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

UPDATED WITH VITAL INFORMATION: Changes to the Barham Park restricted covenant for payment of £200,000 goes ahead allowing the building of four 3 storey houses in the park

 

 Planning Committee  preliminaries and the section on the restrictive covenant.      (Video by Brent Council including  rather irritating facial focus. Captions by Wembley Matters)

At last night's Scrutiny Committee it was interesting to see Muhammed Butt, as chair of Barham Park Trustees sitting on the opposite side of the table to his brother Cllr Saqib Butt, a member of the Scrutiny Committee that was scrutinising the Trust's actions.

In the event, as the video shows, Cllr S. Butt, along with Cllr Dixon and Clr Maurice were excluded from the section of the meeting regarding the restrive covenant because they were members of the Planning Committee that had approved George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. A decision that could only implemented by removal/amendment of the restrictive covenant, an action subsequentally approved by the Barham Park Trustees on payment of £200,000. Cllr S. Butt is vice chair of the Planning Committee. Legal officers felt that the three should not take part because of how a possibe conflict of interest could be perceived by the public.

Cllr Lorber declared an interest but continued to take part as a member of the Scrutiny Committee after being warned by legal officers that a complaint might be made about his participation.

Sorry if this is confusing, it is complicated, but Philip Grant's address to the Committee, read for him by former Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd, sets out the issues:

The Report to the 24 February Trust Committee meeting states:

‘The restrictive covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and limit development.’

Those aims are just as important now as they were in 2011.  Barham Park is one of Brent’s Historic Parks and Landscapes, a heritage asset which  the Council promised to protect.

The covenant does that by prohibiting ‘any development in or upon the Property’, which is inside the park and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Planning Committee were misled into granting the development consent in 2023 and I’ll explain why if you ask, so the covenant is the last line of protection.

The Trust’s February decisions appear to mirror the Council’s Property Strategy, which Cabinet approved last year. They do not reflect the charitable aims of the Trust, or the wishes of residents who are meant to be its beneficiaries.

The Charity Commission recommended local people should have a voice in the Trust’s decisions, and two years ago I suggested to Debra Norman how this could be achieved. My idea was ignored in the Governance review later that year, and the Chair refused to allow my suggestion to be heard by the Trust Committee in September 2023.

Other residents and councillors have also had requests to speak refused. Brent Council is the sole Trustee, and as the Trust Committee are not acting in the Trust’s best interests, I would ask you, please, to refer the matter back for further consideration.

When officers were challenged by Paul Lorber to publish Charity Commission advice on the covenant removal they referred to Commission's inquiries after a complaint from a member of the public. They had sent a response and the Commission was satisfied with the Trust's processes.  They appeared to be referring to the letter published on Wembley Matters  where the Commission said they were taking not further action 'at this time' but would keep the complaint on file in case there were other concerns in the future. LINK.

The detailed discussion included much confusion, particularly over whether the proposed development was car/garage free or not and comments made by the Planning Legal Officer that statements could have been drafted more clearly, can be heard in the video.

The final decision, made by the the Scrutiny Committee's three members left standing - Cllr Long, Mitchell and Malloy, plus Chair Cllr Daniel Kennelly voted NOT to refer the matters covered in the Call-in back to the decision maker, Barham Park Trust, or Full Council. Cllr Lorber voted to refer it back.

The decision took immediate effect so the changes to the restricted covenant and its purchase goes ahead and the four houses will be built.

 

 UPDATE WITH COMMENT FROM PAUL LORBER

 This comment was too long for the normal comment word limit so published here instead: 

Anne Wade (comment below the article) explains very clearly how important Barham Park is to local people and why it is important to keep up the fight to preserve it for the benefit of local people and not of private developers or Councillors who simply do not care.

If the Labour Councillors who act as Trustees or Council Officers managed the affairs of the Barham Park Trust ( a charity) effectively there would be no issues and no need to carry out any Scrutiny.

As I have pointed out for some time (and Wembley Matters has covered my concerns) the Barham Park Trust is managed very badly by both the Labour Trustees and by Brent Council Officers. I will give you some examples:

1. When Labour closed the Public Library in Barham Park they brought in a tenant who took over the Library space and most of the rest of the building. The Council claimed that dealing with just one tenant would make things simpler.

Over a number of years that tenant failed to pay their rent and built up arrears of over £60,000. A large amount is still outstanding today - this has cost the Council/Trust thousands of pounds in lost interest.

