Really pleased to see a new,
beefed-up Renters' Rights Bill proposed by this government. The immediate ban
on Section 21 'no fault' evictions is very welcome and will help protect over
10 million renters from risk of eviction. Longer notice periods, banning
bidding wars, Awaab's law to address dangerous hazards such as damp and mould,
a landlord register, abolishing blanket bans on those with children or on
benefits, and a default right for tenants to have pets - all urgent and really
positive.
But on affordability I would
have liked to see a lot more. This is an opportunity missed. We must not miss
this opportunity. There are some measures to stop rents being hiked very high
mid-contract, but nothing to control overall affordability, e.g. by allowing
councils to introduce rent controls in overheated housing markets as The Green Party long campaigned for. And a lot of reliance on
individual tenants challenging increases, which inevitably means the most
vulnerable, lacking the spare time or capacity, will face the most unreasonable
rent increases.
Greens are also keen to ensure
energy efficiency is properly and thoroughly addressed by this bill. A decent,
warm home is a right. It is welcome that the Government is going to introduce a
Decent Homes Standard in the private rented sector but the devil will be in the
detail, including how much funding is attached and how it is enforced.
This hugely important and
urgent bill looks good as a starting point – but there is a serious gap on tackling
sky-high rents and more clarity on making homes energy efficient and cheaper to
heat would be hugely welcome. Where there are gaps, Green MPs really want to
work with Ministers to close them. We had five years of failed promises from
the last Tory Govt during which time households were threatened with
homelessness over 80,000 times – this time we need swift and ambitious action
for renters who are being ripped off, living in cold homes or being made
homeless.
We Wear Heritage London Fashion Show event - September 16th 2pm-4pm
Time: arrivals from 1pm, show starts at 2pm and finishes at 4pm Location: St Mary’s Church in Marylebone
Where is St Mary's Church London located? St. Mary's Church is located in Wyndham Place, York Street London, W1H 1PQ, in the United Kingdom.
How to get to St Mary's Church London?
By Tube (Subway/Metro): The nearest Underground stations to St. Mary's Church include:
Marble Arch: Take the Central Line and walk south along Edgware Road to reach the church.
Edgware Road: Served by the Bakerloo, District, and Circle Lines. The church is a short walk from this station.
By Bus: Several
bus routes run through the nearby areas of Edgware Road and Marble
Arch, which are close to St. Mary's Church. You can use bus services to
reach the vicinity and then walk to the church.
Be part of this vibrant celebration and discover the beauty and
history woven into the fabrics of Brent’s diverse communities. Don’t
miss this opportunity to witness our community’s heritage come alive on
the catwalk!
We Wear Heritage is a project designed to showcase how Brent’
diverse communities celebrate traditional clothing, textiles and
fabrics.
Indigenous Fashion Show from the Amazon, Brazil Starts
16:00 – 17:00
Networking & Photo Opportunity with Communities and Indigenous Designers
17:00 – 17:01
This project is organised by CVS Brent and funded by The National
Lottery Heritage Fund to support Brent organisations to develop and
deliver heritage projects locally capturing and preserving stories about
traditional textiles, clothing or costume of Brent’s diverse
communities and sharing that with the wider community.
Join us for an unforgettable afternoon celebrating Brent’s rich cultural tapestry through fashion. “We Wear Heritage”
brings together 12 diverse community groups from Brent to showcase
traditional textiles, clothing, and costumes that tell the unique
stories of their heritage.
Each outfit presented on the catwalk is a piece of history, offering a
glimpse into the traditional attire of Afghani, African, Brazilian,
Chinese, Caribbean, Goan Indian, Iraqi, Mauritian, Romanian, Somali, and
Tamil communities. These garments carry each community’s stories,
traditions, and cultural significance, many of which are not widely
known. It will be an afternoon to remember!
The fashion show is organised by Rafael dos Santos, cultural events
producer and director and CEO of Best of Brazil Community, a CIC that
produces and promotes Brazilian cultural events. Visit www.bestofbrazil.org for more information.
Indigenous Brazilian Fashion Show
From 3 pm to 4 pm, be prepared to be amazed by the most fashion show you’ve ever seen!
