Local councillors kept in the dark over South Kilburn evictions

117 families have been given eviction notices in just two buildings in South Kilburn, Hereford House and Exeter House.  Most of the families have lived on South Kilburn for some time and a few more than 5 years.  There are 92 tenants at Hereford House and 25 at Exeter Court.

Local councillors were not told of two meetings that were held in Kilburn about the evictions.

Bremnt Council's Housing Needs Service held a meeting at Granville Centre on September 25th to inform non-secure tenants of their options regarding moving on. They said the Regeneration Team needs vacant possession for the next stage of  development and they have been asked to relocate all tenants by July 5th 2019.

Residents were told that the options available depended on their circumstances such as the number of bedrooms needed and the length of time they have been accepted as homeless. Options included relocation into alternative temporary accommodation, the private sector or social housing.

The Service apologised for  not inviting any local councillors to the meeting. They said they normally invite the lead member for housing to User Forums and she can pass on the invitation to other councillors.

NEVER AGAIN! Social & private tenants demand immediate recladding of flammable homes & protection from fire and cold

An Open Letter to James Brokenshire, signed by over 100 organisations, MPs, councillors, architects and other relevant experts, and by residents of blocks affected by this national disaster, will be delivered with a demonstration at Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government between 1 and 2 pm on 17 October.  The letter will demand immediate recladding of flammable homes, and that residents must be kept safe both from fire and from cold, until this work is completed. During the re-cladding process tower blocks can be left freezing without cladding and insulation for months or even years.  

The letter will be delivered by tower block residents from both social housing and private blocks, including residents of social housing blocks in Salford that have been denied access to government funding. 

They will be supported on the day by Fuel Poverty Action, who initiated the Open Letter and organised this Day of Action,and by members of the Grenfell community, trade unionists, housing organisations, and many others who fear more deaths this winter.

Demonstrators will then go on to an event at the House of Commons from 3 - 5 pm hosted by Grenfell MP Emma Dent Coad.

Also part of the Day of Action are a solidarity demonstration outside the UK embassy in Brussels, organised by the Right to Energy Coalition, and a public meeting organised Southwark Group of Tenants Organisations focusing on how residents’ organisations are being bypassed and disempowered, even as everyone acknowledges that residents’ voices are key to keeping buildings safe.   

Ruth London from Fuel Poverty Action says:

No one can claim that tower block residents are responsible for the cladding on their buildings, yet they are the ones who are paying for this disaster in UK housing, with their health, with their food money or savings, and with their lives.  No wonder so many people are saying ‘No - never again! No more deaths from fire, no more deaths from cold!.’ The pressure on the Secretary of State will only increase until the government fulfills its promise to keep people safe in the homes where they live and put their children to sleep.  

Matt Wrack, of the Fire Brigades Union has supported this initiative:  

The Fire Brigades Union called for a universal ban on these flammable materials. Many firefighters and residents of high rise residential buildings wanted more comprehensive action taken against flammable cladding.  Flammable cladding needs to be removed and banned. But it also needs to be replaced before winter. If insulation is removed without being replaced, some of the most vulnerable members of our society will be left freezing, in poor health or in poverty due to extortionate heating bills.  That’s why this Open Letter is so crucial.

Elizabeth Okpo from Spruce Court in Salford says:

We still have the cladding on our building and other issues just the same as Grenfell Tower and we are living in terror.  I look at the children in our block, and I can’t bear to think of what could happen.  I go to bed with a bible, and wake up thanking God I am still alive.  They have only taken the cladding off the bottom three floors, and on those floors people were freezing last winter because there was no insulation.

The Open Letter can be seen online here; the final list of signatories will be available on Tuesday 16 October.  

Children's half-term activities at Welsh Harp Centre

Brent Council brickwalls Cllr Abdi's second complaint against Muhammed Butt

Brent Council's Chief Legal officer, Debra Norman, has turned down Cllr Abdirazak's reformulated complaint against Labour Leader, Cllr Muhammed Butt.

Norman refused the first complaint, breach of Members' Code of Conduct, on the grounds that Butt's actions were a Labour Party issue. Cllr Abdi then issued a second complaint, this time of political interference in the planning process, and Norman again says this is not a Council matter as Butt was operating in his party role:

Your complaint is in essence the same complaint as the previous one.  It remains the case that decisions about nominations to the Labour Group’s allocated seats on the Panning Committee are a party group matter.  Involvement by Cllr Butt in that process was a party group activity and not activity in his capacity as a councillor. 

