Friday, 22 September 2023

The Barham Park Trust – Brent’s “answer” to my two important questions.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity


On 21 September, Martin published an open email I’d sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, seeking replies to two important questions I’d asked in an open letter of 4 September. My email said: ‘These two questions are still fundamental ones, which need to be answered, and the answers considered, before the Trust, or Brent Council, spend any more money on the Strategic Property Review.’

 


 

On 22 September, I received the following reply from Kim Wright, and as I have publicised my questions, I think it only fair that you should be able to read her reply. It is set out in full below:-

 


 

Dear Mr Grant,

 

Thank you for your email. I apologise that your previous correspondence has not been responded to.

 

You make reference to the proposal to redevelop the buildings at Barham Park, and ask two specific questions in relation to that. 

 

At this stage the proposal is hypothetical, intending only to show what might be possible and/or necessary in order to upgrade the buildings and safeguard their future over the longer term. There is nothing definitive or decided at this stage so there is no actual development against which to ask those questions.

 

As you are aware, the buildings are in poor condition and need significant investment so, at the Trust meeting on the 5th September, it was simply resolved that officers should seek to further develop these plans to establish whether an improvement project is even viable. They are some way off completing that work, given that decision was only made a couple of weeks ago.

 

It was further resolved that a more detailed business case, which will of course take into account any relevant legal and planning obligations, should be brought to a future meeting for consideration. Any decision at that point will be fully informed by advice on lawfulness and alignment with the Local Plan/planning policies.

 

Next week’s meeting will not consider this matter, not least because it is too soon. The meeting is convened simply to consider the Trust’s accounts.

 

I hope this is helpful background and I thank you for your ongoing interest in Barham Park.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Kim Wright
Chief Executive
Brent Council

Thursday, 21 September 2023

The Barham Park Trust – two important questions that still need answers!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

On 4 September, ahead of the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting the following day, Martin published (with my permission) a copy of an Open Letter I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and the members of the Committee. I will ask Martin to attach the letter again, below.

 

Ground floor plan for the “Silver”, preferred option, redevelopment of the Barham Park buildings.

 

The Trust had already spent £25,000 of Brent Council money on a feasibility study, described as a Strategic Property Review. This was basically a plan to redevelop the Barham Park buildings, estimated to cost £3.2m, to generate more income for the Trust. It would do this by creating offices (in blue), shops (pink), a cafĂ© (orange, where the present Barham Community Library is located) and two community spaces (light green, but which would be expected to pay commercial rents). The first floor plan showed all commercial business uses.

 

My Open Letter had raised two fundamental questions, which Council Officers and Trust Committee members did not appear to have asked themselves. If the answer to either of those questions was “No”, then any expenditure on this project (which the Trust still claims is ‘hypothetical’) would be a waste of money, because it could never happen.

 

Although Cllr. Muhammed Butt, the Chair of the Trust Committee, had acknowledged receipt of my Open Letter, I’ve received no answer to the questions, and there is no evidence that they have even been considered. With another meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee scheduled for Tuesday 26 September, I sent this email to Kim Wright, Brent’s Chief Executive, this morning (Thursday 21 September):-

 

‘Barham Park Trust Committee on 26 September - Fundamental Questions to which answers are still needed

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Ms Wright,

 

I am addressing this email to you, as you are the Chief Executive of the London Borough of Brent, which is the Sole Trustee of the Barham Park Trust.

 

I'm attaching again a copy of an open letter which I sent to you, and the members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, on 4 September. I realise that time was very short to answer the two questions my letter raised, before the Trust Committee meeting on 5 September, and they were not mentioned or answered at that meeting. ( And they have not been answered since then.)

 

These two questions are still fundamental ones, which need to be answered, and the answers considered, before the Trust, or Brent Council, spend any more money on the Strategic Property Review. 

 

1. Would it be lawful for the Trust to carry out the proposed redevelopment? 

 

2. Would the proposed redevelopment comply with Brent’s Local Plan? 

 

The 5 September meeting resolved to allow the Director for Environment and Leisure Services in consultation with the Chair of the Trust Committee to spend more money, without considering these key points. If the answer to either, or both, of these questions is "No", spending more money on this "hypothetical" project would be a reckless waste of Council and/or Barham Park Trust funds.

