Can you help with a fascinating Brent local history project to uncover mixed-race family histories?

 Guest post by Philip Grant

 

One of the projects as part of the Brent Museum and Archives “Being Brent” programme is gathering information on the long-neglected subject the mixed-race families in our diverse community. Although it was once widely regarded as a taboo, what is more natural than two human beings who love each other wanting to spend their lives together and have children? The fact that they may have different skin colours, or come from different cultural or religious backgrounds, should not be a barrier to that love.

 

The “By the Cut of Their Cloth” (BTCOCT) project has been engaging with local people and carrying out archival research for several months, and has uncovered some amazing leads that it needs to follow up. That is why it is asking for help now, and you might be the person who can give it! This is what they are saying:

 

Family history researchers! We would love to hear from anyone interested in volunteering their time to help us uncover Brent's mixed race family histories.

 

We have a few fascinating leads from newspapers and archives that we’re keen to learn more about in time for our exhibition in March. If you have experience of and access to online genealogical sites and would be able to spare a few hours, we would be very grateful if you could track down any additional information on some of the accounts we’ve uncovered.

 

·      A Chinese acrobat in Edwardian Britain charged with deserting his Willesden-based Welsh wife, who he said had become ‘too stout’ to perform one of his stage acts.

·      A white waitress who met her wealthy Indian Muslim husband at the 1924 Wembley exhibition and moved to Bhopal with him after their three-month engagement.

 

One of the earliest examples they’ve found comes from a photograph in the Brent Archives collection, taken in the grounds of Neasden Stud Farm in the 1890s. This is an extract from it:

 

From census records, the man in the bowler hat is thought to be John Lambert, born around 1850 in Suffolk, with his wife Emily (originally from Edgware) standing beside him, and a girl thought to be their daughter. John was the farm bailiff, or manager of the farm. BTCOTC would love to know more about his story, and his family!

 

If you would like to learn more about the project, or you think you might be able to help, please go to this website, and scroll down to the "Volunteers" section:
https://mixedmuseum.org.uk/btcotcproject/ . Thank you.

 

UPDATED: MEETING ARRANGED BETWEEN TRIDENT TENANTS & MTVH - Trident Point tenants, ready to take collective action over MTVH building failings, call for support

 

Trident Point

 

LATEST (January 28th) from the Trident Action Group) Meeting arranged with MTVH

 

Our online campaign has resulted in senior MTVH staff contacting us directly and offering to meet with us. There will be a Zoom meeting this coming Wednesday evening including representatives from MTVH, the management company Y&Y, residents and local politicians. We hope to make real progress at this meeting, focusing on the seven demands listed in our collective statement.

 Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) manages the Chalkhill estate in Wembley and many other properties. They have offices at the Chalkhill Community Centre/Welford Centre. 

Tenants  at Trident Point in Harrow, managed by MTVH, have reached the end of their tether over building problems and are calling for support for their cause.

This is their statement:

Since Trident Point, Harrow, was built ten years ago, residents have experienced disrepair, mismanagement and poor customer service on a daily basis.

 

Trident Point is divided into two blocks managed by different organisations. Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) manages our block and we are their tenants.

 

As individuals, we have complained to MTVH countless times. MTVH staff are well aware of the long-standing issues in our block and the considerable impact they have on our lives. But despite MTVH’s vast resources and its stated mission to ‘listen to customers and work alongside them’, it seems that the will is simply not there to make Trident Point a safe and pleasant place to live. 

 

After ten years, we still face constant lift outages, heating problems and inadequate security. The communal areas are poorly maintained and in need of redecoration. Recurring damp issues have caused damage to flooring in many of our flats. Mice and pigeons pose serious health hazards. And our intercom systems fail regularly, resulting in missed deliveries and care appointments.

 

At the time of writing, both lifts in our block have been out of order for over a week.

Disabled and elderly tenants are prisoners in their homes. Others struggle up eight flights of stairs with shopping and buggies. Many of us have been stuck in the lifts and have had to be rescued by London Fire Brigade. Despite the constant problems in Trident Point, MTVH seem to have no emergency processes in place. After the lift breakdown on 29 December, we went several days without any help or communication at all from MTVH. We cannot go on like this. 

