Hear from local London Assembly candidates on Wednesday and ask them a question 7-9pm

 From Brent Friends of the Earth

Join the Brent Friends of the Earth and London Assembly candidates to hear how they plan to tackle the climate crisis. Wednesday 7-9pm

About this Event

An opportunity to hear from the local London Assembly candidates about how they will address the Climate Emergency and other environmental challenges. The candidates will outline their existing proposals and respond to questions from local groups as well as the wider community.

REGISTER HERE

Note - due to a glitch you cannot register if you leave the question box blank. If you do not wish to ask a question just type 'No question' in the box and you will be able to register. 

Brent planners recommend approval of more full capacity non-sporting events at Wembley Stadium despite opposition from locals fearing for their quality of life

 Lucrative

Recently it has often seemed that planning officers speak directly on behalf of developers at Brent Planning Committee, rather than giving a balanced view in the light of an application's short-comings and the submissions of local residents.

Wednesday's application by Wembley National Stadium Ltd to increase the number of full capacity non-sporting events, an attendance of up to 90,000 rather than 51,000, is no exception.

The proposal:

Planning officers state:

Many objectors consider that the number of events currently held at the stadium already has an unacceptable level of impact on local residents. However, it should be borne in mind that this application does not affect the number of events that take place at the Stadium, just the capacity of the crowd. Unlimited events at up to 51,000 can take place within the terms of the existing planning consent. Additional mitigation measures would be secured. Some of these measures would relate to all major events and some would relate to the additional non-sporting events. These mitigation measures  are considered to be sufficient to warrant the additional 9 full capacity events proposed.

They later remark:

 WNSL do not currently intent to hold concerts on more than four consecutive nights.

Note the 'currently'.

Live music events contributed substantially to WNSL's income in the past and went into deficit when music events were scaled back from the 2015-16 and this is clearly an attempt to to retrieve the position. LINK

There were 37 representations made on the planning portal, including one from Barn Hill Residents Assocation. All but 2 were opposed to the application, one was in favour and 2 neutral.

Local residents were concerned about the impact of the increase on the quality of their daily lives, already impacted by crowds at the stadium in normal, non-Covid times.

This is the planning officers' conclusion to their report:

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.

 

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 (the Stadium Access Corridor) will not be provided in its originally envisaged form, but other changes to the road network have now taken place or are currently underway. Therefore, the Council considers that the cap remains relevant.

 

Clearly, to increase the number of higher capacity events to accommodate up to 9 additional major non-sporting events per event calendar year would imply an increase in the impact. However, a wide range of mitigation measures are proposed to help mitigate these impacts. There are ongoing efforts to reduce the number of vehicles on an event day. A number of mitigation measures are proposed to continue this work, including additional parking enforcement capacity and an updated Event Day 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.

 

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 will improve traffic flow in the area and assist residents’ movements on event days.

 

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.

 

Employment and Training benefits for Brent residents would also be secured by the proposed scheme.

 

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 such as additional public toilets.

 

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.

 

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.

 

A further consideration is that the stadium can be used for major events up to 51,000 now without restriction and remaining within this limit would mean that no additional mitigation measures would be formally secured. 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.

 

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.

 

 

1,400 petitioners will call on Brent Council to divest from fossil fuels at tomorrow's Cabinet Meeting

 The start of the long-running patient campaign to persuade Brent Council to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels

 

From Divest Brent

For over 3 years campaign group Divest Brent have been working to persuade the Council to divest its Pension Fund from fossil fuels. In 2019 the Council declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency and specifically agreed to redirect investments to renewal, sustainable and low carbon funds. Indeed some investments have been made in this area but the majority of the Pension Fund is still invested in funds which include fossil fuels. 

 

Extract from the Climate Emergency Strategy

 

Simon Erskine, Co-ordinator of Divest Brent, said:

 

We welcome any moves by the Pension Fund to invest sustainably and to help with the transition to renewable energy – but the fact is that whatever green investments the Fund may have, while it continues to invest in fossil fuels it is part of the problem.

 

Having achieved nearly 1,400 signatures Divest Brent is now ready to submit its petition to the Council. On April 6 Councillor Matt Kelcher will present the petition to the Brent Cabinet on behalf of Divest Brent. Mr Erskine said:

 

We were originally going to present the petition to the full Council meeting in July but the Cabinet will be discussing the Council’s draft Climate Emergency Strategy. Following campaigning by Divest Brent the draft Strategy now includes a section on the Pension Fund’s investments – and we decided that this was the best time to submit the petition, when the Cabinet was anyway looking at the issues involved.

