UPDATE: 20 Fire Engines called to blaze in block of flats in Elm Road, Wembley (parallel with Wembley High Road). Shelter at St John the Evangelist Crawford Avenue

 

 Credit BBC, EmmaL

From BBC and London Fire Brigade,

About 125 firefighters are tackling a blaze at a block of flats in north-west London.

Twenty fire engines were called out to Elm Road, Wembley, on Monday evening.

Video from the scene showed fire spreading between flats, while a firefighter on an aerial ladder sprayed water over the building.

Firefighters from Wembley, Park Royal, Northolt and surrounding fire stations were called to the scene, London Fire Brigade (LFB) said.

It said there were no reports of any injuries but part of the building's roof was alight, and urged people to avoid the area.

The block and surrounding buildings were evacuated as a precautionary measure, and a 105ft (32m) turntable ladder is being used as a water tower to help extinguish the fire.

LFB initially sent 10 engines and 70 firefighters just after 16:40 GMT. 

The fire was under control by 10pm.

It said the cause of the blaze was not yet known.

 

Brent Council this evening said via X:

 

The building and surrounding buildings have been evacuated as a precautionary measure. Shelter is being provided at St John the Evangelist Church, 3 Crawford Avenue, Wembley HA0 2HX.

 

The building and surrounding buildings have been evacuated as a precautionary measure. Shelter is being provided at St John the Evangelist Church, 3 Crawford Avenue, Wembley HA0 2HX.

 

On Next Door a local resident said re the church, 'Yeh, Yeh not good, Been there. Done that. Not great.' 

She went on, 'Most of us are at Weatherspoons having food and drink paid for by Octavia, and the block affected have gone to Travel Lodge to stay over for the night.'

Nevertheless, all credit to the church for acting quickly to give a safe space to those caught up in the event.

 

Meanwhile Chandresh Varsani tweeted this to Wembley Matters and others:

 

 

 

Somali Health Road Show Wednesday January 31st Chalkhill Community Centre 10am-2pm

 

 

 

 

The first of our Brent Health Road
shows in 2024 will be delivered alongside Somali Community Organisations and will focus on Women’s health

 

Community Research Champions Health Roadshow – Somali Community

Location: Chalkhill Community Centre

 

We’re excited to invite you to the Community Research Champions Health Roadshow – Somali Community! Join us for an informative and fun-filled event focused on health and well-being. Discover the latest tips and tricks to lead a healthier lifestyle, specifically tailored for the Somali community.

Our roadshow will take place at the Chalkhill Community Centre, a vibrant hub where you can connect with fellow community members. Get ready to engage in interactive workshops, receive expert advice, and gain valuable insights into maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

 

Whether you’re interested in nutrition, fitness, mental well-being, or general health, this event has something for everyone. Don’t miss out on this fantastic opportunity to learn, grow, and connect with others who share your interests.

 

Mark your calendars and get ready for an event that will empower you to make positive changes in your life.

 We can’t wait to see you at the Brent Health Roadshow – Somali Community!

Willesden Green will be without any banks at all as Barclays announce closure

 Barclays has announced that it is to close its Willesden Green branch on May 3rd The closure announcement follows those for the town centre's National Westminster and Lloyds banks and leaves the area with no bank at all.

Barclays closed its Cricklewood branch some time ago.

This will reinforce the case for a LINK banking hub in Willesden Green that was made by loca ward councillors. LINK

 

Wembley Stadium to bid for an increase in the number of non-sporting events held at the venue

 

 Ed Sheeran at Wembley Stadium

The impact of Wembey Stadium on the local community has always been controversial. On the one hand complainants are told, 'There has been a stadium here for more than a hundred years. Why live near a stadium if you are going to complain about it?' to, 'We are imprisoned in our homes on Event Days and the number keeps increasing.'  Views vary from, 'The stadium brings in money for the local economy and puts Wembley on the map', to 'We have to pay for clearing up all the litter, put up with public urination and disruption of public transport.'

So the news that Wembley Stadium is seeking to apply to Brent Planning Committe to increase the cap on the number of non-sporting events from 46 to 54 is likely to reignite debate.

In a circular to residents Wembley Stadium says:

Wembley Stadium is looking to adjust the annual stadium event cap to provide more flexibility to attract additional non-sporting major events.

The current permission of 46 events per year limits the number of dates Wembley Stadium can offer to non-sports acts or events. Increasing the cap to 54 major events per year would provide increased flexibility to attract major international acts to the stadium.

The application will retain a cap on the number of major sporting events to no more than 25 per annum, with a minor variation to the definition of a major event as a stadium bowl event with a capacity in excess of 60,000 people.

A planning application will be submitted to Brent Council shortly. Full details of the application will be available for viewing on Brent’s planning portal in the coming weeks.

If you have any initial comments or queries about the proposal, please let us know by submitting your response HERE before 1 pm on Wednesday 21st February.