 

We are aware that major works are being carried out on the larger of the two lifts. However, the smaller lift designed for use by the social tenants remains out of order and in need of full replacement. We deserve two reliable, functioning lifts.

 

We have exhausted the official procedures and have been left no choice but to organise to demand justice. We are ready to take collective action, including a rent and service charge strike, to get the housing we deserve.

 

 

We demand that MTVH:

 

1)      Replace the lift system with one that is fit for purpose (as has previously been promised in writing by senior MTVH staff).

2)      Redecorate the communal areas and replace the carpets.

3)      Identify the cause of the recurring heating problems in tenants’ flats and fix the problem.

4)      Replace all damaged flooring in tenants’ flats and resolve the root problem of damp.

5)      Restore the concierge service that was removed without resident consultation.

6)      Acknowledge the problem of vermin and take urgent action to tackle mice and pigeon infestations.

7)      Repair the intercom system.

 

We welcome the support of any groups and individuals who wish to join us in this fight for dignity and peace of mind.

 

Should MTVH wish to reach out and begin making genuine progress on these demands, they can contact us at tridentpointaction@gmail.com.

Trident Point Action Group

 

Harrow Law Centre said on Twitter:

 

 Far too often social housing means second rate housing and second rate services. Everyone deserves a decent home and every tenant deserves a decent landlord. Metropolitan has been made aware the serious issues facing tenants for many years yet has failed to act.

 

A spokesperson for MTVH responded to Wembley Matters with the following statement:

 

“We are very sorry for the issues that residents at Trident Point have been experiencing. We are committed to continuing to work with residents and the managing agent and freeholder to resolve these issues. We are also forming a new internal project team that will bring colleagues from across the organisation together to focus on addressing the issues at Trident Point.

 

“One of the two lifts at Trident Point is in service and all residents are able to access this lift to come and go from their homes. We are working with our contractors to bring the other lift back into service as quickly as possible. We regret the difficulties the interruption to the lift service will have caused residents, especially those with mobility issues, and will be contacting the freeholder once again to urge them to replace and renew both lifts.  We are continuing to work alongside the managing agent to address issues raised over water leaks and vermin in external communal areas."

 

“We will be meeting with residents shortly to discuss their concerns and to update them on our programme of works at Trident Point.”

 

 

 

Trident Point Background:

 

·       MTVH is the head leaseholder at Trident Point and we take our responsibilities to both leasehold and general needs (social) residents extremely seriously. However, we are not the freeholder. The freeholder is Harprop Limited. The managing agent for the building is Y&Y Management. This means that MTVH’s responsibility under the terms of the lease is for service and repair. Y&Y Management are responsible for most communal facilities and services (such as communal heating system), and Harprop Limited are responsible for major maintenance and investment matters, such as renewal of lifts or structural matters.

·       We are fully aware of the issues residents have faced with both lifts in the building. One lift is working after repairs works organised by MTVH this week, which enables all residents on all floors of the building to access and leave the building. The lift that is currently out of service is awaiting parts to be delivered to enable a fix. We anticipate these parts will arrive next week and engineers will be on site on 5^th February to install in order to bring the lift back into service. 

·       MTVH does not have the legal right to replace the lifts at Trident Point. Under law, this is only something that Harprop Limited can do.

·       Some floors inside the properties have suffered from water damage. We believe this to be a fault related to water ingress from the automatic opening vents, which are the responsibility of Y&Y Management to service and maintain. An MTVH repairs colleague will be visiting on Thursday 27^th January to inspect the entire building in relation to this issue and we will be working with Y&Y Management to resolve.

·       Work has been undertaken by both MTVH and Y&Y Management, who are responsible for the external communal areas of the building, to address the issues with vermin being present in the external communal areas. MTVH has also arranged for our own pest control contractor to attend site.

·       We will be contacting all MTVH general needs residents at Trident Point again to offer any further assistance that may be required if residents are facing difficulties due to the issue with the lift.

Brent Connects 6pm tomorrow. Council Draft Budget and Let's Talk Climate conversation

 From Brent Council

Brent Connects takes place tomorrow on Tuesday 25 January 2021, 6-8pm and will focus on the Council's draft budget and the Let's Talk Climate conversation.

