Black History Month event: Learn from the Grunwick strike! Wednesday, October 28, 2026 at 7:00 PM ONLINE

 

 

Black History Month event: Learn from the Grunwick strike!  

Wednesday, October 28, 2026 at 7:00 PM

August 2026 was 50 years since the start of the Grunwick strike, a major struggle for workplace and trade union rights by predominantly female, migrant, South Asian film processing workers. It was a tumultuous two-year battle that, in the face of employer aggression, media demonisation and brutal police violence, saw widespread solidarity from other workers in the area and far beyond, but grossly inadequate support from the top of the labour movement - and ultimately defeat. What is the story of the Grunwick strike, why is it so important and what are its lessons for the workers' movement and left today?

For Black History Month 2026, the Green Party Trade Union Group and Brent Greens are hosting a meeting with Sundari Anitha, author with Ruth Pearson of Striking Women: Struggles and Strategies of South Asian Women Workers from Grunwick to Gate Gourmet, a book built around interviews with the strikers themselves.

 

BOOK YOUR PLACE HERE 

Brent Cabinet greet a glorious new dawn on South Kilburn on the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer for long-term completion of the project

 

As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses. 

Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.

Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.

Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to  be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.

Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported  to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.

He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'

Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the  council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace.  It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development.  He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.

Guardian August 2026

 BBC London  September 2026

 

Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.

The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.

In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:  

We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration. 

Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.

We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.

 

Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting; 

  

I'm told that screaming at the screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn. Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.

 

As a South Kilburn resident for the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.

 

South Kilburn regeneration started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.

 

What about the new flats built under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.  This gets described as “In a small number of developments however residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much every new block.

 

What else has regeneration delivered? We read “Significant investment has been made in delivering amenities and social infrastructure including a medical centre, pharmacy, affordable workspace studios. A purpose-built community facility including an enterprise hub, nursery, family wellbeing centre, community halls, community kitchen and café is being built at Granville and Carlton Centres. Sustained investment in public realm including tree planting, landscaped courtyards, pocket parks and play areas has been made across the redeveloped sites in the neighbourhood. These amenities and infrastructure are having a profound impact on community life and has been transforming the South Kilburn neighbourhood.” Perhaps the author couldn’t be bothered to refer back to what was promised at the start of the regeneration of South Kilburn – 2 new medical centres (we have one, delivered many years after it was promised), a new community centre (no sign of that, not sure why the rebuilding of the already existing Granville and Carlton centres should be seen as fulfilling that promise), a new youth centre (no sign) and – yes we do remember – “no more tower blocks”.  It fools no-one to refurbish existing facilities and then claim they are new, instead of actually providing what was promised. Even within the claimed `success' of the Granville and Carlton Centres, community space has been reduced. Green space is often behind locked gates or not maintained, what were public spaces have been privatised and new planting is not monitored. And have people forgotten the block with "poor doors", where social tenants have to use a different entrance to those who have bought their flats?

 

What else has regeneration brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks have.

 

Regeneration has also brought increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area, leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and other criminal activity.

 

Rarely., if ever, does the Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they hope we have forgotten.

 

Would all this be worth it if the regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the housing crisis.

 

An altogether laughable claim is that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement. Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored. A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running, unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.

 

Reading Council documents or watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead, we see  gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.

 

When agreeing to give the £1 billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real world intrude on Brent Council decisions.

 

 

September 2nd Scrutiny Committee to consider call-in of £1.54m payment to Veolia for extra work

 From a Wembley Matters story six years ago - has there been improvement since?

 

Following the story on Wembley Matters LINK on the additions to the Veolia contracts, Cllr Paul Lorber commented;

 Labour Councillors who signed up to a very bad contract including their so called "intelligence led cleaning" idea now want to pay more money for some extra service - even before they checked if Veolia are already doing what they are being paid for.

Liberal Democrat Councillors have "called in" the decision, with the support of one Green Councillor, to Scrutiny Committee on 2 September - so the decision can be properly scrutinised to clarify what improvements to our dirty streets will be made and whether the £1.5 million extra is the best use of the money.