 

These two questions need urgent consideration, and I would urge you to arrange for the relevant Council Officers to consider them, honestly, and present reports, and any recommendations, on them to the Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on 26 September. 2023.

 

I realise that these questions are not on the agenda for the meeting, but I am sure you can arrange with the Head of Executive and Member Services (I'm afraid that I don't know who she is now) to include them under item 7, Any Other Urgent Business. The urgency is to avoid the risk of unnecessary and wasted expenditure.

 

I would hope that the Committee Reports on these two questions can be published, with the agenda on the Council's website, by Monday afternoon, 25 September. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Second 'Friends of Barham Park' announced at Monday's Council Meeting to collaborate with the Trustees

 

The Sudbury Matters Forum Friends of Barham Park 'official' website


The Sudbury Matters Forum made a presentation to the Brent Council meeting on Monday in which they announced,because of the feasibility plans being explored for Barham Park by Brent Council, they had set up a Friends of Barham Park.

On September 15th I had received first notification from Francis Henry, of Barham Community Lbrary  that a Friends of Barham park had been set up to protect the park.

 


 

The Sudbury Matters presentation emphasised that their FoBP would be 'independent, inclusive, non-partisan and representative of the diverse communities that make up Brent' perhaps hinting that they felt the other FoBBwas none of these things.  However, it appears that some current and former Brent Labour councillors have been involved in setting up the second Friends.

Sudbury Matters  revealed that they had already engaged with the Trustees and council officers and said, 'We are committed to ensuring this (their oral emphasis) Friends Group is managed by residents whose sole aim is to preserve the integrity of this inheritance for current and future generations.'

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, could not have been more effusive (in stark contrast to how he later reacted to the presentation by Liberal Democrat Paul Lorber of the 1,000 Save Our Parks petition) welcoming the 'hand of friendship', the 'positive' initiative' and 'embracing the culture of collaboration'.

He swiftly tweeted his gratitude:

Although, the Sudbury Matters FoBP styled themselves 'official' it is unclear what this means and whether there is any established procedure regarding recognition by the council or other relevant organisations.

As I suggested to people from both FoFB groups outside of the meeting, it is really important that they work together to avoid classic divide and rule tactics by the council.

A Wembley Matters reader contacted me to  ask me to add these questions to any piece I was writing about the situation.

 I'm puzzled. 

  • Has the Sudbury Town Residents' Association, which was effectively the neighbourhood forum for that area, ceased to exist?
  • If not, what do they think about it? 
  • Is Brent Council, and its leadership, trying to sideline STRA, and replace it with a more compliant body?
  • Is the name, Sudbury Matters, an acknowledgement that residents have come to trust what they read on Wembley Matters, rather than anything issued by Brent Council, and attempt to hijack that trust for itself?



Wednesday, 20 September 2023

A Musical Journey along the Danube – at St Andrew’s Church, Kingsbury, Saturday 23 September at 7pm

 

Following on from its successful Heritage Open Day last Saturday, St Andrew’s Church in Kingsbury is opening its doors to the local community again next Saturday evening, for a concert. The Magic Violin String Trio and Mihajlo Stojanov Gruen will be performing music from along the River Danube, “From Vienna towards the Black Sea”.

Tickets are £10 each, either in advance on Eventbrite or at the door, and the proceeds will go towards the restoration of the beautiful Victorian building you will be sitting in as you enjoy the music. The concert begins at 19:00hrs (7pm), and you can find out more and book tickets via the Rekindling St Andrews website.

Kilburn tower block fire shows the necessity for Brent Council to engage with tenants - contribute to the engagement strategy and make it REAL!

 

 

Yesterday I asked a supplementary question on the Building Safety Act following the written answers provided prior to the meeting LINK. I will leave readers to judge whether the question was answered. 

Coincidentally, a fire broke out on the 13th floor of the tower block in Kilburn Square as the Council Meeting went on and Kilburn councillors left the meeting to go to the scene.

Life in Kilburn tweeted that there had been previous warnings about fires in that particular flat and these had gone unheeded by Brent Council.

 


The Daily Mirror followed this up and published a full piece HERE.

Three people have now been arrested in connection with the fire.