Voices of the community and generating new ideas are key to making Brent a better place to live, work and visit, so book your place today by visiting: Brent Connects Tickets, Tue 25 Jan 2022 at 18:00 | Eventbrite.

The meeting will be held virtually via Zoom, but do not worry if you’ve never used Zoom before as we’ll be sending detailed instructions to all attendees beforehand.

If you have any questions, please email brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

Brent Connects - Agenda - 25 Jan 2022.docx.pdf

Draft budget

Join us to share your views on the proposals for the 2022/23 budget. We want to know what services are the most important to local people so we can make the best decisions about where to make savings.

The new proposals for 2022/23 are designed to limit, as far as possible, service reductions and the impact on front line services, particularly during these challenging times.

Let's Talk Climate

The second part of the session will focus on how we can work together to make local neighbourhoods greener and more sustainable.

Your feedback will influence the contracts for three important council services that are up for renewal next year and could change how your waste and recycling is managed, how we keep streets clean and how green spaces are maintained.

We want to hear your ideas for how we can deliver these services in ways that meet your and your neighbourhood’s needs while encouraging people to take more responsibility for keeping their areas clean.

Brent Council to invest £3.24m to slash carbon emissions from some of its public sector buildings

 Brent Council Press Release

Sports centres and libraries in Kilburn, Willesden and Harlesden are among the buildings benefiting from a £3.24 million investment to slash carbon emissions from public sector buildings in Brent.

Improvements kick off in Northwick Park, where an energy saving Ground Source Heat Pump is being installed in the Pavilion. You would need to plant a whopping 1,571 trees every year to match the carbon savings.

The pump works by transferring the heat that is already in the ground outside into a building or home, to heat radiators, give underfloor heating or to heatwater.

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member for Environment said: 

Homes and buildings have a huge carbon footprint, yet it can be challenging and expensive to tackle this within existing and older public sector buildings. We’re thrilled that we’re able to use innovative technology and ideas to improve energy efficiency and help us in our journey to zero carbon emissions by 2030.

In Brent, the funding will be used across council buildings including:

Brent Civic Centre
Barham Park Complex
Granville Centre
Gordon Brown Outdoor Centre
Northwick Park Pavilion
Preston Park Sports Pavilion
Harlesden Library
Kilburn Library
New Millenium Day Centre
Ealing Road Library
The Library at Willesden Green
The Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre
Tudor Gardens 27-31
John Billam Resource Centre
Willow Children's Centre

The government-led, Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) is offering funding worth over £1bn in the first phase, giving the public sector a helping hand to increase energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation within council-owned community buildings, sports centres, libraries and other public, non-domestic buildings.

Additional information

The work at Northwick Park Pavilion will also include cavity wall insulation and LED lighting, and along with other improvements this will lead to a 26% reduction in overall energy use.  This translates to the savings of:

• 747,445kWh/yr energy savings

• £44,104 £/yr total cost savings

• 134.3 CO₂ te/yr carbon savings which is the equivalent of 1,571 trees planted/yr

The PSDS is being delivered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and in partnership with Salix. Brent Council has appointed Ameresco Ltd. to carry out the works.

"How 'Urgent' is 'Urgent' when there's a major fire risk fault?" No repair of fire door at William Dunbar House yet

 

 Picture taken yesterday

It will be 2 weeks on Monday from when Pensioner John Healy wrote a letter to Wembley Matters desperately seeking help in getting Brent Council to deal with faulty fire doors at his South Kilburn block, William Dunbar House. LINK

Shortly after publication I was able to update the article with news that a councillor was taking up the case.

In a further article on January 18th we revealed that another door, on the 5th floor was also faulty and this time Brent Council replied on Twitter:

 Escalation as a matter of 'Urgency' was welcome but another week has gone by and the 3rd floor door has still not been fixed. (Photo above).  John Healy discovered that some flats in the same block did not have self-closing doors.

John said:

Could you question the Council as to what they mean by 'urgent'.  The council told me they carried out an inspection on the doors after your first story in WM without the pictures, which is 2 weeks ago.  Tthought the Council said 'this issue is urgent" but I have to spend another weekend at least, worrying about a possible Fire in my block.