In our view the whole issue of street cleaning, recycling and dumping in Brent needs to be looked at - but the 'call-in' is restricted to looking at the areas of work included in the £1.54 million proposed.

Guest Post: ‘Why Land Value Tax is the key to real devolution’ by Murad Qureshi

 

Source:  

https://www.landvaluetax.co.uk/about-lvt/what-is-lvt

 

 

The advent of Andy Burnham as Labour Leader and Prime Minister, has brought Land Value Tax into the spotlight as a way of addressing the iniquities of Council Tax. It is a tax favoured by some in the Labour Party and the not very prominent policy of the Green Party. The latter may change as politicians across parties try to address the crisis in local government financing.

 

Murad Qureshi, former chair of the London Assembly Environment Committee, has given Wembley Matters  kind permission to reproduce his timely article first published in London List LINK. I publish it as a Guest Post.

 

   

In [a]  previous piece for LabourList, I argued that Britain’s broken, regressive property tax system demands bold, systemic reform. Council Tax, frozen in 1991, economically damaging Stamp Duty, and punitive Business Rates do nothing but entrench inequality and stifle local growth. For a Labour government aiming to build an economy that works for the many, Land Value Tax (LVT) represents the most rational, growth-friendly path forward.

But the case for LVT extends far beyond national Treasury spreadsheets. If we are serious about shifting power out of Westminster, LVT is the foundational tool required to make regional devolution a reality. This reality was brought into sharp focus by Andy Burnham’s major policy speech at the People’s History Museum in Manchester.

Championing a philosophy he terms “Manchesterism,” Burnham laid out a sweeping vision for his forthcoming administration, headlined by a “No. 10 North” to coordinate regional growth and a radical overhaul of business rates. While his immediate focus is on practical adjustments—like slashing hospitality rates and penalising giant online distribution warehouses—these proposals directly align with his long-standing advocacy for LVT. Burnham has consistently argued that “land is under-taxed”. By blending his fiscal localisation strategy with the principles of LVT, we can fundamentally supercharge UK devolution in three key ways.

 

Smashing the “Whitehall Cap” with Financial Autonomy

True devolution cannot exist on an allowance. Currently, metro mayors and local councils are trapped, heavily relying on central government grants or highly regressive, outdated tax systems. As Burnham rightly points out, it is absurd that a modest family home in Blackpool can face a comparable tax burden to a multimillion-pound property in London due to outdated Council Tax bands.

To fund local infrastructure, leaders shouldn’t have to “beg” Whitehall. Transitioning toward an LVT—or a Proportional Property Tax as a stepping stone—allows local authorities to capture revenue directly from the unimproved value of the land itself. Because land value is largely created by the community through infrastructure, schools, and jobs, capturing this wealth locally grants regions stable, independent funding. This breaks the financial leash, giving areas like Greater Manchester the genuine autonomy to invest in their own futures.

Ending the “Housing Trap” and Spurring Regeneration

In his Manchester address, Burnham prioritised lifting Britain out of a chronic “housing trap” by accelerating council house building and revitalising empty town centres. Our current system penalises progress; if a developer improves a site, their taxes rise, but if they leave a storefront vacant or a plot empty, they face little penalty.

An LVT flips this incentive structure. By taxing the underlying value of the land regardless of what is built on it, land banking and speculation become financially unsustainable. Speculative landlords can no longer hoard vacant sites in hope of unearned windfalls. This creates a highly productive form of taxation that forces development, empowering combined authorities to reclaim brownfield sites and transform them into affordable homes.

Rebalancing Wealth Across the Postcodes

Devolution only succeeds if regional economies possess the baseline wealth to sustain themselves. Because land values are exponentially higher in London and the South East, LVT naturally shifts the national tax burden onto these high-value areas.

This shift provides a massive financial breather to middle and lower income postcodes across the North, Midlands, and coastal towns. By freezing or reducing the tax burden on working families, we free up local household income. This keeps wealth circulating within the regional economy rather than draining back into the capital, fostering what Burnham calls “good growth in every postcode.”