I can only consider an allegation of political interference in Brent’s planning system by Cllr M Butt on the basis of evidence of actions in his capacity as a councillor.

As indicated in my decision in respect of your complaint, my decision on it was final, as provided for in the council’s procedure for dealing with such complaints.  There is no available appeal or complaint mechanism in relation to that decision.

It now appears that the only route open to Cllr Abdi is through the Labour Party's own disciplinary and complaints procedure.

This may seem to be a storm in a Labour Party tea cup but it has great significance for Brent residents who feel the planning system is out of control with high rise blocks being approved across the borough, often not complying with the borough's own planning guidelines, and in the teeth of opposition from local people.

-->

Brent Disability Forum 6-8pm tonight Harlesden Methodist Church

Book: sophia.thompson@brent.gov.uk

Cllr Abdi escalates complaint, alleging Cllr Butt's political interference in Brent Council's planning process

Cllr Abdirazak Abdi has been told that his complaint against Cllr Butt does not come under the members' Code of Contract. Debra Norman, Brent Council's Chief Legal officer said:

The decision by the Labour Group to nominate another member of your group to the Planning Committee was entirely a political group matter. The handling of complaints relating to political group activities, especially the alleged failure to comply with the Labour Group’s standing orders or the rules of natural justice, is a political group disciplinary matter. It is not a council matter and the obligations set out in the code do not apply.

Cllr Abdi replied:

Thank you for your response about my members’ code of conduct complaint against Cllr M Butt.

I would like to make an explicit allegation of political interference in Brent’s planning system by Cllr M Butt.

Cllr M Butt concealed the real reason for his decision on 09 July 2018 by providing an explanation which seemed plausible without scrutiny but which he later changed on 27 July 2018, to provide an alternative basis. 

On 27 July 2018, Cllr M Butt conceded that the reason for his decision on 09 July was due to my voting record, ‘In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous applications’ excerpt from Cllr M Butt’s e-mail on 27 July 2018. 

I assert that Cllr M Butt interfered with Brent’s Planning system and then tried to make false accusations in regards to my competence, preparedness and conduct in the planning committee. These accusations were not put to me at the time and I wasn’t given an opportunity to challenge.

Again please get in touch, if you decide to investigate this complaint, so I can provide the relevant information I hold. Please use the information I provided in my earlier correspondence as basis to assess the merits of this complaint.

If you decide, to not investigate this complaint under members’ code of conduct.  I’d like to make a formal complaint against the council for not taking my allegations seriously.

Wembley's 'Twin Towers' 11 storeys up - 15 more to come!

Shoppers in Wembley High Road, football fans and of course local residents can't fail but notice Wembley's 'Twin Towers' rising on the Chesterfield House site at the corner of the Wembley High Road. What they may not realise is that with 11 or so storeys completed that there are another 15 to be built.

It is going to be a monster.

The 'Twin Towers' encountered tremendous opposition at the planning stage and were approved on the vote of only four councillors on Brent Planning Committee. There were 4 votes for the development, 2 against and 2 abstentions.  Details HERE.

Leader of Brent Council accused of breaching the Members' Code of Conduct over Planning Committee intervention

 

A previous Butt planning controversy

Whether it is because he is in thrall to the glossy world of developers or  because he suffers from a particularly bad case of Kilburnphobia, it is clear that all is not well with Muhammed Butt.

Behind the scenes the saga of Cllr Abdirazak Abdi’s removal from Brent Council Planning Committee has been burning away, emerging now and then in the Letters column of the Kilburn Times, and has now reached a crucial point. It is widely alleged that Abdi had been removed because he did not vote the ‘right way’, that is the way the Leader expected members to vote, although members on the Planning Committe cannot be whipped.

Cllr Abdi has submitted a Formal Complaint against Cllr Butt for breaching the Members;’ Code of Conduct.

The complaint, which has been seen by members of the Labour Group on Brent Council, sets out the background to the issue in detail and was sent to Debra Norman, Brent Council’s Chief Legal Officer.

I believe Cllr M Butt has breached the following Principles of Conduct in Public Life.