Clothes are designed by Indigenous fashion designers from the
Brazilian Amazon Forest. A cooperative that brings together seven
indigenous communities led by fashion designer Seanny Arts and directed
by her daughter Reby Oliveira.
You will be mesmerised by the creativity, design, fabrics, hand-painted dresses, and much more!
Mi Moda Indigena is the brand of this collective of Indigenous women
who are showing the world the culture, heritage, creativity, and
strength of the Indigenous people from the Amazon Forest in Brazil.
Their show starts at 3pm, after the We Wear Heritage Show.
COMMUNITIES TAKING PART IN THE WE WEAR HERITAGE PROJECT:
Community: African
Project: A Tapestry of Culture: Unravelling The Threads of African Fabric
The aim of the project is to preserve the heritage of African Fabric,
by engaging young people and the wider community by involving a more
diverse range of people in the process and outcome. Kojo Baiden will
organise collaborative workshops with other. organisations particularly
those from underrepresented communities. Our heritage project aims to
explore the vibrant history, artistry, and cultural significance of
African fabric. Through meticulous research, engaging exhibitions, and
community involvement, we intend to celebrate and preserve this integral
part of the African diaspora.
Community: Afghani
Project: Afghani Regional Clothing, Textiles and Fabrics
Afghanistan’s traditional clothing is distinguished by its unique
designs and colours. Womenswear is often adorned with handmade
embroidery on the body and sleeves. The combination of vibrant colours,
made famous during the 1960s, highlights the creative expression and
know-how of garment makers. The project will gather first-hand accounts
from seamstresses and tailors of traditional Afghan garments.
Community: Brazil
Project: Evolution of Brazilian Indigenous Outfits
Organisation: Best of Brazil Community CIC
Events Producer and university lecturer Rafael dos Santos, in
collaboration with Indigenous fashion designer Seanny Arts, created a
collection of seven outfits showing the evolution of fashion from 1500
to 2000.
The fabrics used to make the outfits are natural materials found in
the Amazon. They include bark trees, palm leaves, paint from jenipapo
fruit, and fish scales. The Mundurucu tribe wears these outfits. They
will impress the audience and show the creativity, history, and rich
culture of this Brazilian Indigenous community.
Community: Chinese diaspora
Project: Chinese Take Away Message
Brent Chinese Association uncovers the origins, designs and symbolism
of the traditional clothing worn by the diasporic Chinese communities.
Examples include the Chenongsam and Hanfu for women and the Tang suit
for men. Across the Chinese diaspora, these costumes have been worn
through the generations, adapting and evolving, to mark special
occasions, such as festivals, births, wedding ceremonies, funerals.
Community: Caribbean ok
Project: Made in Brent
Higher Potential presents clothing from the 1970s/80s era when the
music genres of rap, hip-hop, reggae, and soul-funk influenced a
generation. Caribbean young people’s clothing style was dependent on the
music. They wore tributes, Beaver Hats, tailored suits, and tonic
suits, creating trends that contributed to wider youth culture.
Community: Dominica
Project: WOB Dwiyet – Traditional Dominica Dress
Caribbean creole style is rooted in a blend of English, French and
African traditions. Created by women of colour during the 18th century
it is an eye-catching, cultural expression of Caribbean resilience.
Madras fabric plays a significant role in the development of heritage
wear, teamed with broderie anglaise and ribbons it reflects the colonial
history and the creativity of the Caribbean people. This collection
will present the Wob Dwiyet, an elegant gown created and still worn
today as a symbol of stature, popular in the French creole speaking
islands and the Jip outfit, a less formal alternative for the wearer.
Community: Goan Indian
Project: Goan Traditional Clothing
Community Stars UK CIC shares Goan traditional clothing, which is a
rich tapestry of cultural influences resulting from its unique position
on the western coast of India. The traditional attire blends indigenous
traditions and Portuguese colonial influence. The project connects the
costumes worn with specific cultural events of significance within the
Goan community. Moreover, some Goan costumes relate to specific
performances involving music and dance.
Community: Iraqi
Project: Arabic & Iraqi Folklore Clothing
Iraqi Welfare Association promotes folklore clothing and costumes to
represent the area’s ancient cultures and beliefs but also to facilitate
a bridge of communication between different communities around the
world. They plan to organise heritage festivals to bring diverse
communities together.