The Rational Path Forward

Burnham’s call for a “No. 10 North” and immediate business rates reform shows that the appetite for radical decentralisation is there. But temporary tweaks to business rates are just the beginning.

To permanently shift civil service power and economic gravity away from London, we must alter the tax foundation beneath our feet. As the Labour Land Campaign has long championed, LVT is not a radical fringe theory; it is a market-efficient, progressive mechanism backed by modern digital mapping and Land Registry data.

If Labour wants to deliver on the promise of national renewal, it should look to the trailblazing vision emerging from the North. By backing Land Value Taxation, the party can provide leaders like Andy Burnham with the permanent fiscal teeth needed to make devolution a lasting success.

 

EDITOR'S ADDITIONAL NOTES 

www.economicsobservatory.com notes that tax proposals from the Greens include a land value tax and more aggressive carbon pricing. Land value taxes – which have a long intellectual tradition going back to founding fathers of economics Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill – attract unusually wide-ranging support, with the New Economics Foundation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Institute for Economic Affairs among those in favour of the policy, as well as academics such as John Muellbauer (2023)

   

The case for a land value tax is overwhelming Martin Wolf Financial Times 

Labour Land Campaign 

Briefing Paper for Motion: The GPEW Manifesto 2024 and Economics

 

 

Cllr. Jumbo Chan: The NPCification of the Labour Party

The following article was published by Cllr. Jumbo Chan (Harlesden and Kensal Green ward and outgoing chair of Brent Audit and Standards Committee) on the Labour Hub website. As this article will be of interest to Brent readers I received permission from Labour Hub to republish. The original article can be found HERE.

Labour Councillor Jumbo Chan, blocked by the Labour Party apparatus from being on the ballot today, explains what has gone wrong with his Party.

 

Amidst the heavy damage done to Labour by the now-departed, disgraced Peter Mandelson, perhaps one of the most consequential, yet underdiscussed blowbacks of the hyper-factionalism driven by him, his protégé Morgan McSweeney and other key allies surrounding Starmer is the potential of what I would term the NPCification of Labour.

 

Originally a video game term, non-player characters (NPCs) are AI entities that operate via pre-programmed scripts to give some semblance of life to the virtual worlds which they populate. It is now entering into everyday speech as a colloquialism to describe people who seemingly lack independence and assertiveness, wandering around robotically, repeating fixed, predictable lines. Before sketching a brief picture of the NPC politician and the risk they would pose to Labour, it is important to first discuss how they may end up dominating the party.

 

Along with the targeting of Sam Tarry, Faiza Shaheen and many other perceived enemies before the 2024 general election, perhaps the most prominent example of the intense factionalism underscoring the present leadership was the blocking of Andy Burnham. Shielded by less public limelight, the clique orbiting Starmer has also purged swathes of local Labour representatives, including in upcoming battlegrounds such as Hackney, Lambeth and Brent. In the latter, all candidates were centrally handpicked.

 

A decade-long Labour councillor, I was also blocked for supposedly “contradict[ing] agreed Labour positions” by co-authoring a pro-trade union open letter, and coordinating hundreds of Labour colleagues to urge an equivocating Starmer to call for a ceasefire in Gaza. I will never retract my public support for trade unions and innocent children, but the intense factionalism goes far beyond the immediacy of any purges. By stabbing at Labour’s historically rich pluralism, Starmer’s allies have, as the party stares into the abyss, damaged its best chance to course correct.

 

With the constant threat of alleged secret spreadsheets, voting rigging, private surveillance and the punishment of dissent looming over Labour members, potential candidates, councillors and MPs, the Party’s famous broad church is a shadow of its former self. If this intimidatory culture, where silence and compliance are the name of the game, were to become ingrained in the party’s DNA, there is a profound danger of Labour transmuting into an institution dominated by what I would call the NPC politician.

 

Docile and vacuous, the NPC politician would lack the political depth which an otherwise open political culture would select for. Indeed, they would be able to get ahead precisely because of their political emptiness. And unlike either Tony Benn’s principled signposts or even the more opportunistic weathercocks, they would not see their role as remaking the country, let alone, shaping history. Instead, politics for the NPC politician would simply be another choice of career in which they are just trying to get by or climb up, executing instructions as scripted by the top.