 


 


 

In 2017 I wrote an article on Wembley Matters about how the Kensington and Chelsea Council tried to silence a local blog, the Grenfell Action Group that had written about their concerns over the risks at Grenfell LINK prior to the fire and deaths. If one major lesson has emerged it is that residents who actually live in the blocks should be listened to and councils should engage with them.

 

That is being implemented six years on through a Resident Engagement Strategy. The council have a legal duty to set up a Resident Engagement strategy for each of the 41 Brent high-rises, including Kilburn Square.

 

Each strategy will allow anyone living in each building to engage with the council in making any decisions on both fire safety and structural issues in each high-rise.

 

These Resident Engagement strategies come within The Building Safety Act with most of it coming into force on the 1st October 2023.

 

The council are currently holding a consultation into what each strategy should include and they want to hear from anyone who lives in any of the 41 buildings in scope.

 

The Consultation can be found HERE. Brent Council explains:

 

The Building Safety Act (2022) introduced new requirements for building owners to demonstrate their ability to identify and manage safety risks in the properties they have responsibility for.

The Act specifically requires landlords to establish an engagement strategy for 'higher risk buildings' (18m in height OR seven storeys or more and containing at least 2 flats) and the document attached is a proposed engagement strategy for the 41 'higher risk buildings' owned and managed by Brent Housing Management.

 

The strategy details:

  • What information will be provided to residents
  • What decisions they will be consulted on
  • How residents views will be taken into account; and

How the appropriateness of consultation undertaken will be measured

 

The draft strategy is embedded below:

 

 


Brent-based charity, An-Nisa Society, calls for urgent investigation into institutional Islamophobia at Brent Council

 Guest post by An-Nisa Society

 

Two weeks ago, a young Muslim mother with her baby was attacked with Islamophobic abuse on the 260 bus in Harlesden. She was called a ‘jihadi,’ referring to her faith, and was sworn at in an unprovoked incident. No one, except another Muslim woman, challenged the man. Even more shocking was that the Mayor of Brent stood right next to the abuser and did not report the incident to the relevant authorities.

 

By chance, journalist Shamim Chowdhury was on the same bus, challenged the abuser and offered support to the woman that was being attacked. She was consequently threatened by him as well. What was particularly tragic, is that several passengers on the bus, rather than support the traumatised victim, raised their voices in support of the male abuser! This, despite, judging from the image, everyone on the bus and the abuser were people of colour!

 

Shamim managed to take a photograph of the abuser and posted it onto Twitter detailing what happened and also reported the incident to the police and Transport for London (TfL).

 

 


 

The tweet went viral, reaching and surpassing half a million views. Members of the public identified that the woman in the flowery top standing next to the abuser was actually the Mayor of Brent, Councillor Orleen Hylton. The issue is not that the Mayor did not challenge the abuser there and then, but that in her position and role as Mayor and Councillor, she did not later report the incident to the police and the relevant departments within Brent Council. It was her duty and moral obligation to speedily report the incident and take action, and we cannot understand why she chose to remain silent.

 

As a Brent-based charity that works for the welfare of Muslim women and families for the past 35 plus years, we were horrified with what had happened. We immediately asked Brent Council for a response. Working with Muslim women, we know that many live in constant fear of being attacked, as Islamophobic abuse is rife in Brent. We circumscribe our lives to avoid abuse, as we don’t feel safe. However, none of us can avoid going out or using public transport.

 

Sadly, we have had several reports of attacks on Muslim women in Brent and in particular on buses and bus stops on the Harrow Road route through Harlesden. It begs the question as to why this is happening on this route and it needs to be investigated.

 

Muslims suffer the highest levels of abuse and attacks across the UK, and these are greatly under-reported and not even recorded for a variety of reasons. Muslim women especially are on the frontlines of Islamophobic attacks.

 

In Brent we have had reports of many Muslim women being attacked. Road crossings seem to be a favoured place for attacks as well as on buses. Outside Islamia School in Salusbury Road, there have been several instances of attempts at running Muslim women over, usually with children in tow! One Muslim woman at another crossing, had a woman stop her car, get out and hit her on the head with, ironically, a bunch of flowers, while shouting anti-Muslim expletives.