2. Most tenants occupying the building have Leases which state their rent and the service charges. The rents are subject to regular reviews. Council Officers working on behalf of the Trust failed to carry out rent reviews (until I pointed it out to them) and failed to charge service charges. This has cost the trust many thousands of pounds.

 

3. The Trust was persuaded to employ consultants at a cost of over £20,000 to undertake a major feasibility study to upgrade the buildings to generate commercial rents. The proposal is to replace the space occupied by long standing community organisations with Hotel Rooms and Shops. The Trust was told that a Silver Option would cost £3,162,000 and the Labour Trustees gave this a go ahead. While the consultants said that to deliver this option would require 'vacant possession' NO one bothered to ask when vacant possession could be achieved. As  the Barham Community Library lease does not expire until October 2031 and much can change in 7 years this was a pointless exercise.

 

BUT it gets worse. Having told the trustees that the Council and not the Charity would pay the £20,000 consultancy fee - they charged the £20,000 to the Charity anyway "because the Council had no authority to pay it". Yet it is the same Councillors and same Officers who advise and make decisions for the Trust and for the Council.

 

AND to top it all - 2 years after the £20,000 was spent on the consultants and the Trustees accepted the £3 million option it turns out that the £3,162,000 cost is exclusive of VAT and that the  Barham Park Trust would have to cough up over £600,000 in VAT extra on top if the daft project was proceeded with.

I could go on listing a catalogue of disasters inflicted on the Barham Park Trust as a result of poor management and poor  oversight by the Trustees but I will save that for another day.

I will however say something about the saga of the Covenant.

The first point to make is that it was put in place to prevent further building work in the Park. It was part of the deal with George Irvin and he knew full well what the restrictions were when he bought the two existing houses. That was it - NO more!

If he does not like it he could always sell the two houses back to the Council - after all the Council has two Companies specifically buying up properties in the open market and there is nothing to stop the purchase of these two with the restrictive covenant in place.

The Council has now been dealing with the Covenant issue for 4 years. Council officers have spent vast amount of their time on this. Their time has not been costed but it won't be cheap and is met by Council Taxpayers and not by George Irvin.

Almost two years ago Council Officers advised the Trustees that it is normal for the development gain arising from varying the Covenant to be split on a 50/50 basis. The Trustees agreed to proceed on the basis of this advice.

The Trustees were presented with a 'revised' (it is not clear why it was revised) valuation showing the Development Gain/Profit that would arise after all the demolition, rebuilding and other costs at their meeting in February 2025. They have decided to keep the valuation and the figures confidential from the eyes of the public.

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were provided with a copy of the valuation a few days before the Scrutiny Meeting.

At the Scrutiny meeting I challenged Councillor Butt, Chair of the Trustees and Councillor Officers about the 50/50 advice and why the Trustees (all members of the Labour Cabinet) were prepared to accept a gross payment of £200,000 when this was a very long way from a 50/50 split. While I cannot disclose the exact figures I can say that my intervention at the Scrutiny Meeting was because the difference is MASSIVE! - and it is the Barham Park Charity which is the big loser.

On a final point it is important to stress that the £200,000 selling price is the 'gross' amount before expenses of the valuation and much more. The Trust will therefore benefit by much less than £200,000 although through another 'oversight' this is not mentioned in the Trustee Meetings either.

I (and others) have now been challenging Brent Council about the mismanagement of the Barham Park Trust and the neglect of Barham Park since at least 2011 (the year they closed Barham Park Library). Vast amount of money has been wasted on mismanagement and pointless consultants reports.

I am sorry to say that Barham Park is not safe in the hands of Brent Council or its self appointed group of Labour Councillors as Trustees.

It came as no surprise that the Labour Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee voted on block in support of their Leader.

There is however only so much that can be covered up. Watch this space.

 

 

Nothing in the London Road development for Brent people says Cllr Saqib Butt - then votes for it

 

Slide shown at Planning Committee showing the site of the 8 shops on London Road in the foreground and Wembley Central flats behind them.

The two new blocks

Wednesday's Planning Committee was a curious affair with at one time, despite the developer and officers explaining several times why the two proposed mid-rise blocks (6 and 7-storey) on London Road should not be higher (overbearing, over-shadowing, reduced daylight and sunlight,) Cllr Liz Dixon  insisting that they should be higher.  Her idea was that if they were higher the developer would be able to provide some affordable housing (there is none in the development) - an argument she has used before without quoting evidence in terms of financial viability.