Community: Iranian
Project: Iranian Traditional Regional Garb
Regional climates shape traditional Iranian women’s attire. This
project explores outfits from the different regions of Iran. For
example, in Northern Iran, lush green lands with colours and patterns
are reflected in the region’s clothing. In the coastal areas,
traditional clothing reflects the colours and patterns of water and
marine life. In contrast, people living in areas with hotter climates
wear lighter, more breathable garments as influenced by the weather
conditions. We will celebrate the Festival of Mehregan, which will
celebrate the beginning of the autumn harvest in September/October.
Storytelling will feature where women share their stories from the
regions and craftsmanship.
Community: Romanian
Project: Threads of Tradition: Exploring Romanian Heritage Clothing
My Romania Community presents traditional clothing from different
parts of Romania. This project examines Romanian garments’ unique
characteristics and cultural significance, highlighting craftsmanship
and symbolism. There’s also a royal connection between the UK and
Romania through Queen Marie of Romania. They aim to foster
intergenerational learning, a sense of representation and belonging, and
the importance of cultural exchange.
Community: Somali
Project: Hido iyo Dhaqan Traditional Somali Clothing
Reviving Links CIC is preserving Somali traditional textiles and
clothing. This project focuses on intergenerational learning with Brent
schoolchildren interviewing elders about the garments, that is, the
meaning of the intricate designs, cultural significance and historical
narratives. They plan to show how these traditional garments have been
shaped by various influences over the centuries and how these garments
can enable us to tell stories facilitating cross-cultural exchanges.
Community: Tamil
Project: Tamil Heritage Records
Tamil Association of Brent is creating records of traditional
clothing using photography and video. Oral histories are being collected
from Tamil elders and dubbed and subtitled in English. The
transcriptions will be used to produce an electronic book incorporating
the photographs people share. The project will also film a Tamil wedding
providing commentary on the rituals and how they have changed over the
years. These records will act as a reference for future generations.
Frequently asked questions
What time does the show start?
The first fashion show starts at 2 p.m. We advise attendees to arrive from 1 p.m. onwards to secure a good spot!
Can I secure a place on the front row?
No. Front-row seats are reserved, and names will be added to a
separate VIP guest list. If the guest does not attend the show, we might
have front-row seats available on the day.
Is there parking?
No. You must search for private parking near St Mary’s Church in
Marylebone. We highly recommend you use public transport. Marylebone
tube and train stations are less than 10 min walk from the venue.
What time does it finish?
Shows finish at 4pm.
Are there two shows on the same day?
Yes. From 2-3 pm is the cultural fashion show WE WEAR HERITAGE. From
3-4 pm is Mi Moda Indigena, a group of Brazilian indigenous designers
from the Amazon, showcasing their collection.
Can we buy clothes on this show?
After 4 pm, you can go to the stand of MI Moda Indigena, and you can
purchase outfits you’ve seen on the catwalk as well as bio jewellery
made from seeds and plants from the Amazon, handmade by Indigenous
designers.
Can I take photos and film?
Yes, you can. Between 4-5 pm, there will be an opportunity for photos
with all designers and models from all projects, including the
Indigenous models.
Can I bring children to the show?
You can bring children, so long you take them away from the room if
they start crying. Professional filming will happen, so we would not
like children crying in the background during the filming.
Do I need a ticket per person or can I get 1 ticket for my whole family?
For example, if your family has five people, you will need to sign up
for five tickets. Each ticket is assigned to one chair, so if one
person signs up and turns up with four more people, the four people who
didn’t sign up won’t be able to sit down; they will have to stay in the
standing area.
Independent education investigative journalist Warwick Mansell has written about events at Byron Court on his blog and was recently interviewed by podcasters Two Heads about prospects for changes in Ofsted inspections and academisation under the new Labour Government.
Byron Court Primary School is no more and one of the podcasters described the eradication of its identity over the school holiday as 'Orwellian'. She was particularly concerned about its effect on the children.
It is early days, but I am already hearing reports that under the Harris regime discipline is much stricter and there are concerns about individual support for special needs pupils being withdrawn.