 

So, you can imagine our distress and horror at this incident on the 260 bus. Hundreds of people on Twitter were also enraged at the attack, with many leaving comments and retweeting. The views of the photo that the journalist posted were rapidly increasing, reaching over 630k at the time of writing. On my personal LinkedIn page post of the incident, there are over 20,500 impressions today and rising, with numerous shares and comments agreeing that such attacks were rife and expressing shock at the Mayor’s lack of action. The Muslim community in Brent were also sharing the incident on WhatsApp and in person with each other, speaking about their shock and distress. Despite the upset the incident caused and the growing comments, Brent Council remained silent for five days.

 

We expected that there would have been a deluge of councillors expressing concern about the safety of women, there are 57 of them! But disappointingly, only a couple of Muslim male councillors responded and a new female Muslim councillor, Ishma Moeen, who expressed strong concern and gave a promise to work for change. Why is a Muslim woman being attacked locally, only a concern for Muslim councillors?

 

The response that eventually came from the council was shocking in its banality, basically a ‘fobbing off’ type of classic corporate statement. Clearly, they did not give the incident any importance. The response from the Mayor, whose ward consists of 27% Muslims, sounded uncaring and inconsistent. She said she was at the front of the bus, so denied that she saw or heard anything but also contradictorily added that she was intimidated, which is why she didn’t intervene! It seems highly unlikely according to journalist, Shamim Chowdury, that the Mayor did not see and hear what was going on as such a big ruckus was created on the bus.

 

The Mayor’s lack of action as a public servant is of grave concern. In our view, she displayed moral cowardice and lack of integrity. She has not even apologised at the very least for her actions. This year, funnily enough, the Mayor was appointed for her ‘service’ to the borough In her appointment statement she “assured the community that she will work tirelessly…to surpass expectations and deliver the best results for Brent’s diverse communities.” As a result of her actions, how can the community trust the Mayor to fairly represent their issues with understanding and vigour, if she ignores abuse that she’s been a witness to? She has lost all credibility. She has failed in her duty to Brent residents. The moral and right thing for her to do is to resign. Or failing that the council should sack her. 

 

However, neither has happened, she continues to be a guest of honour at events in the borough, shockingly so soon after the bus incident. There was the Mayor’s Fun Day, in Wembley on Saturday 16 September, organised by Brent Health Matters, which is a council initiative, and she was seen laughing and enjoying herself, as well as being given status and kudos.

 

On Sunday, she was guest of honour at Queens Park Day, where she was spotted by a Muslim Harlesden resident, whose daughter was performing there. The resident approached the Mayor, and politely told her that ‘her response to a woman being verbally abused was disappointing.’ She replied, that a statement had been issued. He asked if she could tell him the main points of the statement as he had not seen it, and whether she had written it herself or if was it delegated. At that point, security stepped in and whisked her away! The Harlesden resident was very disturbed by the incident and Brent Council’s lack of robust response. He told me, “The Mayor has a responsibility as a representative of the community to model the behaviour we ask of our kids.” He added, “I have a daughter, who will soon be travelling to school alone on local buses and if the Mayor can’t take action to keep the local area and buses safe, then we are very concerned.” 

 

 


 The Mayor at Queens Park Day

 

So, not only has the Mayor not resigned or been suspended, she continues to merrily carry out her duties at local community events in total disregard for the huge upset amongst the community. This behaviour is symptomatic of the lack of moral integrity in local and central government, and politics generally.  It also sends signals that Islamophobia and attacking vulnerable Muslim women is okay.

 

Meanwhile, the council’s statement did not answer any of the questions that we posed, other than it had been reported to the police (not by the Mayor obviously)!  We had asked the council for specifics to let us know who in the police is dealing with this incident; what are they doing about it; we asked for figures on Islamophobic attacks in Brent; what are the monitoring processes; how are these attacks recorded. There was radio silence and still is. We do not accept their condescending statement, and want tangible and measurable actions so that such attacks are stopped.

 

We also wanted to know what the council is doing to ensure the safety of Muslims, particularly Muslim women. Apparently, there is  a Brent Council Community Safety Team, surely, they should be aware of and have policies to deal with Islamophobia? But when we have asked for it, the council ignores the request and does not provide the information which should be readily available. Instead, the council has proposed a disingenuous offer of hosting an event for Islamophobia Awareness Month. The event was a big flop last year and had no strategic objective to deal with Islamophobia. And as far as we are concerned, without anti-Islamophobia measures being embedded in its policies and procedures, such an event is just window dressing and pointless.

