Cllr. Butt’s meetings with developer – was Brent’s FoI response True or False?

A guest post by Philip Grant

-->

A recent blog LINK  published the Council Leader’s reply to questions raised by Cllr. Warren about meetings Cllr. Butt had with a developer, as disclosed by a Brent Council Freedom of Information Act (FoI) response.

Cllr. Butt claimed that the FoI response about meetings in April and May 2017 was ‘an error’, and that these meetings took place ‘at least a year earlier’. If his claim is correct, one or more Council officers have been incompetent, at best, and the confidence that residents should be able to have in the reliability of Brent’s FoI system is undermined.

Carolyn Downs, as Brent’s Chief Executive, is responsible for ensuring that the Council delivers its services efficiently. She also has a responsibility to defend her staff, if they have been wrongly criticised. This is the text of an email I have sent to her, in order to establish the facts:

Leader's meetings FoI response - True or False?

Dear Ms Downs,

Further to our recent correspondence over the local newspaper article on 23 November, "Why did leader meet developers?" the text of Cllr. Warren's questions to Cllr. Butt arising from it, and the Council Leader's reply, are in the public domain - see LINK; I am writing to you to request your urgent action on, and reply to, the serious concern raised by this statement in his reply by Cllr. Butt:

 

'An error was made in responding to the FOI on which your questions are based. The meetings to which you refer occurred at least a year earlier than reported.'

The 'FOI' referred to was issued by Brent Council on 31 October 2017, with the reference: 8353800, and the copy of it which I have seen is embedded as a document in a blog article at LINK.

The reply from Cllr. Butt quoted above is scarcely credible, and I have said so publicly in a comment which explains why I believe that is the case. I attach a copy of the text of that comment, for your information, and that of Cllrs. Butt and Warren, and your Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, to whom I am copying this email.

Cllr. Butt has claimed that a Brent Council officer has issued an incorrect response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I am asking you, as Brent's Chief Executive, and Head of Paid Service, whether that claim is true or false.

The FoI letter of 31 October was quite clear. In response to the request:

'Please provide details including the date, time, location, attendees, and minutes (if taken) of any meetings between any Brent Councillor(s) and any representative(s) of the following organisations, between 2012 and now: A. R55 (Developers) B. Colliers International C. HKDD Properties Ltd. D. SF Planning Limited.'

 

the information given was:

'In terms of meetings between councillors and any of the organisations listed the only ones I am able to confirm as having taken place are as follows:

· Wednesday 5 April 2017 10:30-11:30am – Councillor Butt (Leader of the Council) met with representatives from Terrapin Communications and their client R55. This meeting was also attended by Amar Dave (Strategic Director – Environment & Regeneration) and Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director – Regeneration).

· Tuesday 23 May 2017 10:15-11:15am – Councillor Butt (Leader of the Council) and Councillor Tatler (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills) met with representatives from Colliers International. This meeting was also attended by Amar Dave (Strategic Director – Environment & Regeneration).

No minutes were produced for either of these meetings.'

In view of the details given of dates, times and attendees, (and there being no record of any other such meetings with the organisations listed in the FoI request since 2012), this information must have been researched by reference to at least some of the people who attended the meetings detailed, and their diaries. Yet Cllr. Butt now claims that the meetings listed did not take place, or that if they did, they 'occurred at least a year earlier than reported' in the Council's FoI response.

I would ask that you, or a trusted colleague, should check personally:

  with the officer or officers responsible for issuing the FoI response (ref: 8353800) of 31 October 2017 as to the source(s) of the information which gave rise to that response, and whether you consider the information given in that response to be reliable and correct 

and,
 

·       with your senior officers, Amar Dave and Aktar Choudhury, and obtain from them details (including date, time and persons present) of any meetings which they have held with the developers R55, or any of their representatives, at which Cllr. Butt was also present, and for any notes made of discussions at those meetings.

I would then ask that you make those details publicly available, so that concerned local people, and the press and blog site which have reported this matter, can know what confidence they can have in the accuracy of Brent Council's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. 

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you at an early date. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

When I receive a reply, I will make it publicly available, as I believe it is important for this “True or False?” question to be resolved openly and transparently.

If you are wondering why it matters when the meetings took place, here is my answer. 

·      If the meetings ‘occurred at least a year earlier than reported’, that would be before the developer, R55, submitted its planning application for the Minavil House site. Cllr. Butt’s explanation that the ‘meetings were to discuss much needed inward investment and the building of essential new homes’ could be a reasonable one (even though notes should still have been taken of the points discussed, in line with the LGA guidelines).