 

Divest Brent has written a joint letter to Councillor Krupa Sheth, Council Environment lead, with Brent Friends of the Earth, calling on the Council to divest the Pension Fund as part of the Climate Emergency Strategy.

 

The presentation of the petition comes hot on the heels of a report entitled “Divesting to protect our pensions and the planet” which gave a comprehensive breakdown of the extent that UK Councils were invested in fossil fuels. 3% of Brent’s Pension Fund is thought to be invested in fossil fuels - £26 million. Compared to the £40 million invested in 2017 this looks like an improvement – until it is realised that much of the reduction is due to a fall in value of fossil fuel investments. 

 

The Council has admitted that, while much of the Stock Market has suffered from Covid 19, they have lost £8 million by failing to divest from fossil fuels before the pandemic. They are not alone in this – with UK Councils having lost £2 billion altogether over the last 4 years – but £8 million is still a serious loss compared to the Pension Fund total of £800 million.

 

With the outlook for fossil fuels never worse as the electric vehicle revolution starts to kick in and governments look to move away from gas as a means of heating our homes, Pension Fund committee members could find themselves in breach of their duties to protect the value of the Fund if they do not start to move seriously towards divestment.

 

Watch the Cabinet meeting and hear the Council's response live at 10am tomorrow LINK

Climate Emergency a focus at Tuesday's Cabinet meeting

There are three items at Tuesday's 10am Cabinet meeting relating to the Climate Emergency. (The meeting can be viewed live HERE).

In an unusual move the campaign group Divest Brent is presenting a petition calling on the Brent Council Pension Fund to divest from fossil fuels.

The Cabinet  will also be considering the approval of the Brent Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy 2021-2030 that has gone through some changes as the result of consultation and submissions.

Unfortunately the Strategy does not include specific targets and milestones. The Council explain:

Due to the long-term nature of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy the current financial situation facing all councils following the Covid-19 pandemic the detailed document does not contain a detailed action plan or route map for the next ten years.

The overall aim is to achieve carbon netrality by 2030. Readers unsure of the difference between carbon neutrality and zero carbon can read more HERE.

The Strategy is arranged around 5 themes:

1. Consumption, Resources and Waste

2. Transport

3. Homes, Buildings and the Built Environment

4. Nature and Green Spaces

5. Supporting Communities

I have embedded the document below (Click bottom right to enlarge)

 

The third item is a £3.234 grant to improve the energy efficiency of some Brent Council owned buildings. The grant is fro  the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme managed by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I was struck by how many of the buildings chosen are comparatively new or recently refurbished.

 

The officers' report provides examples of decarbonisation measures for 10 of the buildings:

 

UPDATE: Disabled South Kilburn pensioner still has no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan from Brent Council

After I published John Healy’s personal account of his fears as a disabled pensioner, living on the 5^th floor of a South Kilburn council block with no fire alarm system, of succumbing to a fire in the wake of Grenfell LINK as no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) was in place LINK, Brent Council issued this statement:

 

Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) are essential for anyone who may need assistance in the unlikely event of being advised to leave a building because of fire. We're concerned that something seems to have gone wrong here and have contacted Mr Healy to put it right.

Last year, we proactively reached out to all tenants, asking anyone who needed assistance to complete a PEEP. We don't seem to have received a PEEP from Mr Healy and will be investigating what has gone wrong here, along with Mr Healy's comments about not being able to reach us.

 

Three weeks later and 7 months since John first completed his PEEP application form the PEEP is not yet in place and the assurance he needs that his hearing and mobility disabilities would be catered for in the event of a fire has not been provided – Brent Council is failing in its duty of care to one of its vulnerable tenants.

 

John told Wembley Matters on March 31^st:

 

After 26 emails and numerous phone calls during the whole of March, they annoyed me yesterday by asking me "to clarify why I need a PEEP?".

 

In the previous 26 emails, I have given several council officers and councillors all the information they asked me for, as to why I need a PEEP but none of it seems to have been understood by any of them.

 

I now know how those Grenfell residents must have felt when they tried to inform Kensington and Chelsea council and their TMO.  To be honest I expected more from Brent Council but they have shown me that they are no better than any other council in London.