The case of Cllr Saqib Butt, vice chair of the Planning Commitete and brother of Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council was interesting. He had obviously read the documentation thoroughly and as you can see from the footage below found much wrong with the planning application:

 

 He finishes by saying:

There is nothing here for our Brent residents that is a positive I can find, apart from market rents which our residents will not be able to afford.

As on other occasions his contribution contains a careful assessment that would lead you to think he would vote against a proposal. However, as has also happened before, he voted in SUPPORT of the application.

It may be a good idea for those supporting an application to have to give their reasons. At present the default rule is that this only has to be done by those abstaining or voting against.

There was an interesting intervention by Cllr Ajmal Akram who had also done his homework. He asked who was the true land-owner behind the development. The papers said Freshwater but his search of the Land Registry found that it was Daejan Investments (/Holdings) a company that there were concerns about.

He was told that this was not an issue for the Planning Committee and anyway the ultimate developer may be another company.  The Freshwater family own Daejan Investments. There has been controversy because they have no women on their board as this would offend their Orthdox Jewish Charedi values. LINK

The company also launched a very expensive battle with mansion block leaseholders as the freeholder that went to the Supreme Court. Daejan won.  LINK

Maybe that made Cllr Butt pause for thought.

The Committee voted 4-3 in favour of the application. Councillors Akram, Dixon and Maurice all voted against on the ground of non-compliance with various planning guidelines including the loss of commercial space on London Road.

Cllr Rita Begum, as far as I could see took no part in the proceedings. I understand that she has thrown her hat in the ring to become Deputy Leader of the Labour Group at the upcoming AGM,  a post currently held by Milli Patel. Apparently in her pitch for the job she emphasised effective communication with stakeholders including Labour Party branches.  As a Kilburn councillor she is not known for regular attendance at the Kilburn branch.

There will be a later viability review when the site has been developed and tru costs are known but as it stand there is not affordable housing on the site and no contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

 

The Barham Park planning decision – Brent explains why three Cllrs. who declared an interest were allowed to take part in the 12 June meeting

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

General view of the 12 June Planning Committee meeting, from the webcast.

 

There were a number of blog articles last month about the Barham Park (776/778 Harrow Road) planning application, which was controversially approved at Brent’s Planning Committee meeting on 12 June. Some of the comments on them referred to connections which Committee members might have with the applicant, George Irvin, including free tickets received from him to one of his funfairs in April 2023. One committee member had declared receiving these.

 

I had written to Brent’s Corporate Director for Governance about this issue, and did so again a few days before the meeting. In her absence, my email was dealt with by Brent’s Head of Law. On 9 June I wrote this in an email to her:

 

‘Whatever value was estimated, by Cllr. Begum or others, for the gift they received in respect of the Funfair at Roe Green Park, just a few weeks ago, in order to receive that gift, councillors were given George Irvin's personal email address and mobile phone number, and had to contact him personally to obtain it. That should be sufficient to debar them from having any part in a decision on an application which if approved would be to Mr Irvin's financial benefit.

 

In case you are not already aware, application 22/4128 is a controversial one, strongly opposed by many residents, both individually and through their Residents' Associations. It is a sensitive matter, and one where it is important that the Council is seen to be dealing with it openly and fairly.’

 

 

The application details from the 12 June Planning Committee agenda.

 

Despite this, Cllr. Begum was allowed to take part in the Planning Committee meeting which decided Mr Irvin’s application, along with two other councillors, Saqib Butt and Akram, who had also declared some sort of connection with him at the start of the meeting. I requested a detailed explanation of why this had been allowed, and this is the response I received from Brent’s Head of Law on 5 July:

 

‘Cllr Begum was not required by the provisions of the Brent Member’s Code of Conduct (Code) to declare the gift, she did so in order to be transparent.  Although she was not required to refer to the gift at the meeting itself, she chose to do so, again in order to be transparent.  Cllr Begum was advised prior to the meeting that although the provisions of paragraph 34 of the Code did not apply, she might nonetheless choose to consider whether a member of the public knowing the facts about the gift would reasonably consider it likely to prejudice her judgement of the public interest. Cllr Begum chose to remain in the meeting and did not act contrary to the Code in doing so.

 

The information in the statement by Cllr Begum did not indicate that the applicant was a person connected to her under paragraph 30 of the Code.