·      If the meetings took place in April and May 2017, with the last of them the day before R55’s application was approved by Planning Committee, then Cllr. Butt may well have misled Cllr. Warren, the Council and the people of Brent. If that proves to be the case, the public can rightly be concerned that he may be trying to cover-up what happened at those meetings (at which notes should have been taken under the LGA’s guidance on “Probity in Planning for councillors and officers”).

Philip Grant

Butt attempts to answer questions about his meetings with developers and ex Council leader poses some of his own

Kilburn Times front page last week

Cllr John Warren has received answers to the questions he sent to Cllr Butt, Leader of Brent Council, over Butt's meetings with developers. This is what Butt had to say about the issues raised on Wembley Matters and in the Kilburn Times. Note the claim that the FoI response was erroneous:

I’m sure you’ve already seen Debra Norman’s response to Phillip Grant. Please find a copy attached, just in case.

As suggested therein, if you have a complaint you should contact the borough’s chief legal officer immediately. If that is not the case then I’ll kindly ask for confirmation at your earliest convenience that you do not in fact endorse these baseless accusations. Until then, answers to your questions are as follows:

1. What was the purpose of these three meetings,and in broad terms what was discussed?

•    An error was made in responding to the FOI on which your questions are based. The meetings to which you refer occurred at least a year earlier than reported. Clarification and an apology is in the process of being issued. Nevertheless, those meetings were to discuss much needed inward investment and the building of essential new homes.

2. Why were no minutes of these meetings taken - so as to follow LGA guidance?

•    I have attached the relevant information so you can read for yourself what is recommended for which type of meeting.

3.What meetings have you held with other developers in Brent -particularly Quintain- since 2014?

•    With regard to Quintain, we meet and correspond at a range of levels on a number of issues on a regular basis. More generally, I along with officers, meet and communicate with numerous active and potential developers on a regular basis regarding, as above, inward investment and the building of new homes.

4. Please confirm , for the record, that you have not attempted to influence the votes of any member of the planning committee ?

•    Whether as a member of cabinet, or as a local councillor, joint working, both formal and informal, and dialogue with members of the planning committee is recognised as a legitimate reality of local government life. For the avoidance of doubt I can confirm that I have done just that as both leader of the council and ward councillor.

With regard to the final question, are you suggesting that it’s not a part of our role to comment on, support, or oppose relevant applications? Either way, are you saying that you’ve never sought to influence a planning decision?

I have also asked Debra Norman the chief legal officer to make some additions to the planning code of practice to reflect current guidance and practice in respect of s not on the planning committee which will help clear up any confusion ,  a copy of which is attached.

Muhammed Butt

Former Liberal Democrat and Brent Council leader Paul Lorber has also waded into the issue in a letter sent to Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive:

 Dear Ms Downs

I am extremely concerned at the front page story about the unminuted Meetings between the Leader of a Brent Council and a large developer who was in the process of having their Planning application considered.

Were you aware of these meetings, did you attend and did you authorise them?

You will be aware that the Alperton Masterplan was subject to public consultation, including with residents, and that the height of the buildings in the area were restricted "to up to 17 storeys".

When did the Council change the Masterplan or its policies to breach this commitment to local people and allow buildings of 26 storeys?

What exactly was the purpose of the meetings with the developer, who initiated them and was the height of the buildings they propose and any financial contributions discussed?

You will be aware that Brent Council subscribes to Open Government and that involvement of the Leader of the Council with Developers at a time when their Planning application, in breach of the Masterplan height limits, is being considered is of justified public interest.

What discussions about this Developers Plans took place in the regular Leadership/Officer meetings and how did any of these influence the planning process? Did any officers from Planning or any Councillors on the Planning Committee attend any of these meetings?

Please set out the protocol dealing with the issue of the Leader or any Councillors meeting Developers at a time when their major Planning applications are under consideration.

There is now a new Planning application for a 28 storey building on the site of the Boat pub in Bridgewater Road/Ealing Road. Can you advise what meetings involving Councillors or Officers took place discussing a proposal over 50% taller than the 17 storey Alperton Master Plan limit?

I would appreciate a full and early reply hopefully without the need to invoke a Freedom of Information.

