Social cleansing? Somali women protest at being forced out of Brent

Against the background of the new blocks being built by Quintain, unaffordable for local families, Somali women protested outside Brent Civic Centre this week. Their message was clear: Somali families as a result of the housing crisis are being forced out of Brent by the Council disrupting family links and the education of their children.

@Selina_Bakkar tweeted Cllr Butt from the demonstration and asked him to come out and meet the women, saying 'Can you come out and speak to the women. They are fighting for their children not to be displaced':

Modern day ethnic cleansing? The claim- Somali families are being pushed out of Brent. Some families are being forced to pay thousands to stay or children are being moved whilst studying for their GCSE's.

Brent Council tweeted back:

Brent Council takes every household’s needs into consideration with every housing offer made. We give priority to homeless applicants with children taking GCSEs to be rehoused in Brent. But when this is not possible due to a lack of affordable accommodation, we offer homeless households the opportunity to move out of unsatisfactory b&b accommodation and into good quality, permanent accommodation within reasonable travelling distance to their priorities.

Selina responded with the evidence below of a family being moved to Hatfield:

She claimed this was breaching the Council's statement regarding priority being given to GCSE students and said,  'This is causing the family distress at a crucial time especially for the young girls sitting exams. Has the regeneration accommodated for existing residence or is the solution to push them out?'

Police asked to probe Brent Tory candidate death rumours

Richard Osley LINK is reporting that Brent Conservatives have asked police to investigate rumours being spread that one of their candidates in tomorrow's council election has died.

Unfortunately this comes after the death of Labour candidate Lesley Jones resulting in a delay in the Willesden Green election.

The Brent Returning Officer has asked election agents to remind candidates that the spreading of false statements about a candidate is an illegal practice. 

In addition alleged malpractice in the filling in of postal votes has been reported to police in Dollis Hill ward.

Brent Council turns down Queensbury Pub plans

In a damning decision notice Brent Council has thrown out the developer's plans for the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green. They cite massing, poor design, inadequate standard of accommodation, failure to provide maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing,  lack of control of carbon dioxide emissions and impact on parking and transport infrastructure.

The decision notice states:


The scheme does not comply with guidance and the pre-application advice received has not been adhered to:
 

The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality. The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result, the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide.

The proposed development would not provide an adequate overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8, AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts, narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Developmen Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015). 

The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March  2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft London Plan. 

 In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the proposal would be contrary to London Plan  consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3 and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014).

In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter, the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12.

-->

Cllr Mashari launches Brent Council leadership bid as 'unity' candidate

Cllr Roxanne Mashari (Labour Welsh Harp) has announced that she will stand against Muhammed Butt for leadership of Brent Council at the Labour Group’s AGM on Saturday.

Mashari told the Kilburn Times LINK:

It’s a strictly positive campaign. I’m standing to try and be a unity candidate, build on the progress we’ve made since 2010 and take the council and the borough to the next level.
 
The scale of the challenges we face, we are going to have to be more transformative in our approach.
There are huge levels of destitution and poverty in the borough which are already too high, consistent in areas like South Kilburn, Stonebridge and Harlesden for decades. We have to change the story of this borough in fundamental areas.

I’m not talking about tinkering around the edges – I’m talking about a real shift in terms of how we operate and how we focus. 

This is not about disparaging anyone. It’s not to say we haven’t made progress or Cllr Butt hasn’t done good things. We are in a critical point in time for Brent with service savings to make, the universal credit roll-out, and foodbanks at capacity – now it’s time to take things up a step and be transformative. I want to see Brent be a flagship Labour council in the UK and that’s where I want to take us.

Kishan Parshotam, who co-chaired Brent Youth parliament with Cllr Mashari said:

Roxanne has always been a champion for equal rights. She was a fantastic Co-Chair of BYP and helped it go from strength to strength. She would be an admirable, and tenacious, leader of the Council during the next difficult chapter for our borough.

Cllr Mashari resigned from the Brent Cabinet in December 2016 LINK

Previous leadership bids by Cllr Nerva and Cllr Pavey have failed to remove Cllr Butt but there is increased disquiet now over his leadership particularly regarding the issues outlined in the article below and decisions such as that regarding the Wembley Stadium steps and meetings with developers.

Will it be 'One man' Brent on top of 'One party'?

The 2014 Brent Council result

Muhammed Butt, currently Leader of Brent Labour group and Brent Council, has made no secret of the fact that he wants to sweep the board in tomorrow's election and defeat the Tories in Kenton and Brondesbury Park and the independent seat in Mapesbury.  On the one hand 'that's democracy' as Labour in Islington has argued, as they pour resources into defeating the lone Green councillor Caroline Russell.