 

The council say they only became aware of my situation when I completed a new PEEP application online on the 19th March 2021 and entered it on their PEEP database on the 22nd March 2021.  All my previous emails and phone calls over the previous 6 months have no bearing on my new application,  says my Buildings officer.  In other words, he never even saw the article in Wembley Matters as it was published on the 12th March 2021, or anything else that I sent since early Sept. 2020, after returning my first PEEP application form.

 

 I made a first stage complaint, but I sent it before hearing from the council, that my application only began on the 19th March 2021. After sending in my complaint, I did receive an apology from the Lead Officer for Housing, Neighbourhoods and Community Wellbeing, which I assumed was in connection with the complaint but the officer never actually mentioned the word 'complaint' in her email.

 

Mr Healy is ready to give up and resign himself to sleepless nights over his fears for himself and other residents caught in this bureaucratic nightmare.

Surely Brent Council, which has been awarded ‘Disability Confident Leader Status’ as a provider, commissioner of services and an employer LINK, should be doing better?

 

 

 

 

UPDATE Brent Council's 'Vanity' road - it's enough to make you crack up

 UPDATE: A Brent Council source has said that the stripping below is for the installation of Hostile Vehicle Mitigation measures and not due to the state of the road. There is no word on whether the reinstated surface will be block paving or tarmac.

When Brent Council's £100m Civic Centre was built it was decided that a building of such distinction required an equally distinctive road surface so £852,000 was spent on block paving. Given that it was a route for heavy construction lorries it soon deteriorated although Brent Council also blamed severe weather.

Further money has been spent on ongoing repairs but observers have now seen that a section of Engineers Way outside the Civic Centre  has been stripped:

 

Engineers Way yesterday

 Former Brent Liberal Democrat leader Paul Lorber, has written to the Council to ask if the road is going to replaced  by asphalt as in other parts of the borough and why similar remedial action cannot be taken at Station Approach in Sudbury.

It looked yesterday from the stack of blocks visible on the site as if the block paving is going to be replaced. I think we need to know the additional costs involved.

Meanwhile with Engineers Way closed while work continues on the controversial , Fulton Road is the main access road to the stadium area. Residents of the new build have been complaining about the traffic jams caused by huge trucks accessing building sites with considerable difficulty and the damage caused when they have to mount the pavements.

 

At the other end of Olympic Way work is continuing on the linking of North End Road to Bridge Road with considerable incovenience to pedestrians. An initial justification given for the link was that  buses could use North End Road as a detour on event days and maintain a better bus service to residents. The 206 to the Paddocks was curtailed on event days. It now appears that there may have to be a weight limit on the new link which might affect these plans.

 

Holding feet to the fire: Peabody tenants confront unaccountable heating and housing management

Tenants of some local  'Build to Rent' schemes have found themselves trapped in the freeholder's contracts with utility and broadband suppliers, with no ability to switch accounts.  Fuel Poverty Action reveal similar problems in a new build development in Tower Hamlets.

Fuel Poverty Action is today publishing a remarkable exposé showing how families have been left in the cold because their unaffordable heat network and their social housing tenancies have created a legal limbo. For their heating, they are tied to one supplier, but they have no control of prices, no contract, no legal rights, and no one to complain to. This crisis has been created by a toxic - but increasingly common - mix of unaccountable housing and unaccountable heating. The tenants have led a long fight for affordable warmth and against the odds, have won major price reductions.  

Phoenix Works is a new build development in Tower Hamlets with 28 ”affordable rent” tenants housed by Peabody housing association(1). When they moved in, tenants “couldn’t believe” what their prepayment meters were consuming. Many simply could not pay the up to £250 a month required to keep warm. Some had to move out and stay with relatives, some got ill, some went deeply into debt. Meanwhile their landlord and heat provider passed the buck to each other, displaying a sense of impunity, and dazzling incompetence. 

The tenants’ heat is provided by a “Heat Network”. Heat networks are like central heating for a whole estate, and are being heavily promoted and subsidised by the government on the grounds that they offer a low-carbon alternative(2). Customers of a Heat Network cannot switch, nor is there any price cap or, as yet, any regulation. Assessed as eligible for “affordable housing”, the ex-council tenants had no warning of the extra costs, and no heat contract. They could not even find out who was responsible for their heating and tariffs: the estate management, KFH, or their social landlord, Peabody?  

Ms Lewis, who has led the fight for affordable heating at Phoenix Works says,

“Peabody can’t escape responsibility for allowing tenants to suffer. Some have had to choose between heating homes and feeding families during winter months, all because of the lack of information and accountability from the very beginning.  Do we have to just put up and shut up with whatever charges KFH decide to throw at us?  We would never have chosen to live this way had we been given the choice.”