Yours sincerely

Paul Lorber

Cllr. Butt and hospitality from a property PR company – the details

Thanks to Philip Grant for this guest post. It is a long article but worth reading in full by anyone concerned about the relationship between Brent Council, its councillors and developers.

A recent blog on questions over “hospitality” for councillors, raised by Cllr. Duffy with Brent’s Standards Committee LINK led to many comments from “Wembley Matters” readers. In one comment, I drew attention to an entry in Cllr. Butt’s “Register of Interests” on the Council’s website, which raised concerns over its possible effect on planning matters in the borough:

'09/05/17 - Three course meal with developers from the construction industry. Estimated value between £30-40. Received from Terrapin Communications, London.'

I decided to seek further information from the Council Leader about this meal (paid for by a PR company which represents a number of property developers), so sent him an email and added the text of it as another comment. I had intended to put any reply received from Cllr. Butt as a further comment below that blog, but now feel that more readers could see it, and make their own judgement about the details given and their implications, if they are set out in a separate blog.

I was not optimistic that I would receive a reply from Cllr. Butt, as he has not replied to any emails I have sent him since September 2014. A number of these have included important questions, such as in February 2015, when I asked him (and repeated this in a blog, and in a letter published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times”) why he was still “protecting” two senior Council officers, Cara Davani and Christine Gilbert, when he had known about their misconduct in the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case since at least September 2014? [I have previously suggested, only half-jokingly, that the reason he won’t reply is because he is afraid that anything he writes to me may be used in evidence against him!]

However, on 3 October I received an email from Brent, thanking me for my Freedom of Information request (I didn’t know that I had made one!) and saying that it had been forwarded ‘to the relevant department’. A few hours later, I received an email from the Chief Legal Officer, Debra Norman, giving the Council’s response to my FoI request. I don’t know why the Council Leader could not just provide the information himself, but at least the Council’s Monitoring Officer (Ms Norman’s “other hat”) realised that the points I had raised needed to be answered fully, and quickly. This is what she wrote (the numbered paragraphs begin with the six questions, in bold type, I had asked Cllr. Butt, so the answers are as if from him):-

Dear Mr Grant 

I set out the council’s responses to your request for information sent to Cllr. Butt which has been allocated to me via the council’s FOI system.  I have spoken to relevant senior officers concerning your request and the members and officers declarations of gift and hospitality have been reviewed.

1. Who else from Brent Council (members or officers) attended that "Terrapin Communications" meal with you? 

·      Cllr Tatler  [Author’s note: Lead Member for Regeneration etc.]

·      Aktar Choudhury  [Note: Operational Director Regeneration]

·      Amar Dave  [Note: Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment]

The officers concerned declared the hospitality on 23.5.17 and 10.5.17 respectively.  Cllr. Tatler declared the hospitality on 10.5.17. Cllr Butt declared the hospitality on 09/05/17.

2. Which companies were the 'developers from the construction industry' who were at that meal with you?

The guest list indicates the following companies sent representatives to the event: 

·      London Square

·      Dukelease

·      Dandi Living

·      Pinnacle

·      Henley Homes

·      R55

·      Stanhope

·      Countryside

·      The Collective

---

3.    What current or proposed developments in the London Borough of Brent are those companies (in question 2) involved with?

The relevant developer and addresses are included below.

·      London Square - 60 Neasden Lane

·      Dukelease and Dandi Living - York House – this is a permitted development

·      Pinnacle - Shubette House aka Pinnacle Tower

·      Henley Homes - Brent House

·      R55 - 255 Ealing Road and Minavil House

·      Countryside - Barham Park Estate

4. What reason did Terrapin Communications give for inviting you to that meal?

To engage and enable developers to better understand the Borough and our aspirations. 

It is important that the council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills (who is not the chair of the Planning Committee and who has a different role) promotes a clear understanding of the council priorities in respect of affordable housing and quality of design.

5.    Were any past, present or proposed developments in Brent discussed at the meal, and if so, what developments or proposals?

The discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve. Only one developer (Dukelease) raised a particular development, which was York House.

6.    Were any of the matters discussed at the meal passed on afterwards to any other Brent Council member or officer, and if so, to whom were they passed?

Aside from requesting a relevant officer to respond to a transport issues raised by Dukelease, no information was passed on as operational matters were not discussed.

Best wishes 

Debra Norman 

Chief Legal Officer

Now that we have the information, what are we to make of it? I will give a few thoughts of my own, and I would invite anyone who wishes to, including Ms Norman and the councillors and officers who attended the meal, to add a comment in reply, giving their own views.