A static section of the interactive map that you can contribute to
From Brent Parks Forum
Sent out by the London Federation of Friends of Parks Groups Chair for residents and green/blue space groups to respond to.
*London Nature Recovery Interactive Map
The Greater London Authority (GLA) has launched an interactive mapping tool for Londoners to tell us where action to improve nature should be prioritised. The GLA will use the map, alongside other inputs, to set out the priorities for London’s nature in the London Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), which is due to be published in Summer 2025.
This interactive map is open to all organisations and individuals across London, so please share this with your friends, colleagues, family and communities living and working in Greater London. The map will be open for input until 23:59 on Wednesday 2nd October.
Extract from Brent
Council’s website on Complaints and Feedback.
On 2 September, Martin published an open
letter of complaint that I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 30 August, objecting to the undisclosed conflict of
interests and bias in the Report and recommendation for the award of the new
advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge. I received the Council’s response
on 9 September from Brent’s Corporate Director Finance and Resources, ‘(Covering
for the Chief Executive)’, and in the interests of transparency and fair play I
have asked Martin to publish that response in full below.
The response tells me that everything was done ‘in accordance with the
council’s standard practices’, so that the process ‘was open and fair and that
the award of the contract will therefore stand, as formally agreed by Cabinet.’
Have you ever made a complaint to Brent
Council? If so, have they ever admitted that they made a mistake or did
something wrong? I’d be interested to receive your feedback on this in the
comments section.
My own feeling on the response below is that has been composed in a way
that the Council can claim that they’ve answered all the points I raised,
without directly answering any of them! If you feel inclined to read on, you
can judge for yourself.
‘Dear Mr Grant,
In response to your letter dated 30 August 2024, I
can confirm that the report was drafted and agreed in accordance with the
council’s standard practices.
The information regarding the tiles was supplied by
the council’s Heritage Officer. He noted that the tiled murals under the Bobby
Moore Bridge and on the adjoining retaining walls, which depict various scenes
of sports and entertainment events, have historic and artistic merit. They are
considered a non-designated heritage asset within the meaning in the National
Planning Policy Framework. The tiles are not statutory listed, but
none-the-less the council will continue to ensure they are protected regardless
of this fact during the contract period. The tile mural with plaque will remain
on permanent display during the contract period. The tiled flank walls outside
the underpass are also on display.
As you are aware, council officers did not make the
final decision for this contract as their role was to make a recommendation.
The final award decision was made solely by Cabinet and, despite your concerns,
I am satisfied that the report was a fair representation of the facts,
including the details of your petition.
Financial information is always provided in council
reports to ensure Cabinet has the full information available to make rounded
decisions. In the current national and local context, where council budgets are
stretched like never before it is perfectly rational for the council to seek to
generate external income where it can. There were also other, non-financial,
benefits which the report outlined regarding the option which was agreed by the
Cabinet.
Officers routinely and properly make recommendations
about matters which are the responsibility of services they manage, or which
may impact on those services financially or operationally. To suggest that
officers should be precluded from involvement in such matters is unrealistic
and unreasonable and would often prevent members from receiving advice from
those best placed to give it. It is of course proper for an officer dealing
with a contract award to set out any impact on the service budget of different
options and to recommend that members take that into account in making their
decision. The council’s communications service budget is used to support the
delivery of essential services including ensuring residents are informed and
engaged about issues that affect them and know how to access the services they
need.
It should also be noted that Service Heads
routinely work with officers to generate reports where income is allocated into
their budget. In this case, there were many officers involved, besides the two
officers stated in the Cabinet Report. This includes procurement officers, the
heritage officer, highways officers, sales and marketing officer, finance
officer, governance officers and colleagues from legal. The report was also
agreed by the Corporate Director, Partnerships, Housing & Resident Services
before it was presented to Cabinet. The two officers named in the report also
made additional efforts to work with you in advance of the tender given your
interest in the tiles.
In summary, I am confident that this procurement
was open and fair and that the award of the contract will therefore stand, as
formally agreed by Cabinet.
