being presented are wrong and misleading. The Trustees should NOT approve them and ask for an accountant with knowledge of Charity accounting & reporting to review the financial affairs of the Barham Park Trust and assist in the preparation of accounts that reflect the true position of the Income & Expenditure of the Trust for the year to 31 March 2023 and the Trusts financial position as at 31 March 2023.

 

There is a long list of failures to highlight in the way Barham Park has been mismanaged and money wasted. The Trustees are not being told the truth and you and the others are failing to ask the right questions.

 

If you either want to know the truth and have a genuine commitment to improve Barham Park and its building and recreation of local people as Titus Barham intended, then you have to start listening and engaging with people who know a great deal about Barham Park and whole heartedly care for its future.

 

Regards

 

Francis Henry

for Friends of Barham Park

representing the views of local people

 

Readers having been present at the last meeting or seen the video or media reports may be interested in how the Minutes record what happened.

 

 

Mayor of Brent and Brent Council Leader make statement after Islamophobic incident on 260 bus in Harlesden

 

There was a flurry of concerned activity on Twitter at the weekend when a tweet (above) appeared to show Cllr Orleen Hylton the Mayor of Brent ignoring an Islamophobic incident that has just occured. Comments were made yesterday and this morning calling for Brent Council to pay more than lip-service to challenging anti-Muslim abuse.

 

 

After confirmation that the photograph did show Cllr Hylton, Brent Council took to Twitter with an explanation and a commitment to challenge Islamophobia LINK:

 

Cllr Orleen Hylton, Mayor of Brent, says:

 

It is horrifying that a young women, with her child, could be verbally abused just because of her faith in a packed TfL bus in broad daylight.

 

I didn't witness the full situation unfold although I did hear raised voices when I was sat at the front of the bus. It was at the stop before mine, as I was preparing to get off, that I moved to the exit doors.

 

As a single female travelling alone, I know the victim must have felt very intimidated – as I did too.

 

I do sincerely hope that the victim is ok and that the Police and TfL are investigating thoroughly so he can be brought to justice.

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, said:

 

There is absolutely no place for hate crime anywhere in the UK, but especially in one of most diverse boroughs in the country.

 

We would like to thank the individual who has highlighted this terrible case of Islamophobia in our borough. We have been in touch with the Police and TfL and trust that a thorough investigation will take place.

 

Islamophobia is a blight on our communities, it is a vile and unacceptable form of discrimination that has no place in our borough we will continue the fight to make sure that Brent is an inclusive and accepting place for people of all faiths and backgrounds.

 

This November, for the second year running, we will host and support a range of events to mark Islamophobia Awareness Month to show that we are all united and that any form of discrimination will not be tolerated in our community.

 

We will continue our work to raise awareness of Islamophobia in all its forms.

First reactions to the Council tweet remained critical:

 

 

 

Cllr Tatler takes over as Deputy Leader of Brent Coucil while Cllr Mili Patel is on maternity leave

 

Cllr Tatler

 

 

Kingsbury councillor Shama Tatler has become Deputy Leader of Brent Council while Cllr Mili Patel is on maternity leave. Cllr Patel was congratulated on the birth of her baby at the Brent Cabinet meeting this morning. Cllr Tatler is now Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform and Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth.

 

At today's meeting Leader Cllr Muhammed Butt extolled the benefits of regeneration for Brent residents when the Cabinet approved Strategic CIL projects in Alperton, South Kilburn and Harlesden.

Muhammed Butt: You are not allowed to mention our plans to sell out the Barham Park covenant or proposals to destroy community facilities

 

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt made an unconvincing effort not to notice the large attendance at the Barham Park Trustees Meeeting this morning - there were more present than shown in this photograph and extra chairs had to be wheeled into the room.

Residents were there to protect their park and said afterwards they had not been impressed by the proceedings.

The meeting began with an announcement that the agenda item on the accounts was to be deferred to the next meeting. The whole meeting should have been deferred as Trustee activities and their plans hang on the financial viability of the Trust. That proposition was rejected and the meeting continued.