I will start with the reply to question 4, the reason that the PR company gave for inviting the Council Leader, and Brent’s top “Regeneration” people, to a meal with a number of their developer clients. The first sentence may be what they said, but the rest looks like a “gloss” put on that, to justify the attendance of Cllr. Tatler. 

Frankly, there was no need for a get together over dinner, especially if (as the answer to question 5 states) ‘the discussions consisted of generalisations about the borough aspirations and what the council wants to achieve.’ Brent’s Regeneration aspirations, and the planning guidance in respect of them, are set out clearly on the Council’s website. For example, this is the online package for regeneration in Wembley LINK .

Terrapin Communications could also have given their clients the information they needed on these issues from its own experience the previous year, in advising Hub Group over its successful planning application for the “Twin Towers” development at the corner of Wembley High Road and Park Lane. This was the proposal for two blocks of flats, up to 26 storeys high, which Planning Committee approved in April 2016 by four votes to two, with two abstentions. It was opposed by hundreds of local residents, but recommended by Planning Officers, despite it not complying with Brent’s and London’s policies on density, carbon emissions, living space, open space, play space and the proportion of affordable housing.  LINK .

Terrapin, as a PR company, of course put a positive “spin” on this decision, when reporting it on their website shortly afterwards:

‘Residents in Brent are set to benefit from an exciting new community centre along with other public improvements thanks to a new development in the Borough.  Terrapin Communications helped Hub Group secure planning consent for the scheme.  Designed by Macerator Lavington, it will also include 239 new residential units in two new buildings, one twenty six stories, the other twenty one stories. Commenting on the success at the Planning Committee, Terrapin Senior Adviser, Christian Klapp, said "It was hard work but rewarding knowing the benefits the new scheme will bring for people in the local area".’

In my opinion, Terrapin’s reason for arranging the meal and inviting Cllr. Butt and others was to “engage and enable developers” to meet, and hopefully influence, key decision makers in the borough. I agree that Cllr. Tatler ‘is not the chair of the Planning Committee’, but she, and particularly the Leader of the Council (and of the Labour Group, which has seven on the eight committee members) are in a position to influence the decisions made by that Committee (even though it would be a serious breach of Brent’s Planning Code if they were to do so).

Turning to the answers to questions 2 and 3, the developers at the meal with Cllr. Butt and the other Brent attendees, and what developments in Brent they are involved with, there are definitely some areas of concern. I will focus on the developer R55. They are not a potential developer who needed to ‘understand the Borough and our aspirations.’ They already had at least one development under construction, and other planning applications “in the pipeline”. 

The meal took place on 9 May 2017, and at the Planning Committee meeting on 24 May 2017 R55’s application 16/2629, for a large mixed-use development (including blocks of flats up to 26 storeys high) at Minavel House, Alperton, was unanimously approved, even though the Council’s regeneration masterplan for this area had set a height limit of ‘up to 17 storeys’. In the declarations of interest at the start of the meeting, under “approaches”, the minutes record: ‘Minavil House - All members and officers received a brochure from the applicant’s agents.’ Although not opposing the development in principle, a speaker against the application ‘expressed concerns on behalf of the residents in the development to the south of the site regarding the scheme’s scale, massing, height and obstruction to light.’  LINK

Although not listed in the response to question 3 above, R55 also have a pre-planning application, 16/0445/PRE, on the agenda for next Monday’s (9 October) Planning Committee meeting. This is in respect of ‘land at 370 High Road, London, NW10 2EA and 54-68 Dudden Hill Lane’, ‘for a mixed use development consisting of 224 residential units, a supermarket, nursery, gym, café, workshops and amenity space.’ A previous pre-planning presentation had been made to the committee on 15 March 2017, when it appears that some councillors may have expressed concern over the proposed height of some of the blocks of flats, in the vicinity of Willesden High Road.

Many Brent residents, and residents’ groups, have been disappointed by Planning Committee decisions in recent years, allowing developments which seem to go against the borough’s own agreed planning policies. An opposition motion calling for an investigation of this issue was put to the Full Council meeting on 18 September, but lost – although the details are not yet available on the Council’s website, it appears from the webcast that most of the Labour Group’s large majority of councillors voted against it. Yet a number of Labour councillors have told me privately that there is “political interference” within Brent’s planning system.