1. Objectivity. Failure to consult on the reasons why Cllr Abdi needed to be removed from the Planning Committee with Labour Group officers/Steering group in accordance with Labour Group standing orders.

2. Objectivity. The decision to remove Cllr Abdi from the Planning Committee cannot be justified based on the reasons provided by Cllr M Butt on 09 July 2018 and on the available information. Cllr Abdi is one of only two members on the Planning Committee who was not serving on any other committee (at the time). While 16 Councillors serve on 2 or more committees,11 serve on 3 committees and 5 serve on 4 or more committees.

3. Objectivity/openness. The justification given to Cllr Abdi by Cllr M Butt on 09 July, is not rational. If the purpose was to make sure all councillors serve on committees, why remove Cllr Abdi from the only committee he was on? (at the time).

4. Objectivity/Honesty/Openness. Cllr M Butt did not disclose the full reasons for the removal of Cllr Abdi from the Planning Committee (Please see emails on 09^th/ 27^th July 2018 from Cllr M Butt). This can be seen as misleading for not disclosing this information at the time. Breach of the rules of natural justice, right to be heard. Cllr Abdi was not given the evidence against him and even had Cllr Butt’s allegations against him been justified, Cllr Abdi was not given an opportunity to respond and challenge or develop in the role, before being removed from the Planning Committee.

5. Leadership. Lack of leadership for breaching the members’ Code of Conduct.

Muhammed Butt initially stated that Cllr Abdi had been removed from Planning Committee to make room for one of the new Willesden Green councillors elected in the by-election after the full council elections.  He said at the time that he thought Abdi was on another committee.

After protests Butt wrote to Cllr Abdi changing his grounds in a letter that manages to be both insulting and patronising accusing his colleague of posturing and pandering (to the public?) and threatening him with the Code of Conduct. Furthermore he brings council officers into the dispute sugegsting that they had ‘grave concerns’ over Abdi’s conduct. At one point he appears to suggest that councillors have to follow ‘prevailing expert guidance’ on planning issues. Does this mean the Committee should always rubber-stamp officers’ recoemmendations?

Dear Abdi,

I thought it would be helpful to try and clear up the mess that we find ourselves in.

Obviously we are at odds with regard to the recent change in your Planning Committee membership status. As Leader I have a number of obligations. In this instance I was caught between protecting this administration, and helping you, as a new member of Labour Group, avoid public embarrassment. In appointing you to Planning Committee I had hoped that you would take full advantage of the many opportunities available to grow into the role. Instead, it quickly became apparent that you were not prepared for the responsibility, nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice. Senior officers, committee colleagues, and experienced observers alike all expressed grave concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and in failing to properly prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and this organisation to justifiable claims of bias, predetermination, and incompetence, not to mention reputational damage.

Your actions since have only served to reinforce my fears that you do not yet understand your role. For example, in making internal Group matters public you have broken party rules. And, in condoning your branch’s potentially libellous motion, you have exposed yourself to civil action. However, given the circumstances, I do not think it appropriate to take formal action. Indeed, I think it would be wise to put this down to naivety and inexperience, albeit on the proviso that any further such conduct will not be tolerated. Please understand that you have a mandate from the people of Kilburn, are governed by the rules of our party, and must adhere to this council’s code of conduct. As a result you have an obligation to do more than posture or panda to a vocal if ill-informed minority.

On reflection, I should have been explicit on the need for this change. I realise that you were caught off-guard by the speed with which things occurred. While the same cannot be said for your subsequent actions, I can see now that your immediate reaction was understandably indignant. With the benefit of hindsight I am sure we could have gotten to this point without incident and I apologise for not having found another way forward. I do believe that you have what it takes to be an effective local councillor and a valuable member of Labour Group. You are clearly a keen and well intentioned advocate as evident in your already impressive casework record, which is why it is such a shame that we have started out on this poor footing.

I hope you understand that, as an official substitute, you have the opportunity to redeem yourself on Planning Committee and moving forward any other committee, and that you will now avail yourself of the support and advice available. In the meantime, I’d be very grateful if you’d consider becoming a member of Brent’s Pension Board. You’d be tasked with overseeing the management of hundreds of millions of pounds of investments on behalf of this organisation’s past, present, and future employees. While the board meets quarterly, given the subject matter, I’m sure you can appreciate that a lot of interesting and important work goes on in between. If that sounds like something you’d be interested in, do please let me know.