Yours sincerely,
Minesh Patel (Covering for the Chief Executive)
Corporate Director Finance and Resources
Finance and Resources
Brent Council’
Extract from the “How your complaint will be dealt with” section of
Brent’s website
My open letter to Brent’s Chief Executive was headed: “Formal complaint
over the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.’ You may have
noticed that the response from Brent does not mention the word “complaint”, and
the email subject line was simply ‘CRM:00000000488000000021’! And it does not
inform me of my right to request a final review (or of my right to involve the
Local Government Ombudsman if I am dissatisfied with the way my complaint was
dealt with). Is Brent Council now dealing with complaints by not even treating
them as complaints?
BRENT PLANNING COMMITTEE APPROVED THE EXTRA EVENTS APPLICATION WITH JUST ONE VOTE AGAINST. MINUTES WILL GO TO PLANNING COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF WIDER ISSUES RAISED.
The application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd (WNSL) for additional major events at the stadium will be heard at 6pm tonight. The officer's report to the Planning Committee can be read HERE. The public can attend the meeting in person at the Civic Centre or watch online HERE.
While the full report can be read on the link above I print below two significant extracts. Quintain Ltd is the owner of some land within the planning application area and their developments around the stadium now has a large number of residents, many of whom have become restive over the impact of Wembley events on their lives:
QUINTAIN COMMENTS
The proposal is supported
subject to the following conditions:
From reviewing the
representations submitted by local residents, it is clear that event day management, and in
particular stewarding and post-event cleaning, are areas of significant
concern. Therefore, WNSL should commit to paying all the operational and management
costs associated with the additional events and/or any event that exceeds the
existing caps of 22 sporting events and 24 non -sporting events in a calendar
year.
WNSL have highlighted the
success of the triparty ‘Best in Class’ initiative between WNSL, Quintain and
Brent, which currently manages the impacts of event days upon the local area
and state this will be implemented for the additional events. Whilst we agree
that the ‘Best in Class’ principles covering stewarding, parking enforcement,
traffic management, toilets and street cleaning should apply to the additional
events, the increased costs associated with delivering these should be borne
wholly by WNSL.
To ensure residents’ amenity
is adequately protected, WNSL should commit to the following restrictions on
events: a cap on the maximum number of consecutive non -sporting events; a cap on the maximum number
of non-sporting events per week; and a cap on the maximum number of weeks in any
calendar year where the maximum number of consecutive non -sporting events or
maximum number of non-sporting events in a week can be held.
The above conditions should
be included in the s.106 Agreement (Deed of Variation).
Should they not be secured,
Quintain reserve the right to make further representations. As a participant in the Best
in Class initiative, and owner of land within the planning application boundary where
many of these measures will take place, Quintain would expect to be consulted on the
Deed of Variation before it is completed
We would also request that
WNSL, TfL and Brent work closely on mitigating the impact Stadium events have upon
existing bus routes and services to ensure residents are able to carry on their
daily lives and move around the area on event days with the minimum of
disruption.
THE OFFICER REPORT CONCLUSIONS (original report paragraph numbers)
144. The objections received
indicate that there is a level of impact currently experienced by local residents as a result
of events at the Stadium, with concerns predominantly focussed on anti-social behaviour,
transport issues, air quality and noise. Some impacts are to be expected, given the size of
the Stadium and its siting in a location surrounded by residential properties and businesses,
within a dense urban area, although it must be remembered that a Stadium has been in situ for
over 100 years.
145. The original cap on
events was imposed to manage the impacts until such time as specific transport
improvements had been made. Whilst most of these have taken place, not all of them
have been realised. Circumstances have changed since the original planning
permission in 2002, which suggest that the final piece of transport
infrastructure (i.e., the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in its
originally envisaged form, but other changes to the road network have now taken
place. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.
146. Clearly, to increase
the number of higher capacity events to accommodate up to 8 additional major
non-sporting events per calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However,
a wide range of mitigation measures have previously been secured and would continue
to do so to help mitigate these impacts. There are ongoing efforts to reduce
the number of vehicles on an event day, including additional parking
enforcement capacity and an updated Spectator Travel Plan to promote
sustainable travel patterns. WNSL and public transport operators work closely
to promote sustainable transport solutions and maximise the efficiency of the
network. This in turn contributes to reducing noise and air quality issues.
147. Infrastructure works
including two-way working in the area to the east of the Stadium and the
opening of a link between the western end of North End Road and Bridge Road to
provide an east-west route past the Stadium that is capable of being kept open
at all times before and after Stadium events has improved traffic flow in the
area and assist residents’ movements on event days.