On the other hand what does it say about respect for democracy in that they are wanting to wipe out all opposition? Does it betray a belief that all wisdom only exists in only one party and that any opposition is by its very nature an irritant or even a betrayal?

The situation is made worse by the adoption of a Cabinet system where all decisions are made by a group of 8 people.  Hitherto in Brent the only say backbench Labour Group councillors have had in that selection is to elect Cabinet members and the leader  then distributes the portfolios.

I understand that Muhammed Butt is hoping to change things at the Annual General Meeting, which is being held almost immediately after the election on Saturday.  I am reliably informed that he wants to make the leadership position a  four year term, rather than the present two years, which he successfully changed from an annual election. He is also said to want to make Cabinet positions two year, rather than the present one year,

Exploiting an ambiguity in the Labour Group's Standing Orders it is suggested that he wants to appoint Cabinet members himself rather than have the Labour Group select from their number. Sources are unclear about whether this would also extend to Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees and Chair of the Planning Committee.  The latter is statutorily supposed to be independent and it is to the advantage of democracy, as the late Dan Filson showed,  if scrutiny chairs are also robustly independent.  If they owe their position to the patronage of the leader that clearly reduces their independence - especially if that leader has a controlling personality.

It is unclear whether there will be any challenge to Butt's leadership and the closeness of the AGM to the election means that there will be little time to muster supporters by any challenger. As I understand it there is no plan at the moment to delay the AGM because of the postponed Willesden Green poll, which raises an additional issue over the posiiton of Tom Miller, a Willesden Green candidiate and currently a Cabinet member. Will he be eligible for a Cabinet position?

These are all good reasons for moving  to a Committee system rather than a Cabinet system . A Committee system, means decisions are made by a broader group of councillors - even if they are all of one party. Personally I feel that Brent is the poorer for not having an Education Committee and that some of the recent controversies over academisation would have been better dealt with if it had.

A wider question arising from the 'that's democracy' statement is, 'Is it democracy?' How are the thousands of people who voted other than Labour to be represented? This is the proportion of the vote for each party in the 2014 election. About half of those who voted, voted for a party other than Labour.  A proportional voting system would give the combined opposition sufficient seats to contribute to decision making and hold the majority group to account. Regardless of party label this would allow a wider range of people with skills and experience to contribute to the running of the Council to the advantage of the people of Brent. 

Fury over trees 'hacked down' in South Way, Wembley

I have received a message from a local resident about the destruction of trees on South Way, Wembley. The heartfelt email speaks for itself so I have published it below:

Following on from your piece about the concrete jungle Brent Council are creating LINK  we went to Wembley Stadium last week and these huge beautiful trees in South Way (see screen grab above) along the side of Mahatma Gandhi house development site were still there - last night we walked past and they had all been hacked down, I was so shocked and infuriated, I simply could not believe what I was seeing!!!

First question is - why were they hacked down?  They appear to be on the pavement as they are in line with the road sign?  Several other beautiful trees which were within the blue hoardings were cut down late last year/earlier this year - the developers managed to demolish the whole of Mahatma Ghandi house without cutting down these trees outside the blue hoardings so why have they cut them down now?  

Second question is  - isn't this illegal during nesting season?

Third question is  - when are Brent Council going to stop the total obliteration of anything green in Brent? 

They have this on Brent Council website asking for Community Air Quality Champions LINK and then the let the developers oversee the removal of these beautiful trees during the nesting season.

The destruction of these valuable trees comes on top of all the trees they allowed developers to hack down on Olympic Way and at the Brent House development site too - also 4 trees on the traffic island which were removed by the road was dug up for the sewer works.

I have been trying to get Brent to confirm how many trees they have cut down in our Wembley Central and Alperton wards in the past 2 years - I have a list of 134 trees but they sent me a list of just 23 trees which is totally inaccurate - they have no idea what they are doing or what their contractors and the developers are doing.

Please raise this issue re the loss of more trees.

https://www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/When-is-the-bird-nest-season

https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-guides/ask-an-expert/previous/treefelling.aspx

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/wild-birds-surveys-and-mitigation-for-development-projects

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/Dandy_Marzano_Stewart_Moseley_Lawrence_2012_ICF_Street_Trees.pdf/$FILE/Dandy_Marzano_Stewart_Moseley_Lawrence_2012_ICF_Street_Trees.pdf

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/22_benefits_208084_7.pdf

'Greens best placed to represent us' - Wembley resident

 

The Heron House development

A prominent local resident has taken the unusual decision to write to friends and neighbours about the forthcoming local election.

This is what she had to say:

 Save Wembley From Becoming A Total Concrete Jungle - Please Read Urgently!