In closing, if you ever want to talk anything through on this or any other matter you will always find my door open.

Cllr Abdirazak responded: 

Thank you for your email on 27 July 2018, explaining your decision on09 July 2018 to remove me from the Planning Committee. I am writing to reapond to your accusations and to again provide my view of why I was removed from the Planning Committee.

I would like to make several observations and comments on the allegations you make in your email, ‘it quickly became apparent that you were not prepared for the responsibility, nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice. Senior officers, committee colleagues and experienced observers alike all expressed grave concerns about your conduct. In taking unsubstantiated positions on numerous applications, counter to prevailing expert guidance, and in failing to properly prepare for meetings, you were exposing yourself and this organisation to justifiable claims of bias, predetermination and incompetence, not to mention reputational damage.’

Comments: The timing and context of these new accusations, you are making are very convenient, considering the following:

On 09 July 2018 when you first informed me of your decision, you said there following, “we are making quite a few changes on committees today right and er I am going to make you an alternate on planning right, because I need to put Elliot Chappell and three of the new councillors on committees. I am making those changes right” I objected and I said “I am not happy” and you said “You’re on scrutiny as well”. I said “No” and then I followed up by saying “you do what you have to do and I will do what I have to do but I am not happy with it and I am not going to accept it”. You provided a clear and explicit reason for your decision to make a change on the planning committee above, and you are now providing a completely different reason without any substantiating evidence, it seems like you are trying to cover up the faults of your original decision to remove me from the planning committee.

The subsequent revised reason you provided on your e-mail dated 27 July, explaining your decision to remove me from the planning committee, was made after I made my accusations of the possibility of political interference in the planning process. In an e-mail sent to labour group members on 09 July 2018 at 17:44. This further explanation was provided after you had already provided a reason (above) and after three weeks had elapsed from your decision on 09 July 2018.

In response to your accusation ‘nor willing to accept the multiple offers of impartial help and advice’. I did not receive any offers of help, advice or guidance as claimed. Further no one, either the Chair, deputy Chair, committee members or officers, discussed or made any concerns known to me about my decision-making or preparedness on the planning committee. I would appreciate any evidence or communications that you have in this regard.

In fact, on 16 May 2018 after the mandatory planning committee training session I expressed concerns to the deputy Chair of the planning committee, about you and Shama Tatler’s conduct. On 16 May 2018 We had a mandatory training session on planning. Please see my account of the training session. ‘The session was led by Alice Leicester Head of Planning and David Glover a senior planning Officer. The Lead member for regeneration, Shama Tatler also significantly contributed, and raised new points while elaborating on the points in the training. She sat next to the lead officers. I felt this was inappropriate as this training was tainted by the political agenda of the leadership in the council. Half way through the same training session Cllr Muhammad Butt came in and sat down, next to the other members, he opened his tablet computer and began to look at the tablet screen and type on his keyboard, throughout the session. He was not there to learn, which was obvious to me from his actions but to pressure members to fully accept and act on the information that was being imparted on to us. I felt this was inappropriate as the planning committee is independent and members were being influenced towards a certain political agenda.

Every decision I took on the planning committee, I made based on material planning considerations, as the committee approved all these decisions. I was not asked and neither did I provide explicit reasons for voting in any particular way. 

It seems like you are making an implicit suggestion that officers’ recommendations have to always be accepted, in response to your suggestion. What is the purpose of having a planning committee, if we always have to approve the officers’ recommendations?

I would like to also make this further observation about the lead member for regeneration Shama Tatler. On 25 June 2018, we had a Planning committee members’ briefing from developers looking to submit their planning applications. The lead member for regeneration, Shama Tatler, sat in on part, of this briefing. Her presence was not helpful as she was neither a committee member nor a substitute and because it could dissuade members from asking questions and being open to raise issues early on in the process, so the developers can amend their applications. 

In short, I believe I was removed from the planning committee because I voted against planning applications favoured by you and Shama Tatler and not for the reasons currently claimed; lack of capability, ineptitude or lack of preparedness. If these reasons provided were true, then there would be concrete evidence that these issues, mentioned above, were brought to my attention, an opportunity provided for me to refute or comment, and if needed a development plan put in place. There is no evidence of any of these steps being taken and this is a convenient reason provided to defend against the accusations I’ve made.