148. The Trusted Parking
Scheme aims to ensure authorised car parks are responsibly run in a way that would limit their
impact on neighbouring residents and reduce local congestion, whilst the
Private Hire Management Scheme would reduce the number of vehicles in the area around the Stadium after
events have finished.
149. Employment and Training
benefits for Brent residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.
150. With regard to
antisocial behaviour, a financial contribution would be paid by the Stadium to
Brent Council per additional major non-sporting event. This would go towards
mitigation measures as agreed between WNSL and the Council which may cover
measures to address anti-social behaviour.
151. Whilst it is
appreciated that local residents face challenges on event days, the direct economic benefits for the
local Brent economy of Stadium events are also recognised, including spending on
accommodation, food, drink and other ancillary items within the Wembley area. The uplift in
the event cap would also create additional event day steward and catering positions. Whilst
some types of business would suffer on event days, many would benefit from the influx of
people to the area.
152. In summary, it is
recognised that there is a level of impact associated with major events now, and that this would
increase with an increase in the number of high capacity major events. However, the measures
proposed would ensure that this is moderated as much as is reasonably achievable. All
are considered necessary to mitigate the increased number of major events which this
application proposes.
153. A further consideration
is that the Stadium can already be used for events up to 51,000 without restriction.
Existing mitigation measures would be extended to cover this increase. Measures including the
training and employment opportunities would apply more broadly to Stadium events, not just the
additional major non-sporting events for which permission is sought under this
application and would therefore provide wider benefits to local people and the local economy more
generally.
154. The proposal is
considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to material planning
considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts
associated with an increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting
events, a range of mitigation measures are proposed and some benefits are also
anticipated. The proposal is, on balance, recommended for approval.
Reading the report, although TfL mention the rail and tube routes they pay little attention to bus routes and their diversion and curtailment that impacts on residents.
Despite several protests over the curtailment of the 206 bus at Brent Park, affecting workers travelling to the industrial estates south of the stadium and school pupils when events are held on weekdays, no proposals are contained enabling the route to use the North End Road link.
Speakers were not allowed at the Barham Park Trust meeting yesterday, once again limiting the scrutiny of Trustees who are all Brent Cabinet members. Yesterday the accounts had to be withdrawn. Cllr Paul Lorber today write to Brent Council's Chief Executive:
Last year I challenged the accuracy of the 2022-23 Barham Park Trust Accounts (the Charity)
I pointed out that they were wrong because:
They were wrong on the basis they were prepared and presented. They did not show correct information in a clear and transparent way.
They were wrong because they did not reflect the correct rent due to the Charity.
They were wrong because they did not show the Service Charges due to the Charity.
They were wrong because they did not show the correct service charges due to the Charity.
They were wrong because around £20,000 of architects charges that were authorised to be paid by the Council were charged to the Charity without authority.
They are wrong because insufficient interest was paid to the Charity by Brent Council for use of the Charity’s Cash balance.
They were wrong because expenditures incurred on behalf of the Charity by the Council were not shown in the Accounts.
They were wrong in many other aspects too many to list here.
My concerns were discussed at a meeting with you and the Director of Finance.
I did not accept the explanations and justifications given as I consider them to be wrong and flawed.
The 2022-23 Accounts were withdrawn from the Barham Trust Meeting in September 2023 and only represented in January 2024. In my view they were still wrong.
You asked for a “top level review” of those accounts without ever being willing to confirm who undertook the review or whether they were qualified in the field of Charity accounts to undertake it.
The conclusion you reported to the Trust was that there was nothing wrong with the accounts but that the presentation of the Accounts could be “more clear and transparent”.
Just over a week ago the 2023-24 Accounts were published as part of the papers for the Barham Park Trust meeting on 10 September 2024.
I challenged those accounts because they were neither “clear or transparent” and because as in the previous year they were wrong. I advised the Director of Finance and other officers of my concerns and pointed out many errors and discrepancies, requesting replies before the meeting.
I did not receive any substantive replies.
The Accounts are once again wrong and misleading.