 

Because of their inability to offer their own political vision to the public, personality politics would be the default terrain for the NPC politician: “I am the son of a takeaway owner and an immigrant cleaner; I was born here and I love food; and I am a nice guy who organises litter picks” not only serves to hide a dearth of politics, but also functions as the most substantive marker to differentiate one NPC politician from another. An NPCified Labour would not so much regress to political monoculturalism as to political sterility.

 

All this lies in stark contrast to outspoken outsiders such as Green victor in the Gorton and Denton by-election Hannah Spencer (whose victory speech could have been delivered by a Labour socialist) and, further afield, New York mayor Zohran Mamdani. Their fresh, bold socialist perspectives have clearly resonated with the public. But under the present leadership — whose clique would reportedly “rather burn Downing Street down” than give an inch to perceived opponents — these avowedly non-NPC politicians would have likely been blocked from even offering their views to Labour members.

 

The NPC traits of silence and compliance fostered by the current climate of fear might explain why, despite Britain’s dislike of a prime minister who is seen “as a cross between a jellyfish and doormat”, and with Labour facing great peril as forewarned by Burnham, the Party seems unable to do anything except to plough on as before. Therefore, a Britain being rocked by multiple crises and hungry for an radical change to society will only continue to look elsewhere for its politics.

 

The Labour Party was founded as the political wing of the labour movement, and cannot fulfil this historic role and, thus, regain public confidence, until ideas and people are allowed to flourish in the party. This must necessitate a restoration of Labour’s pluralistic, democratic tradition, best typified by Restore Labour Democracy and Reset Labour. After all, Labour’s founders foresaw over a century ago that the then-new Party would only succeed if it reflected the broadest traditions of British socialism and the working class. If Labour cannot expunge the poisonous hyper-factionalism and restore its historic broad church, it is unlikely that history will grant it another century.

 

Jumbo Chan is a Labour Councillor in the London Borough of Brent.

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, HA9 9JJ. 

Green candidate speaks out at South Kilburn hustings - video

A unique hustings was held in Kilburn recently focusing on the South Kilburn Regeneration area where demolition and new build  is carrying on for decades.

Paul Ryan, spoke for all three Green Party candidates at the event. 

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party and its candidates c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, HA9 9JJ 

 

Was a 'consultation' reaching only 42 people an adequate basis on which to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 3 hours a day?

 When London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust issued a press release the day AFTER they reduced the hours of the Central Middlesex Hospital  Urgent Treatment Centre they said:

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm

The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'. 

The reduction in hours was then implemented.

Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.

The FOI revealed the following:

1. Only 42 responses were received

2.  70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)

3.  41%  of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them

4.  Only two people turned up to the in-person events. 

5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal. 

I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.

Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.

You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?

 

THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE 

1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430 

A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications. 

 

Questionnaire responses

 

The questionnaire received 42 responses

 

Respondents’ borough	Brent	Ealing	Harrow	Hillingdon	Hounslow
Percentage	70%	20%	3%	2%	3%

 

Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC  were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
	No impact	Minor impact	Significant impact	Unsure
Percentage	15%	21%	41%	23%

 

For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.

Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.

Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.

Public involvement events

Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.

* Promotional activity

• Trust website and social media channels
• Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
• Posters at the UTC.
• Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
• The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
• Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)

Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier  closure, said:

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people. 

 

The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.

Greens: End Palantir's vice like grip on the government

Green MPs have written to the Cabinet Secretary to demand that the government scrap its NHS and MoD contracts with spy tech firm Palantir. The MPs have also called for an independent inquiry into Peter Mandelson’s involvement in contracts between the UK Government and Palantir, and to review the extent of UK dependence on private contractors such as Palantir to secure the UK’s digital sovereignty.

Green MP, Sian Berry, said:

Palantir’s vice-like grip on our Government, and the role played by disgraced Peter Mandelson in brokering it, must be investigated urgently and, meanwhile, all government contracts with this Trump-supporting spy tech company suspended immediately.