Dear Friends and Neighbours,

I would never normally try to influence you on how to vote on Thursday, but desperate times call for desperate measures!

Who can best represent us on the contentious issues of the Regeneration of Wembley? The GREEN PARTY are fielding candidates and in other wards, hopefully an INDEPENDENT.  These may be the very best people to represent us.

I am certainly not against progress and the Regeneration will hopefully bring jobs and prosperity to Brent, but there has to be a sensible balance! This has not happened. Do we really want to see the future of Wembley to be entirely covered in concrete with multi-storey buildings? It would be a nightmare with all the extra congestion,  but that is the way it appears to be going.   Does the Council not think anything is worth preserving of the existing houses, bungalows and flats in Wembley?  I appreciate that the Regeneration of the Stadium and Wembley High Road areas are a "done deal", but we must do better in preserving the other areas of Wembley, which do not fall within the Regeneration.  These could soon also be under threat, so this is why we must act now.

Once they start knocking down a building on a residential  street to build something higher, do you really think they will stop there? It just sets a dangerous precedent for other smaller construction companies to also apply for permission to do the same. Brook Avenue is a case in point. I am sure it will not be long before all the houses with their gardens will be converted to concrete buildings.

The residents fought long and hard to try and stop Heron House on Wembley Hill Road from being turned into a much higher building, but despite all our efforts they received planning permission. Once built, this will certainly start to change the residential character  of Wembley Hill Road. Where will it end?

Quintain promised the residents that they would not only replace every tree which was destroyed, but plant many others around the tall buildings.  This has not happened either.  They will be building a small park, but that is not the same, as it is amongst the very dense high rises that we need more trees and bushes to combat the increased pollution.

Trees do not only enhance an area, they are vital for our good health and well being.  Pollution levels will rise due to the density of the new buildings and this will adversely affect everyone.  We desperately need cleaner air and amongst other things, the best way is to plant as many trees as possible.  I strongly feel that the GREEN PARTY would be the very best party to achieve this and to help us preserve the areas of Wembley we want to continue to live in.

The future of what Wembley will look like in the next 4 years is down to us. Vote wisely!

Warmest wishes

-->

Has Cllr Butt put himself in situations where his integrity can be questioned?

Philip Grant submitted a comment on the 'Dinners with Developers' story posted earlier but I think the comment deserves a post in its own right:

 It is not so much "dinners with developers" that is the issue here.

It has been confirmed that an hour-long meeting took place on the morning of 6 April 2016 IN THE LEADER'S OFFICE between Cllr. Butt, Aktar Choudhury (Operational Director, Regeneration), Terrapin Communications and their client R55.

Debra Norman has told John Duffy: 'There are no minutes of this meeting, but I am informed by Aktar that the meeting was informal and the developers spoke about their Minavel House site in general and the good progress they were making in bringing forward their proposals.'

She later added, in response to a further question from Cllr. Duffy: 'You have asked below whether it is usual that there were no minutes were taken. Yes, given the nature of the meeting it is usual that no minutes were taken.' But as has been set out previously on "Wembley Matters", there has been specific guidance in place from the Local Government Association for the past few years that a Council Officer should attend any such meeting with a developer, and make a written minute of the discussions, a document which the public should be able to read.

Terrapin Communications was also representing Hub, and although Hub were not present at that meeting, it would have been possible for Terrapin to mention something encouraging support for Hub's Chesterfield House planning application, which (by coincidence?) was being considered by Brent's Planning Committee that evening. In the absence of minutes prepared by a Council Officer, there is no evidence as to whether, or not, that matter was raised.

An FoI last autumn revealed that Terrapin Communications also had a meeting with Cllr. Butt on the eve of the Minavil House planning application being approved by Brent's Planning Committee (another coincidence?). Again, no minutes were taken by a Council Officer of those discussions.

The issue here is whether Cllr. Butt may have interfered with Brent's proper Planning process, which he is specifically not allowed to do.

There is a "hearsay" allegation (from an unnamed Brent Labour backbencher - NOT Cllr. Duffy) that several Labour councillors on the Planning Committee have admitted privately that Cllr. Butt had instructed them how to vote on particular planning applications. Ms Norman was not able to take any action over these allegations, as none of the Labour councillors allegedly involved was willing to go "on record" over this.

Nothing has (yet) been proved against Cllr. Butt, but one of the requirements under the Code of Conduct for people in public life (including councillors and Council Officers) is that you should not put yourself in situations where your integrity could be called into question.

By holding meetings with developers or their representatives (such as Terrapin Communications), close to major planning decisions with which they are involved, and not ensuring that proper minutes are kept of those discussions, Cllr. Butt HAS put himself in a position where his integrity could be called into question.