You are not an accountant and rely on advice of others who are. I did however point out to you the importance of accurate and clear accounts. Without accuracy and clarity decision makers cannot make the right decisions. Wrong decisions have major consequences as they have for the Barham Park Trust for many years - money is wasted and wrong decisions are made.
Without any explanations from the Director of Finance or any questions from the Trustees the 2023-24 Accounts for the Charity were once again pulled from the Agenda at the last minute.
That is the 2nd time in 2 years. Why - because they are wrong and misleading. I am right and your finance officers are wrong.
This has now turned into a major credibility issue for:
You
Director of Finance and his Team
Leader of Brent Council and all the other Trustees
The Independent Examiner
Brent Council
If something as simple as the Accounts for a small Barham Park Trust Charity are wrong and have to be withdrawn two years running how can anyone have confidence in Brent Council’s own accounts. How much in failed income collections or inappropriate expenditure do those accounts hide?
I, Scrutiny Committee and the whole Council were fobbed off last year by the so called ‘Top Level Review’.
That cannot happen again.
The Barham Park Trust accounts must be produced and presented on the accruals basis (the same as is done for Brent Council’s accounts) so that they show clearly and in sufficient detail and clarity the Income and Expenditure of the Charity and its Assets and Liabilities. The accounts should show clearly the income from rents due (receivable) by the Charity in any one year in its Income and Expenditure Account and any amounts due to its debtors within the balance sheet. They should also show clearly the cost of services incurred and donated by the Council to support the Charity. Only then will a reader of those accounts see the true picture.
It is clear to me that the Brent Finance Department do not understand and lack the experience of producing Charity Accounts. The task should be handed over to a competent person with the necessary skills and knowledge to do so.
Many wrong decisions were made at the meeting on 10 September 2024 partly as a result of the failure to fully understand the financial position of the Charity. This is partly due to the wrong accounts and lack of understanding of the true position of the Charity. Those decisions will be challenged and they should be reviewed.
As I care about Barham Park and believe that its affairs need to be managed properly I am happy to provide my services and accounting experience and advice free of charge.
I look forward to your early reply as to how this mess will be sorted.
Regards
Paul
PS. For the avoidance of doubt Friends of Braham Library pay their rent and are not one of the current tenants who owe any rent to the Charity.
The petition calling on Brent Council to hold a wider consultation on Wembley Stadium's application to hold more large events was presented to the Cabinet yesterday. Presenting the petition Cllr Paul Lorber first declared an interest in having received tickets for events at the stadium that he had then passed on to residents. At the beginning of the meeting Cllr Muhammed Butt asked his Cabinet colleagues if they had any interests to declare and they remained silent - as did he.
The petition has been added to the end of this post. It points out the impact of events on residents and asks for a public meeting where residents can express their views and the Council respond accordingly. Cllr Lorber pointed out that two representations at tomorrow's decision making Planning Committee, of only a few minutes each, was not sufficient to represent the widespread concerns.
There was no direct response to that request from the Cabinet.
Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Planning and Regeneration was circumspect in her answer, acknowledging the potential for a contribution to be seen as predetermination of the application. She spoke of the need to balance the interests of residents with the economic drive that the stadium gives to Wembley. She said she did not want to comment any further as the planning application is live.
Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt showed no such inhibitions:
The stadium has been here longer than all of us have been born and makes a significant contribution, not just to Wembley but to the UK. The various events adds to the value of what we plan to do with working with the stadium, for it to be the great stadium it is, and also to make sure we keep our commitment and support for our residents as well.
The applications goes to Planning Committee tomorrow (Wednesday) at 6pm. Apart from the 274 signature petition there are 166 objections and just six in support. However, planning officers recommend that the Committee approve the application alongside various mitigations LINK:
The
proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to
material planning
considerations. While there will inevitably be some additional impacts
associated withan increase in the number of higher capacity non-sporting
events, a range of mitigation measures
are proposed and some benefits are also anticipated. The proposal is, on
balance, recommended
for approval
THE PETITION
We the
undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local
residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of
"Large" Events at Wembley Stadium
Plans for
the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events
per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large
Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to
increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.
Large Events
at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business -
especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.
We call on
Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an
extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the
social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the
Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.
We believe
that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and
informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and
documented before any decision is made.