In his email to Cllr. Allie, the Chair of Standards Committee, the comments on which gave rise to this blog, Cllr. Duffy said:

‘In my experience its best to keep clear of hospitality from developers as “When you dance with a developer, it’s always to their tune".’

I hope that Brent’s Monitoring Officer will endorse that view, when she considers the lessons which should be learned from this episode. The Codes of Conduct for both members and officers include a requirement to comply with the seven general conduct principles in public life. If citizens of our borough are to have confidence in the Council, a key principle is:

‘Integrity: you should not place yourself in situations where your integrity may be questioned, should not behave improperly and should on all occasions avoid the appearance of such behaviour.’

How does accepting an invitation to dine with developers, who may want you to help them get their planning applications approved, fit with that principle?

Widespread objections to Alperton high rise giant

Guest post by Andrew Linnie.  This issue was covered earlier on Wembley Matters LINK

R55’s Minavil House project in Alperton has been the subject of much debate and controversy for some time now. The tower, standing at 26 storeys, will bring a huge shift in the landscape of the area, and was described by various industry publications as the tallest building in the entire borough. This came as quite a surprise to residents both old and new, as the 2011 Alperton Masterplan adopted by Brent Council set out a vision for the area of buildings up to a maximum of 17 storeys. It would stand to reason that a building a full 9 storeys above the maximum height for the area would be a cause for debate, but Brent Council seemed uninterested in engaging with the discussion.

The proposal shown towering over twelve storeys above its nearest neighbour (Submitted application drawings).

At the planning committee meeting in May, I put forward the concerns of residents in the two minute speaking time allotted to a single objector. It is of note that the council allows three minutes to the developer to put forward their case. Those concerns included the loss of light and sky to surrounding dwellings, the spurious transport impact figures used, and the fact that the building directly contravened the supporting planning document (SPD) for the area. These issues were largely disregarded in the ensuing discussion among councillors and the scheme was approved. None of the three councillors for Alperton (Cllrs Allie, Chohan and Patel) attended the meeting.

At this point I wrote a petition which over 200 residents signed, and further problems with the development were noted. In its disregard for context the project’s density runs off the charts, featuring twice the number of housing units per hectare of neighbouring schemes. A conversation with an independent transport assessor involved with another development in the ward reinforced the assertion that the transport impact figures presented at the meeting – of just two additional passengers per train at peak times – were wildly underestimating the impact of a development this size. The issues of light and sky persisted, and concerns about access and the level of parking provided remain unanswered (there are 251 homes but only 35 parking spaces, most of which are for a Lidl on the ground floor). It also emerged that the architectural justifications for the project’s height from R55’s own online publication misrepresented the scale of neighbouring buildings and created an impression of the constructed landscape rising towards the Minavil site which, in reality, does not exist.

The architectural justification for the project, with the actual numbers of storeys added. It shows large leaps in height between buildings only three storeys apart, and a small step up from 14 to 26 storeys. The image also implies a rising contour between two 11 storey buildings of equal height (R55).

The petition was addressed to MP for Brent North Barry Gardiner, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, the members of the GLA including our local assembly member Navin Shah, and the councillors for the ward of Alperton and Brent in general.

Mr Gardiner held a meeting in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy in which he addressed the issues of residents in high rise buildings. Present at the meeting were many locals, representatives of housing trusts, Brent Borough Fire Commander Mark Davis, and the Head of Planning for Brent. When pursued by Mr Gardiner on the point of whether such proposals are assessed for their fire risk, the Head of Planning admitted they are not. For a disproportionately tall building with a small footprint, on a site hemmed in by a canal, a bridge and an industrial estate, this added further grave concerns for neighbouring homes.

Though Mr Shah’s office and Mr Gardiner were responsive to the petition, the scheme was passed back from the Mayor of London to Brent for approval with no intervention. Unless the Secretary of State for Planning (Alok Sharma) decides to intervene, the building work will commence, reportedly in November. At that point the debate will inevitably turn from one about this particular site to one about the wider area, and what kind of regeneration the local population want. When commitments are made to residents to lead a regeneration area in a certain direction and then entirely forgotten at the planning committee level, questions must be asked as to whether Brent Council are representing the interests of local people or the interests of developers.

Greens expose unviability of London Mayor's 'viability team' on affordable housing

Sian Berry London Green Party Assembly Member has revealed that the London Mayor’s new ‘team of viability experts’ will consist of only two people, which is not enough to challenge the huge resources of developers.