The Prime Minister has questions to answer about how this military surveillance outfit, with clear ties to Mandelson’s own lobbying firm, has been handed record-breaking multi million pound contracts from public money without competition.

It would be unbelievably inappropriate for any member of this Government to attend  Wednesday’s red carpet party for this company. It already was, given how much we know about how Palantir has facilitated genocide in Gaza and been complicit in fascist deportations in the USA. But in the light of these contract revelations, these social contacts become even more unacceptable.

The letter states: Palantir technology has reportedly been used by U.S. immigration authorities to profile and target migrants and has been used by the Israeli military in Gaza – it has no place in our NHS or any of our public services… Palantir is now deeply embedded in the NHS and Ministry of Defence – and the longer they are in place, the harder and more expensive it becomes to remove them and the more the risk of poor value for money increases.

Green MPS are calling on the government to:

• Conduct an internal and independent inquiry into Mandelson’s involvement in contracts between the UK Government and Palantir and publish the findings, including whether Mandelson shared privileged information with Palantir and the extent to which he used his role in Government for personal gain
• Scrap its NHS and MoD contracts with Palantir at the earliest opportunity 
• Review UK dependence on contractors such as Palantir to secure the UK’s digital sovereignty

Perspectives on London's housing emergency - affordable homes supply and threshold, CIL relief for developers, reduced powers of councils

 Below are three different perspectives that feed into the debate about how to address London's current housing emergency.

From the London Assembly

Rising costs, funding constraints and a lack of strategic focus are slowing the delivery of the affordable homes Londoners need most, particularly family-sized and accessible homes.

A new report from the London Assembly Housing Committee – Assessing delivery, needs and challenges of the Mayor’s Affordable Homes – warns that London’s affordable housing system is failing to keep pace with need, despite public investment through the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme. Delivery under the current programme has been slow, with 64 per cent of homes still to be started as of September 2025, less than a year before the programme is due to end in March 2026.

The Committee found that certain types of homes are in particularly short supply. Family-sized social rent homes and accessible homes for Deaf and Disabled Londoners are not being delivered at the scale required, leaving many families trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. The report also raises concerns about the lack of progress in delivering sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and the growing pressure on supported housing providers.

To address this, the Committee calls for a more targeted approach to funding affordable housing. Key recommendations include increasing grant rates and setting clear targets for family-sized and accessible homes under the 2026–36 Affordable Homes Programme, so that public investment better reflects London’s most urgent housing needs.

Other recommendations in the report include:

·          improving support for councils to acquire existing homes for social rent, as a faster way to increase supply

·           requiring better monitoring and reporting on homes delivered for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, to ensure commitments translate into delivery

·          securing sustainable funding for supported housing, including revenue funding alongside capital investment

Chair of the London Assembly Housing Committee, Zoë Garbett AM (Green Party), said:

London’s housing crisis is hitting families and disabled Londoners hardest, yet the homes they need most are the ones least likely to be built. The report highlights that delivery has slowed sharply since 2023, at the same time as demand for genuinely affordable housing continues to rise.

Evidence to the Committee showed that rising construction costs, high land prices, increased borrowing costs and new building safety requirements have all reduced the capacity of councils and housing associations to bring forward new homes. Without changes to how funding is allocated, the report warns that delivery under the next Affordable Homes Programme risks falling further behind.

Menwhile Brent Council reacted to Government and London Mayor proposals on the Housing Emergency that included reducing the affordable housing threshold and temporary relief on the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy required from developers.

Councillor Teo Benea, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property published a statement on the Council's position:

While we support urgent action to unblock housing delivery, the current proposals risk doing the opposite in places like Brent, reducing the number of affordable homes delivered while significantly cutting the funding that pays for the infrastructure that our borough relies on.

Brent currently has 2,054 households living in temporary accommodation, and tens of thousands of residents on our housing register who will face waiting decades for an affordable home; unless grant funding for building new council homes is increased.