Could you also ask them about all these flats that do not have self closing fire doors?  I assume they belong to leaseholders.

Planning Inspector 'unable to recommend Kilburn Square's allocation as a tall building zone'

 

Kilburn High Road is top right

 

 The campaign against tall buildings in Kilburn Square by local activists LINK seems to have borne fruit.

The Planning Inspector's Report on the Brent Local Plan states:

The Council also put forward a new tall building zone to be allocated at Kilburn Square which would include the existing tower and land adjacent around Kilburn Square. We have noted the Council’s evidence in relation to this new zone, primarily focusing on the height of the existing tower on the estate well as the sites PTAL rating at 6a. We have also considered the detailed representations made during the main modification’s consultation in relation to this new tall buildings zone, particularly regarding the proposed size of the zone and its location adjacent to the Brondesbury Road Conservation Area. We are mindful of the fact that in light of the London Plan policy, the Council are no longer afforded the degree of flexibility previously envisaged in terms of the application of Policy BD2. Nevertheless, the creation of a new tall buildings zone at Kilburn Square would be contrary to the evidence base presented to this local plan examination, namely the Tall Buildings Strategy. It is not a location identified or considered as part of this evidence and accordingly we are unable to recommend its allocation as a tall buildings zone.

 

Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white

Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity):-

 

Extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

It looks bad. It looks wrong. That’s why I will persist in shining a light on the Brent Cabinet decision to allow a developer to profit from the sale of 152 new Council homes, to be built on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, until either the Council provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the right thing to do, or agrees it is wrong and that all 250 homes in that development should be for Brent people in housing need.

 

In an article last month, I shared the information I’d received from a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise, in April 2021, which was supposedly to find out whether developers would be interested in being part of the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. But some of the information I’d asked for was withheld by Brent’s Head of Regeneration, who claimed that it was excluded from disclosure because:

 

·      It contained information obtained from and related to the financial and business affairs of 5 private developers (Confidentiality - Section 41 of FOIA);

·      It would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it (Commercially Sensitive – S.43(2) FOIA); and,

·      That in applying the public interest test required by S.43(2), ‘it is considered that the balance of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.’

 

On 12 December 2021, I sent an Internal Review request, setting out (with detailed reasons) why information prepared for Cabinet by Council Officers as a result of the exercise was not exempt information under FOIA, and why it was in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I agreed that if a report included confidential information received from developers, that could be redacted (blacked out) in the copy of the report sent to me.

 

I received the Council’s response on 15 January from Alice Lester, Operational Director (Regeneration, Growth and Employment). On a careful reading of her letter, I can’t see that she actually admitted any error in the initial refusal of my request. But her letter concluded: ‘However, I agree that a redacted copy of the report could be provided and this is attached.’ It is always worth sticking up for what you believe, if you think the Council has got it wrong!

 

In the interests of fairness to all five developers, and to show that I am keeping what they told Brent Council confidential, here is the second page of the report I was sent:-

 

Second extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

I was expecting those sections of the report to be blacked out, but I was surprised to see that part of the last sentence of the “Market Commentary”, written by Officers, was also redacted:

 

The opening section of the report to Cabinet in August 2021.
[Don’t worry! The pipelines developers were talking about are forward plans to ensure they get as much work lined-up for future years as possible.]

 

The first version of the document sent to me was followed by an urgent request not to open it, as ‘it appears that the attachment wasn’t properly redacted.’ I didn’t open it, but waited for the corrected version (above). As that concealed words I believed should probably be disclosed, I did then look at the original, and although those words had also been blacked out, they weren’t securely redacted.  

 

I wrote to Ms Lester on Monday 17^th, to explain why I should be able to make the last seven words public, and on 19 January I received another ‘revised redacted document’.  The explanation was: ‘After further consultation with legal colleagues, the words to which you refer have been unredacted.’ After two challenges, I had finally been given information that I was entitled to request in the first place.

 

I can see why Brent’s senior Regeneration Officers might have wanted to keep these seven words about the developers from the public: ‘… and all stated interest in this opportunity.’ 