The new team will be based in City Hall and will examine figures submitted by developers when they fail to meet the Mayor’s targets for affordable homes.

However, in response to a written question from Sian Berry, the Mayor has said the ‘team’ will be made up of just two people.

He also failed to give reassurances that they would be permanent staff and not on short term contracts that allow them to move back and forth between public and commercial work that could bring conflicts of interest.

Sian Berry said:

The Mayor promised a team of experts and Londoners need more than two people in these posts if the Mayor’s goal of challenging developers is to be viable. I am very concerned that two people, however talented, will be stretched beyond capacity and unable to make a real difference.

There’s already too much of a ‘revolving door’ for consultants between big developers and Council regeneration schemes, and it’s vital that these experts do not also have commercial interests while working on behalf of Londoners.

The new team needs to be expanded quickly and this should not be done by hiring in consultants on short term contracts, but by building up a dedicated and permanent expert team that works only in the public interest.

Sadiq Khan is currently consulting on draft Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Guidance (consultation ends 28th February 2017) LINK

It is clear from the draft extracts below that more than two experts will be required to give close attention to schemes when developers argue that they will only be 'viable' if less than 50% of housing is 'affordable'.  In truth two people would hardly be adequate for developments taking place just within Brent in Wembley Park, South Kilburn and Alperton. The problem that 'affordable' is not really affordable and Brent  regular backs down in the face of viability assessments has been covered on this blog LINK and reported on Get West London website LINK

VIABILITY ASSESSMENTS

14 The third part of the SPG (Supplementary Planning Guidance) provides detailed guidance on viability assessments, aiming to establish a standardised approach to viability. The SPG clearly sets out what information and assumptions should be included in a viability appraisal. It builds on the London Borough Development Viability Protocol and aims to provide a clear approach that can be consistently applied across London.

15 It sets out the Mayor’s expectations when it comes to the publication of viability information, requiring all information to be made public, including council and third party assessments. Applicants will have the opportunity to argue that limited elements should be kept undisclosed, but the onus is on the applicant to make this case.

16 The SPG is explicit about the Mayor’s preference for using Existing Use Value Plus as the comparable Benchmark Land Value when assessing the viability of a proposal. The premium above Existing Use Value will be based on site by site justification reflecting the circumstances of the site and landowner.

THE MAYOR AND REFERABLE APPLICATIONS

1.16 Given the strategic importance of affordable housing delivery and the significant impact of reduced levels of affordable housing on the delivery of the London Plan, the Mayor will consider directing that he is to be the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining an application (often referred to as a ‘call in’) or directing refusal when:

•       he is not satisfied with the viability information submitted by the applicant, the assumptions that underpin the information, or the level of scrutiny given by the LPA; 


•       he considers the viability information submitted may suggest a higher level of affordable housing could reasonably be provided; 


•       the chance of significant contribution to affordable housing could be forgone due to other grounds and the Mayor wants to review the weight the LPA has given to competing planning objectives. 


Residents call for support for demonstration against Heron House development on Monday

 MONDAY, 1st AUGUST AT 6.30 P.M.

AT HERON HOUSE, 109 - 115 WEMBLEY HILL ROAD WEMBLEY HA9 8DA

Residents opposed to the planned redevlopment of Heron House in Wembley will demonstrate at the site on Monday and are calling for support from other local people. They claim that the redevelopment plans are inappropriate for what is a residential surburban area and a sign that the high-rise Quintain development around the stadium is encroaching on their homes.

They say:

This large redevelopment of Heron House will adversely affect every one of us  and it will be too late to complain if we get no support and the redevelopment goes ahead!  Your street could very well be next the speed with which these smaller developments are going up all over the Borough!

If this large monstrosity at Heron House is allowed to go up, traffic will increase and the parking situation will get even worse, if that is possible.

Many of us will be overlooked from the higher levels and in 2 years they are buying St Joseph's Social Club  to build yet another higher monstrosity to complete "The Gateway to Wembley"!  

Do we really want that right on our doorstep in our still very residential area?  We cannot do anything about the massive regeneration of the Stadium and High Road areas, but we can certainly try to stop these smaller developers, if we have the support

London rises up against the Housing Bill

Today Londoners came out to reclaim their city from developers and the Housing Bill. They demand homes for people not profit, building of council housing, an end to social cleansing and much more. The pictures on the continuation page tell the whole story.