Lowering the effective affordable housing threshold and introducing substantial reductions in borough level Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would remove vital investment in schools, future transport schemes like the West London Orbital, public realm improvements, as well as community and medical facilities, without addressing the real barriers to delivery.

Our submission is clear that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) makes up only a small proportion of overall development costs, and that cutting it would have a disproportionate impact on Brent, particularly in areas that are already growing.

We want to work with Government to help realise their ambition of 1.5 million new homes, getting more families into secure and genuinely affordable housing, and supporting first time buyers onto the housing ladder.

That means introducing policies that increase delivery without undermining affordable housing, or stripping out the funding needed to support growing communities. We have submitted our formal response to both consultations, urging a rethink so we can deliver homes, infrastructure and opportunity together.

The Just Space Alliance, the campaign against the dominance of developers and landowners in planning, have written a detailed response that you can read HERE 

Here is a key extract:

Part 1: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Relief
 

We note that;

 Local authorities already set CIL levels to ensure developments can be viable and can choose not to charge CIL.
 

 Local authorities can already give Exceptional Circumstances Relief (ECR), if a scheme is unviable. This proposal would effectively over-ride local authority discretion.
 

 CIL is not cited as one of the causes of ‘non-viability’ (causes are Covid, high interest rates, construction and labour costs, new regulations, fall in demand for unaffordable housing).
 

 There is a danger that CIL relief will not be time limited, once introduced it will become the norm for financing developments.

We strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons

 If the Government allows both a significant reduction in CIL payments alongside consents that provide only 20% affordable housing this simply benefits landowners and developers with no corresponding public benefits. Land values will rise, driving up house prices and rents.

 These proposals would reduce the money that local authorities have to spend on essential improvements to the local area and providing social infrastructure for new and existing residents. Councils do not have the money to make up this shortfall, so it would have a long term impact on communities across London.
 

 The measures give priority to the delivery of ‘units’ rather than the sustainable development of appropriate homes addressing identified need – which is for social housing, not more unaffordable housing.
 

 The consultation contains no evidence of its necessity or effectiveness. It is extraordinary that the government has not provided its own financial modelling to support these proposals. The developer’s lobby have done so. It is deeply concerning that the affordable housing requirement may be reduced based on untested evidence provided by developers.

 If the govt wants to encourage developers building the homes we need, they could propose a reduction in CIL for schemes that commit to providing at least 35% affordable housing and for this to be the primary approach.
 

 The proposed £500,000 threshold discriminates against small schemes and the potential contribution of SMEs, which the Government purports to encourage.
 

 There would be no cut to Mayoral CIL. It is not clear why the boroughs are bearing the burden.

 The proposal for applications for CIL reductions to provide sufficient and truthful evidence to support viability modelling is welcomed. Information provided should be put into the public domain and the approach extended to apply to viability assessments used to reduce affordable housing contribution in planning applications.

Part 2: increasing Mayor’s powers to approve applications

The proposal is firstly to extend the Mayor’s power to ‘call in’ much smaller schemes of over 50 homes, but only if the borough intend to refuse the application – and the Mayor could then approve. Secondly it is proposed that the Mayor would be given additional powers to‘call in’ applications to build on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) .

These powers are designed to over-ride potential refusals by local councils of inappropriate schemes – all too rare an occasion anyway (many boroughs haven’t refused any major
schemes for years).

Local decision-making by local planning authorities (and local planning committees) is essential for transparency, legitimacy, and local democracy. We do not consider it appropriate for the Mayor to be given the power to over-ride the local authority’s democratic decision making process for schemes smaller than 150 homes, which are essentially local matters. Similarly it is not appropriate to give the Mayor specific additional powers of approval over-riding boroughs in relation to sites which are within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. This would fundamentally upset the relationships set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

For these reasons we do not support a further extension of the Mayor’s call in powers.

In conclusion, we believe that the whoe package of measures - including those being concurrently consulted on by the Mayor - are fundamentally flawed, unevidenced, contradictory to the core principles and policies set out in the statutory London Plan, and therein fundamentally improper and open to legal challenge.