 

We are convinced that if a woman had been attacked from any other community in Brent with the Brent Mayor present and ignoring the incident, it would have had a much more urgent and robust response. We feel that we, Brent Muslims are ignored and are treated with contempt by the council.

 

Institutional Islamophobia

 

Abuse and attacks and how they are mishandled by the authorities puts the spotlight once again on widespread Islamophobia in the public sphere. However, that’s not only where it exists. It is thriving in the public sector, which is supposed to cater equitably and sensitively for the needs of our citizens, who are tax payers. 

 

The way this attack has been so atrociously handled, demonstrates a clear example of institutional Islamophobia. Coincidentally, in a separate incident in a few days after the attack, a group of Muslim women set up a petition, due to institutional Islamophobia they suffered in Everyone Active Leisure Centres within Brent and Westminster, who demonstrated a complete lack of understanding or respect for the needs of Muslim women in sport. This type of insensitivity leads to Muslim women not taking part in sports, contributing to poor health outcomes.

 

To begin with, contrary to the incorrect popular belief, Islamophobia is not about racism (which is about colour). Islamophobia is about a hatred, prejudice and ignorance of Islam and Muslims, resulting in abuse, attacks and discrimination. It can be perpetrated by people of all colours against Muslims of all colours. Institutional Islamophobia is anti-Muslim discrimination in the public sector, both in its internal practices and service delivery, this can be deliberate or unintended, due to ignorance and lack of understanding.

 

To be clear, Muslims are a multi-ethnic, heterogenous and diverse community. We are not ‘Asians!’ Our values and most of our needs are influenced by our faith, whether we practise Islam a little or a lot. We are all as a group, also targets for abuse, prejudice and discrimination.

 

Brent is a good example, of how even in such a multi-cultural and multi-faith borough, both Islamophobic abuse and institutional anti-Muslim discrimination are thriving. As a charity that has been based in Brent for almost 40 years, widely known for being at the forefront of campaigning against Islamophobia, we have been saddened and disappointed by this council’s consistent indifference and lack of concern for its Muslim residents. We have been advocating and appealing to the council for decades to address the invisibility of Brent Muslims to the council and its own institutional Islamophobia. See our blog post on Wembley Matters about the Invisibility of Muslims in Brent.

 

Despite, the awards that Brent has won for its diversity, there is actually rampant institutional Islamophobia, which includes insensitive and discriminatory workplace practices and service delivery. Let’s just look at a few examples:


Muslims staff employed in Brent - By their own figures Muslim staff in Brent are underrepresented (10%) and are not commensurate to the large number of Muslims (21%) that live in Brent. Why is there an under-representation of Muslim council employees?  In addition, Brent Muslim employees have reported Islamophobic discrimination and abuse internally to us, which they feel afraid to report to the council due to repercussions and victimisation.

 

Public Services - The council provides a wide number of services such as child protection, children in care, health, housing, education amongst a lot of other services.  Insensitivity, outright discrimination and lack of understanding of Muslim needs are responsible for Muslim social exclusion; research and surveys repeatedly show Muslims have some of the highest levels of ill health and socio-economic disadvantage in the country, including Brent. From our own experience with Brent Council, over decades, through our interactions and the experience of our community, we believe we are ill-served by Brent Council.

 

While this was happening, the latest of numerous research reports showing Muslim specific disadvantage and inequalities, was published showing that Muslims had higher rates of death from Covid and, as significant numbers of worked in health services as essential workers, they faced greater exposure to the risks. This demonstrates that research using faith as a factor, alongside race and ethnicity, clearly highlight more accurately the true reality of the discrimination that Muslim specifically suffer.

 

We are not asking for special treatment or privileges. We are saying that the council needs to take Islamophobia seriously in all its forms. It needs to tackle Islamophobia as a priority, separate to race-based approaches. Race-based categorisations, identifying and delivering services to communities as racial groups does not work for Muslims. It has excluded us and

does not meet our faith-based needs and issues. We want Islamophobia to be recognised as a serious form of abuse that is a separate type of hate to racism, and is also a factor for institutional discrimination, although racism and Islamophobia can sometimes intersect. That is why we do not accept the toothless and incorrect definition of Islamophobia that it is a ‘form of racism.’