 

Of course all the developers were interested! The market opportunity they were offered was so “soft” that I don’t think any contractor / property developer would be likely to turn it down. Which begs the question, was that the answer that Regeneration Officers (and the Lead Member?) wanted from the “market testing”, so that they could put the idea of involving a developer as the ‘preferred delivery option’ for this scheme?

 

Normally a developer would have to find a site to build homes on, buy it (very expensive in London), get an architect’s team to design the proposed scheme for them, go through the planning process, then build the homes before it could get any return on its development, for which it would have borrowed £millions, over several years, in order to finance.

 

The key page from Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

 

The opportunity Brent was offering, in its “market testing exercise”, was to pay whichever developer won the “procurement and contract structure” bid outlined above for building the Council’s housing scheme. Once built, the Council would agree to sell the developer 152 homes, for a fixed price agreed in advance. That price would have been included in the developer’s ‘bid submission’ for the contract, and none of the developers bidding would have offered ‘a guaranteed monetary consideration’ that would not give them a profit!

 

The report which included this “Confidential Appendix” went to Brent’s Cabinet in August 2021, and you can see from the minutes how enthusiastic they were about the proposals:-

 

Did none of the Cabinet members stop to think, and ask: ‘why are we handing half of the homes on this Council housing development to a private developer?’ Perhaps they were taken in by the statement in the Officer’s Report: ‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated [this] preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site ….’? 

 

As I set out in my earlier article about the “soft market testing”, that consultation appears to have been “off record” and may have involved as few as two Cabinet members (the Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration). Didn’t other Cabinet members reading that think: ‘I don’t remember being consulted’, and if they did, why didn’t they question it?

 

Cabinet members apparently enthused about ‘the inclusion of London Affordable Rents as part of the offer’. Most of these would actually be the 54 homes on the Ujima House site, only 8 of which would be 3-bedroom “family homes” (with a 5sqm balcony as private outdoor space!). I had emailed the Cabinet members several days before, to highlight the problems with this Wembley Housing Zone scheme, and the need for more homes to be for genuine social rents.

 

Perhaps the Cabinet members didn’t have time to read my email before the meeting, but apart from a couple of automatic acknowledgements, none of them responded. I had to ask a public question for the Full Council meeting in November, and a follow-up question, but I still didn’t get any proper explanation for the Cabinet’s decision from Cllr. Shama Tatler.

 

Cllr. Tatler claimed that making all the Wembley Housing Zone homes affordable ‘is not financially viable’. How could it NOT be financially viable? The Council already owns the site. The Council could borrow the money to build the homes at some of the lowest ever interest rates. 

 

In answer to my straight question: ‘why is Brent Council not proposing to build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue as affordable rented Council housing?’ Cllr. Tatler’s reply was: ‘the Wembley Housing Zone programme together proposes 50% affordable housing.’ 50% affordable housing is Brent, and London’s, target for all large private housing developments, even though that is rarely, if ever, achieved in the planning process.

 

Cecil Avenue is a Brent Council development, on Council owned land. The Council has paid (with public money from the GLA) to design the scheme and get it through planning consent. The Council will borrow the money to build the 250 homes. Why shouldn’t all of those homes be Council homes?

 

I make no apology for sharing again this parody of a Brent Council publicity photograph for its New Council Homes campaign. It shows exactly what Brent’s Cabinet has agreed should happen Cecil Avenue. 

 

If you want to deliver 1,000 new Council homes in Brent, why “give away” 152 of the new Council homes you are building at Cecil Avenue to a private developer? One way the Council seems to have compensated for this is to agree to buy a tower block with 155 leasehold flats from the developer of the Alperton Bus Garage site, at a cost of £48m. That guaranteed sale of one third of the homes will help the developer, Telford Homes, to obtain the finance to actually build this high-rise scheme, which was strongly opposed by local residents.

 

Why are a small number of Cabinet Members and Senior Council Officers seemingly favouring private developers like this? Why are their fellow Cabinet members not questioning why? Why are Brent’s Scrutiny Committees not asking for explanations? Why are the rest of Brent’s elected councillors not asking the Leader or Lead Member for Regeneration “Why”?

 

IT LOOKS BAD. IT LOOKS WRONG. 

 

Why is it left to an ordinary member of the public to ask WHY?

Philip Grant.