We will also be holding a drop-in session for more information from 6 pm on Thursday 22nd February in Wembley Stadium’s Club Wembley Main Reception. Please come along for more information and a chance to discuss this in person.

Meanwhile Brent Council's 'Healthy Streets and Parking Resident Services' is asking for the views of councillors (not the public) on Event Day Traffic Management Orders

In order to accommodate events and games being held at the stadium, it is proposed to add dates for the 2024 calendar year to the existing Wembley Stadium Event Day Traffic Management Orders which have been made and are currently enforced.

 

We need to prepare for the eventuality for all of these dates to be included within our Traffic Management Orders even though on some dates no event will take place. This is mainly due to the fact that the dates cannot precisely be identified with certainty yet, at the time of this proposal.

 

Please note that on the date that enforcement will take place, signs will display the restrictions that are in place.

 

The proposed events are planned on the following dates, inclusive of the South Way two-way traffic flow:-

 

25th February 2024,

23rd and 26th March 2024,

7th, 20th and 21st April 2024,

4th, 5th, 11th, 12th, 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th May 2024,

1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 29th June 2024,

3rd, 7th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 25th, 27th, and 31st July 2024,

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 10th, 11th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th and 25th August 2024,

2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 28th and 29th September 2024,

5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th October 2024,

2nd, 3rd, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th and 30th November 2024,

1st, 2nd and 3rd December 2024.

 

The Silvertones at The Windermere Pub Sunday February 4th - Preston Library fundraiser

 

Toilets, fare concessions, & universal basic income: Greens propose a budget for London’s communities

 From London Green Party

During the annual debate over the upcoming budget for the Greater London Authority (GLA) Group, Caroline Russell AM led her colleagues Siân Berry AM and Zack Polanski AM in proposing a transformative budget amendment to put London’s communities at the centre of Assembly funding. 

Following the decision by other Assembly Members to vote against these urgent investments, Green Party London Assembly Member Caroline Russell said:

 

This budget process has shown exactly how much change seems to be hiding down the back of the Mayor’s sofa. It’s time we put that money straight into London’s communities. 

 

I simply cannot understand why my colleagues elsewhere in the Assembly continue to celebrate the Mayor’s crumbs, instead of pushing to fully fund the initiatives we know Londoners need.

 

We will continue to push for the investment and attention that every high street, commuter, and resident needs here in London.

 

The six budget components proposed by Caroline Russell AM were: 

 

1.      Public Toilet Funding: While we commend the Mayor’s new programme of additional public toilets on the TfL estate, it lacks the ambition of our previous amendments so we aim to increase funding for the TfL toilets programme to build and maintain new, free public toilets. 

 

2.      Fare Concessions: For the older people who have consistently asked for the removal of restriction on their 60+ photocard and Freedom Pass, we will bring back the free travel provisions provided before the pandemic, which the Government made London remove. 

 

3.      Investing in Dead Spaces: We want to build a more resilient local economy by ensuring small businesses and community groups have spaces to grow by putting disused (but still useful) empty office blocks and shops into their hands.  

 

4.      Resident Empowerment: And not just open these spaces but support and empower people to be able to influence local development plans, and to build their own community plans with financing from a resident empowerment fund. 

 

5.      Climate Resilience Review: We will back the work of the London Climate Resilience Review by doubling its budget to £2 million specifically for the key recommendations that include collaborative work and work with communities.

 

6.      Universal Basic Income: And for a community group with a pilot ready to go, fund the essential wraparound support for a pioneering Universal Basic Income (UBI) programme, to fully explore an idea that could be lifechanging for many Londoners.

 

These six proposals could have been fully funded using the following funding sources, none of which would have taken funding away from existing services: 

• £30 million from an increase to the Congestion Charge
• £4.95 million from the Business Rates Reserve
• £1 million from the GLA Climate Emergency Funding Reserve in 2024-25 (£3 million over the next three years)
• £18.255 million from Reserves Earmarked for GLA Services

 

The GLA Group includes: Transport for London; Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, London’s Fire Commissioner, London Legacy Development Corporation, and the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation. 

 

A copy of Caroline Russell AM’s Draft Consolidated Budget Amendment can be found here. 

 

 

Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review  report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.

That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.

 

 Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!

Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.

This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.

The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :

Philip Grant correspondence

This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?

If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.

What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.

Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.

 

Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.

I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'

 

I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.

As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.

You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.

I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).

Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.

Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.

 

Yours,

Philip Grant.

 

Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:

'Thank you, Mr Grant.

I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.

Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.

I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.

Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.

Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.

I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'


I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email, and fuller response.

The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.

If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.'

 

This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.

His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:

'Dear Mr Grant

I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.

"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."

I wish you a good evening.'

This was my reply, shortly afterwards:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email.

I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.

However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,

Philip Grant.'

23 January 2024 at 19:46

 

Paul Lorber correspondence

 

In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.

One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.

What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.

While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.

I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.

Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.

Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.

To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.

In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.

Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.

Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.