Users of the community facilities were only allowed to report on their activities and forbidden by Cllr Butt  (Chair of the Trustees)  to comment on the proposals that were on the Agenda.  Cllr Lorber appealed to legal officers to comment on this ruling as no such restriction had been communicated but no response was forthcoming. An ill-tempered Butt interrupted Francis Henry when he quietly and politely tried to raise concerns.

 

 Butt interrupted several times when Francis Henry wanted to talk about the items on the agenda that would impact on tenants and threaten the future of the Barham Library and its community activites:

 

Butt: I am going to stop you again. You are here, right, as I said the offer was made to the people within that building to come here and talk about the  work that they have done in the previous year leading up to today.

I am not talking about the meeting. I am not talking about the agenda. I am not talking about the report.  I am talking about the work you have done in the building as part of your trustee role.

This is what Francis would have said if he was not interrupted. They are questions he and other tenants of the community buildings would like answered:

Barham Park Trust Meeting, 5^th September 2023

Presentation by Friends of Barham Library

 

My name is Francis Henry, a resident of Wembley with a business in the area for over 30 years. I was the Chair of the Brent Sustainability Forum; I am currently the Chair of the Wembley Traders Association.

 

Today I am speaking as a Trustee of Friends of Barham Library who have been running a popular Community Library and Activity Centre in Barham Park since 2016 where hundreds of local people take part in a wide range of recreational activities.

 

In relation to Item 7, I wish to make the following points and raise some questions.

 

In my professional view as an local estate agent, no business person would contemplate making a decision involving around £4 million of public money on the inadequate information before Trustees today.

 

Can you please answer questions that any responsible Trustee would ask:

 

1. What alternative premises are being offered to all existing tenants?

 

2. Why were the tenants not consulted or involved?

 

3. Will the existing tenants be guaranteed same size space on affordable rents once completed?

 

4. Why do the officer recommended plans in the Silver Option not show a Community Library when the Library is shown in the Gold Option?

 

5. What is the earliest possible date you can obtain vacant possession of all the Units?

 

6. Is the £3.2 million cost estimate based on current year prices and what is the cost estimate in the earliest year the work can start.

 

7. Why has the bronze option not been presented to the Trustees?

 

8. The Report claims gross income of £300,000 to £400,000 from the completed development. What is the net income after interest and costs of managing the new facility.

 

9. Have the Brent Planners confirmed that shops, restaurants, hotels and offices comply with Planning Policies for green spaces and the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan?

 

10. What sources of funding have been identified or been pursued to meet the expected costs?

 

11. You have spent £25,000 on Architects fees, unspecified costs on the windows survey. How much more in consultancy fees will be incurred before you know if this project is financially viable?

 

In my opinion no responsible Trustee would consider committing any more Charity or Public money to this idea before these questions are answered or recommendation 2.5 on the covenant is pursued.

 

Thank you for your time.

The Trustees decided to go ahead with further work on the development proposals that officers described as 'hypothetical' - having spent £25K on a hypothetical report they now committed to spending  more with an initial investigation into funding streams that would enable developments to take place. Only after that will tenants of the community buildings be consulted on proposals which does suggest they will be involved in shaping the proposals.

The plans to remove the covenant restricting development of the plot containg two small houses will also go ahead enabling fun fair owner George Irvin to build four 3 storey houses on the site are going ahead.

On Governance the Committee opted to continue the status quo, giving the Brent Cabinet sole control of the Trustees. Cllr Butt nodded along as an officer inaudibly went through the reasons why the alternatives would not be effective or efficient. A suggestion that a Friends of Barham Park should be set up was the only sop to local people and no actual representation (apart from the Buttocracy) on the Trustees was rejected.

There was a rare moment when Cllr Krupesh Sheth, who is lead members for the environment and thus of parks, actually spoke - but only to correct the title of one of the officers.

There was no mention of any submission by Barry Gardiner MP who had previously strongly opposed the removal of the covenant and Wembley Central ward councillors, the ward now includes Barham Park,  did not make any representations.