 

An-Nisa Society fought for decades for religious discrimination to be outlawed. Since the Equality Act 2010 came into force, Religion & Belief has been recognised as one of the nine protected characteristics; it is as important as racial discrimination. The public sector now has a statutory public sector equality duty to address discrimination based on religion and belief. By ignoring us, especially as we the community are demanding action that Islamophobia be tackled, they are effectively breaking the law.

 

 


 

 

Earlier this year, we launched our report. ‘Islamophobia - From Denial to Action’ about tackling Islamophobia in the Public Sector. The report presents a working definition of Islamophobia as a form of hate, prejudice and discrimination that emanates from a hatred of Islam and Muslims.  It goes into this issue extensively and makes practical recommendations for change. However, it was ignored by Brent Council. It might be helpful if the council would actually read it and implement the recommendations.

 

We understand, there is a review of Brent’s Diversity, Equalities and Inclusion (DEI) strategy underway right now. This seems an ideal time to overhaul the outdated DEI race-based classifications in identifying communities and strategies that are no longer, if they ever were, fit for purpose. It needs to ensure its own policies and procedures and service delivery meet the needs of all its communities, which means factoring in faith in such a faith-dominant borough.

 

Islamophobia is not harmless. We know that Islamophobia kills! Unless the council uses this opportunity to take Islamophobia seriously, we demand an independent investigation into institutional Islamophobia within Brent Council. If this tragic incident triggers a will from the council to address Islamophobia, then it will be something.

 

An-Nisa Society

LETTER: Barham Park new covenant mystery

 

Dear Editor.

 

This is very interesting and odd.

 

On the face of it while I was fighting for a covenant on Barham Park development through the meetings process, the idea was ultimately rejected.

 

So why did the Covenant still end up in the sales documentation?

 

Was it a rogue lawyer who inserted it?

 

Or was it just a cock up that no one noticed (it is normal when drafting a legal document to use a standard pro forma which includes everything under the sun and as part of the process the lawyer strikes out any paragraphs not required or requested).

 

The answer may be important especially if the Council was forced to include it by any of the outsiders?

 

The next meeting of the Trustees Committee to approve the corrected account sis on September 26th.

 

I have written to Debra Norman seeking clarification before the meeting:

 

One key issue outstanding which requires a clear answer is the question as to why the Covenant was put in place.

 

If you review the Barham Park Trust Minutes when the decision to sell the two houses was made you will notice that I argued that a restriction on further development on the site should be out in place. The Trust Committee rejected my proposal.

 

That decision was called in went to Scrutiny. If you check the minutes of that meeting, you will note that I argued the case and that Scrutiny agreed that a restriction should be put in place.

 

The recommendation from Scrutiny then went back to Cabinet but the Scrutiny recommendation was not accepted.

 

On the face of it the proposal for a restriction or covenant was not to be pursued.

 

So how did it come about that such strongly worded restrictive covenant ended up in the sale document relation to 776/778 Harrow Road houses?

 

Approval for the sale was required from the Charity Commission. Did the Charity Commission insist on the restrictive covenant before approving the sale?

 

Did the District Valuer insist on this and approve the valuation on this basis?

 

Was there subsequent advice from the Brent solicitors?

 

Was there a political change if heart because of pressure from within the Labour Party?

 

I would like this to be fully investigated as the reason is crucial to understanding whether the covenant can now be negotiated away or whether there are compelling reasons why it needs to be retained.

 

I would appreciate your answer on this before 26 September.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber

 

 

Monday, 18 September 2023

Relief that no injuries at Kilburn Square tower block fire

From X (formerly Twitter) @IvorRBFCosta 

 

From London Fire Briagde

Eight fire engines and around 60 firefighters were called to a flat fire on Kilburn Square in Kilburn.

Half of a flat on the 13th floor of a 15 storey building was alight. Thankfully, no injuries are reported.

It was a very visible fire and the Brigade's 999 Control room received 78 calls alerting them to the fire.

The Brigade was called at 1843 and was under control by 2009. Fire crews from Kentish Town, Kensington, Park Royal, Hendon, Chelsea, Euston and Soho fire stations were in attendance.

The cause of the fire is under investigation.