 

 

Willesden Green councillors oppose the bank closures 'blight' on small businesses and the elderly

 

Wembley Matters published a letter LINK on January 12th setting out the impact of the closure of the Willesden Green branch of National Westminster Bank on the elderly, disabled and those without internet access.

 

It was good to hear thatWillesden Green councillors, Tom Miller, Janice Long and Saqlain Choudry had taken up the issue. with the banks

 

This is their letter in full:

 

We are writing to express our serious concern and disappointment over the announcement to close two bank branches – Lloyds and NatWest – in Willesden Green, both of which are due to close by the end of March this year. With uncertainty over the future of other branches looming, too, Willesden Green has now fallen victim to the surge of branch closures that is blighting local small businesses, the elderly, and other vulnerable groups. 

 

This is very disappointing news, especially given how NatWest has been rooted in the community; and there is real risk that cash provision and access to basic services will be severely affected. We have been contacted by several residents who have expressed their apprehension over this decision.

 

High street bank closures have become an epidemic in the last few years, with over half of bank branches in the UK shutting their doors in the eight years since the Conservatives came to government in 2015. There are now just 3,200 remaining in England – and Willesden Green and Brent are no exception to these dwindling numbers. The banks are a vital point for the community. These closures are yet another nail in the coffin for the UK’s high street banking infrastructure and will see some towns lose more than one bank within a matter of days or weeks – suggesting little thought has been given to the impact on the communities they serve. 

 

Many people, particularly older people and those with disabilities, need access to physical banking services which go much further than access to cash. It’s often about having a real person to talk to, especially for those individuals with serious financial concerns and who are unable to make the transition to an entirely digitised banking system. Trust is greatly enhanced by personal contact, and greatly reduced when there is none. Some services do require in-person verification, and safety concerns over potential financial abuse are often better spotted when customers are able to use these essential face-to-face services. Many local businesses also bank with NatWest, so the feeling of regularity and social interaction will be omitted in other branches. Do you plan to hold sessions for residents explaining the impact of the closure and advising customers further, especially on the more complex, in-person banking operations? Are both NatWest and Lloyds willing to meet with senior management, cabinet lead and local councillors at Brent Council to discuss the implications on residents? 

 

We, of course, understand that regular reviews are a necessary part of business operation, particularly as we move to a more digital world. But we are very disappointed in the lack of consultation with local councillors and residents on this closure. There has been a distinct lack of visibility and inclusion on surveys and feedback from both NatWest and Lloyds, and we have not seen any detailed data regarding the decision to close. Are NatWest and Lloyds willing to share with us any additional data or metrics they have collected that led to the decision to close? Were the views of local councillors or the local authority taken into account at all in this decision? 

 

Communication has been minimal, reasoning obscure, and not enough consideration given to alternative provisions. Residents have told us that they have been advised to use branches elsewhere – such as in Kilburn High Road, Golders Green, and Swiss Cottage – but longer travel times will make journeys more difficult or impossible for some. We are also concerned about a wave of potential job losses with these continued closures, and would welcome some reassurance on the future of your current team members in the Willesden Green branches. 

 

It is clear that, if these closures are unequivocally going ahead in Willesden Green as they are elsewhere in the UK, an alternative course is needed. The Social Market Foundation found that 7 million people, most of them older and poorer, do all their banking in their local high street branch. But it’s not just these groups: research from LINK has found that around a quarter of Britons still use cash at least once a week, and about 10% of the country use it daily. The latest figures from the British Retail Consortium also show that shopping with cash has risen for the first time in a decade, as household budgets are increasingly stretched and the cost-of-living crisis continues to bite. At the same time, over half of bank branches have closed, and the Conservatives’ rollout of banking hubs has been much delayed. 

 

The rollout has been painfully slow, leaving many communities to become banking deserts. This has become a particular problem in town centres and on high streets such as ours in Willesden Green. The current plans are totally inadequate for creating a much-needed national network of accessible services, and so we are pleased that the Labour Party have recently committed to accelerating the rollout of banking hubs where people can deposit and take out cash, as well as access wider banking services, as part of our Plan for Small Business. The hubs are designed to be shared by major banks, so customers from almost every bank will be able to use them. 

 

The weakness of the current banking hub system is its voluntary character. It arguably shows the weakness of the present regulation when banks are closing thousands of their branches all around the country, withdrawing services to their customers, and then promising banking hubs that they are under no obligation to introduce. The current protocol between lenders and the Government is toothless, and so we support the Shadow Chancellor’s calls for stronger additional powers for the FCA. When a local community demonstrates need and meets the relevant criteria, a banking hub ought to be guaranteed. Considering the shift Willesden Green is about to undergo, we believe that this will be the best course to steer for us as a community. 

 

We therefore will be submitting a formal request to LINK to undertake a review of Willesden Green in light of these branch closures, asking that they assess the viability of opening a banking hub to guarantee that local residents and independent businesses still have access to these essential services. As Labour councillors, we will continue to fight for our communities and ensure that no one is left behind.