Ruth London from FPA says, 

“Cold kills. 10,000 people die each winter in the UK because they can’t afford to heat their homes.  And that was the number before a respiratory pandemic! 

Heat Networks are supposed to provide low carbon, low cost, reliable heat. But FPA work with residents in many such estates who are fighting huge bills, constant heating breakdowns, or both.The sheer unaccountability of both heating and housing management has never been more blatant than at Phoenix Works.” 

With Fuel Poverty Action(3), tenants are calling for a public inquiry to uncover what has happened and what structural and legal changes are needed to prevent it happening anywhere again. 

Tenants from Phoenix Works are available for interview.  Also available are residents from other heat network estates in Tower Hamlets and all over London who are suffering from high prices or frequent outages, both of which can leave households without either heat or hot water.  

As well as Fuel Poverty Action, the Phoenix Works tenants have won support from SHAC, who contributed to the dossier, from the Heat Networks team at BEIS  (heatnetworks@beis.gov.uk), and from their MP, Apsana Begum. 

The Dossier is published HERE on our website or you can download a PDF here. 

For substantial coverage in The Times see HERE.

NOTES 

1. New developments are required to set aside a proportion of flats for “affordable housing”. Rents in these lower standard apartments are up to 80% of market rates, which in some places, like London, can be extremely high, and tenants may face lower standards and “poor doors”. Most of the other residents are leaseholders. 

2. Heat networks pipe heat into homes from a communal gas boiler. Also known as “District Heating”, this system are said to save carbon emissions by being more efficient than gas boilers, by producing electricity at the same time as heat if using a central “Combined Heat and Power” boiler, and because they have the potential to use renewable or waste heat sources instead of combustion. But where systems are badly designed, installed, or maintained, residents can go cold, and carbon savings in practice can be nil. 

3. Fuel Poverty Action is a grassroots organisation started in 2011, which since 2017 has been supporting residents all over London who are organising for reliable and affordable heat from their heat networks. In 2017 we published Not Fit For Purpose, a report on the heat network on Myatts Field North, which is now being pressed into service again by residents there. Our many consultation responses on the issue can be found here.

 

Employment Tribunal finds against Imam Abdul Sattar's claim of unfair dismissal by the Wembley Central Mosque

 

Happier days

Employment Judge Nebeau of the Employment Tribunals last month issued his Reserved Judgment in the case of Imam Abdul Sattar versus Wembley Central Mosque. Sattar was claiming unfair dismissal. The Judgment stated: 'The unfair dismissal claim is not well founded and is dismissed.'

The Judge said that although the case was about Sattar's dismissal the evidence showed tht there was in existence a fissure that became apparent three years prior to the claimant's dismissal. 

The Mosque was closed for three weeks early last year over the dispute between the Mosque Committee and worshipper allies of Imam Abdul Sattar. LINK

 

 Wembley Central Mosque, Ealing Road

More than 600 pages of documents were considerd by the telephone hearing last Autumn and the Judgment itself is 39 pages long.

Among the issues covered perhaps the most important was that of Speakers' engagement,  and risk assessments of speakers about which the Charity Commission had expressed concern.

Other issues considered including the issue and stamping of Nikah (Muslim marriage) certificates and Nikah fees,  selling of CDs at the Mosque, leafleting protests inside and outside the Mosque, unauthorised access to the Imam's office and the role of the religious sect Tablighi Jamaat. LINK

The Judgment gives an account of the attempt by the Imam of the Monks Park Mosque to mediate.

Judge Nebeau concludes his Judgment:

It must be borne in mind that the situation in 2018 and 2019 was getting beyond control. There were regular protests outside of the Masjid involving the police. The Masjid was split between those who followed the claimant and those who supported management committee. Based on the evidence before me there was also a serious breakdown in the employee employer relationship which seemed to be irretrievable. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to see a way forward as attempts at trying to resolve matters informally had been rejected. At the end of the day management committee had to manage the Masjid. Even if the three reasons found at the appeal stage in support of the claimant’s dismissal, did not apply, the apparent irretrievable breakdown in the relationship between the claimant and the management committee, would inevitably have necessitated the claimant’s dismissal.

Accordingly, I have come to the that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim is not well-founded and is dismissed. Any hearing listed remedy is hereby vacated.

The full Judgment can be read HERE