 

In relation to Cllr Akram and Cllr S Butt, both in fact stated that the applicant and signatories on the petition had followed/connected with them on social media through their work as Councillors.  They were specifically asked to confirm that it was not a personal connection and they confirmed that it was not. It is clear from their statements that they were bringing the circumstances to the attention of the committee and the public in order to be transparent and were not declaring that the applicant or signatories on the petition were “connected persons” for the purposes of paragraph 30 of the Code.  Accordingly there was no reason for them to leave the committee meeting.’

 

I have replied, on 6 July, as follows:

 

‘Dear Ms Henry,

 

Thank you for your email of 5 July, which clarifies the basis on which Councillors Begum, Saqib Butt and Akram were allowed to take part in considering and deciding Mr Irvin's application at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 June.

 

You were aware, several days before the meeting, that there was public concern over Cllr. Begum's participation in considering and deciding this application, as she had received a gift of free funfair tickets from the applicant only two months beforehand. In those circumstances I have to express my surprise that she was allowed to choose whether to take part in the meeting - surely it would have been best to advise her not to take part.

 

You say that Cllrs. S. Butt and Akram were specifically asked to confirm that they had no personal connection with the applicant, and that they confirmed that they did not. However, it is strongly rumoured (though I have no hard evidence) that they do have a social connection with Mr Irvin, either directly or through their close relative, Cllr. M. Butt, the Council Leader and Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee.

 

I will leave these views for you to consider, and will not pursue them further with you, but I will share the explanations provided in your email of 5 July with others who have an interest in this matter. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In order to be transparent, Cllr. Rita Begum has declared a number of other items in her Register of Interests on the Council’s website, including that she is an ‘Ambassador for Gem environmental building services LTD and Paytap’ and a ‘Director of R.B Associates PVT LTD’.

 

Two examples from the “Who we work for” page of Gem’s website.

 

Gem Environmental Building Services Ltd’s (“Gem”) website describes the company as ‘one of the fastest-growing maintenance companies in London.’ Their clients include a number of London Boroughs, including Camden, Islington, Tower Hamlets and the City of Westminster (but not Brent – yet). But why do Gem need a Labour councillor as an ambassador?

 

The Companies House website shows that R.B Associates PVT Ltd (Company No. 14533968) was incorporated in December 2022, with a registered office at a private address in London NW10, and its sole director and shareholder Ms Rita Begum. The nature of its business is shown as ‘environmental consulting activities’. Perhaps that is where any fees for acting as an ambassador will be paid to? 

 

But, of course, Cllr. Begum has been transparent about these interests, so that’s fine, isn’t it?

Philip Grant.

Thames Water under scrutiny on flooding: 'We have learnt lessons, we have applied them but it sounds like we don’t get it right enough'

 

 

 From the 'late' report presented to Scrutiny Commitee - Source: LINK

 

It was good to see some effective scrutiny at Wednesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee when a Thames Water representative appeared to report on surface water flooding in the borough. Criticism does tend to be sharper of bodies outside the council, but an awful lot of frustration was apparent and questioning from councillors was persistent. Chair of Scrutiny, Cllr Rita Conneely drew attention to the difference between a cash-strapped public sector council and a for profit privatised water company.

Cllr Saqib Butt challenged Alex Nickson from Thames Water on why in his  experience of 5 years on Planning Committee, Thames Water had always just said 'No Objection' to every planning objection. Nickson thought that was not the case in every borough and would check.  

Towards the end of the meeting Cllr Conneely directly addressed Nickson and I think is worth quoting in full to give you a flavour of the exchanges:

Thanks for attending and providing a detailed and helpful contribution, but unfortunately it has still left me with serious concerns about Thames Water's understanding of accountability and partnership working.

The flooding that instigated this entire process led to you attending our Scrutiny Committee in 2021. When Thames Water came last year, what was clearly communicated was that Thames understood that there had been a failure of accountability, there had been a failure of effective communication with the public and local authority, and that there needed to be clarity around responsibilities and accountability.

You said at the beginning of tonight's meeting that you were glad to be here and would be happy to come back again regarding future reviews. Unfortunately, the reality is that when we were inviting Thames Water to attend our meetings for the follow-up they had committed to last year, they were incredibly reluctant and tried to avoid attending for as long as possible. We really had to assert that it was part of our agreement last year that you would come back and report on what happened with the internal review and the independent review [into the floods]. 

Additionally, the Committee publicises reports, that is how the structure of the Committee works - it is a local government function, and Thames Water did not provide us with the documentation that was requested and necessary for the Committee. Your verbal responses tonight have been very good but as none of that unfortunately was provided in advance for Committee members to review, that has limited members' ability to properly scrutinise some of the issues that have been raised tonight.

In addition to that the report that was eventually provided late (LINK), about 2 days ago, couldn't be properly reviewed by the public either and was Brent specific in only one way  so we still have no understanding of what infrastructure upgrades we are going to see in Brent and what funding will be provided. Very few Brent residents at the end of this meeting are going to understand what these commitments mean to Brent - that is something we must see.  I really hope you get back to use regarding the information you have promised tonight very rapidly.

I would like to know that there is an Action Plan for the recommendations that are detailed in the Independent Review. How are we as residents and councillors to know when the recommendations will be delivered? Where are the lessons learnt?  Where will the promised further reports go, and what is the review process?

Alex Nickson replied:

It is entirely my fault that my report was late, I apologise for that, it should have been with you earlier. I didn't realise it was 'required' - I thought it was 'advised'. I apologise to the Committee and residents.

Regarding the Independent Review and tracking, my report says there are 28 recommendations, 3 of which are specifically for Thames to address. 25 of them are more strategic and relate to multi-agency collaboration. These should be reviewed as part of developing the London level strategy and will be determined by the London Level Surface Water Strategic Group as to whether they are appropriate. These actions may, or may o, be taken forward as determined by the Strategic Group. We need collaborative working to manage the risk and not all the actions are entirely down to Thames Water to deliver. There is a tracking process for them and that will be reported on.

You said you wanted us to give you an expectation of what upgrades will be coming to Brent and the level of investment. That will be set out in our next Business Plan 2025-2030, and it will be published for consultation this summer. I have committed to come back to the Committee to tale about out London Level Strategy and our draft plan. That will set out the high-level investment we plan to make. What I would stress is that surface water management is the responsibility of the lead local flood authority [Brent] and therefore it is for us to work with you and support you in the development of detailed plans for Brent - not for us to say what needs to happen: where and when, but a collaborative approach. I believe we have a good working relationship with the borough officers and look forward to doing this in the future.

Cllr Conneely responded.

That is a helpful reassurance but to reiterate, you say that of the 28 recommendations only 3 of them are the responsibility of Thames Water. We need a clear action plan of how Thames are following through those recommendations and effectively lobbying for them. Unfortunately, the concern of the Committee is that similarly to the assurances you gave to Cllr Saqib Butt about planning, which sounds nice on paper, but nothing happens in practice. I represent Kilburn where 17 families in my ward lost their homes in 2021. I'm not interested in words - the commitment we want to see from Thames Water is that there is going to be difference in practice.

My final feedback is on another key issue that was highlighted following the incident in 2021, and highlighted again tonight by Cllr Georgiou, about subsequent incidents involving Thames Water, that of poor communication, particularly around your Control Centre. In 2021 residents were calling up in desperate need of help and the Control Centre was totally unequipped to deal with it and couldn’t signpost residents to what they should be doing. They were simply told to call the fire brigade. As Cllr Georgiou has highlighted there was similar lack of communication last year.  I have at least 3 examples of residents in my ward contacting Thames Water about issues that were definitely their responsibility of residents being told, 'No, that's your local authority'. In one scenario for 3 weeks Thames told my residents that it was a local authority issue until I basically went and stood there for 2 or 3 days until a Thames Operative came out and said it was a sewage issue and your responsibility to resolve but for 3 weeks you told residents. ‘No – call your local authority’.

So, despite the reassurances we were given in 2022 that there had been a massive overhaul and there was going to be a massive training of your Control Centre staff, we have clear evidence in Brent that it continues to be not good enough.

Alex Nickson responded.

If there are particular instances  you’d like us to take up I’d be happy to take that away. Where we’re wrong, I can only apologise. We have increased the capacity of our Call Centre but on the evenings of the 12^th and 27^th of July we were absolutely swamped. We had 4,000 calls an hour coming in and we simply couldn’t manage. We have apologised. We have increased the capacity, we’ve done training, we’ve restructured the way the calls come in and we’ve fundamentally changed the way we prepare head of a storm.  We’ve made sure we have those resources even if the Met Weather Forecast suggests it is unlikely to cause significant flooding.

So, we have learnt lessons, we have applied them but it sounds like we don’t get it right enough.

I will publish the full recommendations made by Scrutiny when they are reported on the Council website.