The long 'Swift weekend' will leave many Wembley residents with delays and diversions. Consultation on the application for additional events at the stadium closes on Monday

 

The weekend ahead will see three Taylor Swift Concerts - Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 

Doors open on Friday and Saturday at 4.30pm,.  This means early road closures and bus diversions will affect school children  at home-time on Friday. On previous occasions I have found school children heading north stranded by the 206 bus at Brent Park where it is curtailed on event days. School children heading south towards Harlesden on the 206 bus route from Wembley Park will find the bus does not run pre-event and the 18 and 92 will be diverted.

To add to the difficulties Chiltern trains will not stop at Wembley Stadium station on Saturday and Sunday due to  works on the line. Chiltern have objected to the proposed increase in the number of events at the Stadium as they do not have the staff or rail stock to cope.

This is the announcement from Brent Council

Wembley Stadium will be hosting Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour on the following dates in June:

 

-        Friday 21 June

-        Saturday 22 June

-        Sunday 23 June

 

Please read below to see how this might affect you.

 

Timings

 

- Friday 21 June: Doors open at 4.30pm and road closures will be in place from 12.30pm.

-  Saturday 22 June: Doors open at 4.30pm and road closures will be in place from 12.30pm.

-  Sunday 23 June: Doors open at 3.45pm and road closures will be in place from 11.45am.

 

We expect the area around Wembley Stadium to be very busy before and after these events so please avoid the area if you can unless you have a ticket.

Event day parking

 

Event day parking restrictions will be in place from 8am to midnight on main roads and from 10am to midnight on residential roads on 21, 22 and 23 June.

 

If you have a paper permit, please make sure you clearly display it in your vehicle. If you have an electronic permit, you do not need to display this.

 

Drink-free zone

 

We want to create a safe and enjoyable experience for all visitors.

 

To crack down on anti-social behaviour, we will be enforcing a ban on street drinking in the streets around Wembley Stadium before these events, as part of the Public Space Protection Order (PSPO).

 

Despite the announcement made some years ago (see below) on the Brent Council  website the North End Road link, which would enable the 206 bus route to run on event days, has still not been actioned by TfL:

 The 206 bus route serves the Kings Drive/Pilgrims Way Estate at The Paddocks stop. The estate is up a steep hill from Wembley Park so curtailment of the service particularly affects elderly residents with mobility problems. It also affects residents on the Kings Drive Estate who use the 206 bus to travel to work at Tesco/Ikea at Bridge Park or the industrial area south of the stadium.

Taylor Swift's performance coincides with the last few days of a consultation on a planning application made by Wembley Stadium for an increase in the number of events held at the stadium and changes in the sports/concert split. Neighbourhood comments have to be made by Monday June 24th.

Of the 109 comments so far more than 100 are objections to the stadium's proposals. They include objections from long-standing residents who find the gradual increase in the number of events disrupts their lives to an an unreasonable degree as well as residents of the new developments around the stadium who find the noise and disruption more than they bargained for when moving into the area. Questions are asked about access to the new Wembley Park Medical Centre on event days.

Here is a fairly typical objection on the Planning Portal:

Objects

 

I am writing to formally object to the proposed application for increased events at Wembley Stadium, which seeks to remove the swap cap clause and increase the number of live and sporting events from 46 to 54 per annum. As a resident, I am deeply concerned about the significant and detrimental impact this will have on our community.

1. Existing Strain on Community Resources and Wellbeing

The current frequency of events, averaging nearly one per week, already imposes a considerable burden on local residents. Increasing this number to 54 events per year will exacerbate existing issues, including noise pollution, stress, and elevated rental prices. The intensified schedule will disrupt the peace and quality of life for those living in the vicinity, undermining the community's well-being.


2. Overlapping Impact with Neighboring Venues

Wembley Stadium's impact cannot be viewed in isolation. The neighbouring arena also hosts numerous live events, collectively causing significant disruptions on a regular basis. While these venues predate the residential developments, the area was designed to foster a livable and safe environment for residents, particularly young adults. This balance is increasingly at risk with the proposed increase in events.

3. Negative Effects of Live Fan Parks and Anti-Social Behavior

The introduction of Live Fan Parks has further aggravated the situation. Located prominently at the front of the stadium, these parks frequently play loud music and promote an environment conducive to alcohol consumption, hooliganism, and other undesirable behaviours. This has led to numerous instances of anti-social behaviour, property damage, and safety concerns for local residents, who often find unwanted and unsolicited guests entering their buildings.

4. Environmental and Sustainability Concerns

The proposed increase in events is unsustainable from a noise, environmental, social, and resource perspective. The cumulative impact on local infrastructure, waste management, and public transport systems will be profound, straining the borough's resources and compromising its commitment to sustainability.

5. Preservation of Community Livability

As residents, we chose to live in this area to enjoy its amenities and community atmosphere. The relentless increase in events prevents us from doing so, as it disrupts our daily lives and diminishes our quality of living. The local community deserves to enjoy the facilities and environment without the constant disruptions caused by an excessive number of events.


Conclusion

In light of the aforementioned points, I strongly urge the committee to reconsider the proposal to increase the number of events at Wembley Stadium. The long-term negative consequences on the community, environment, and local resources far outweigh any potential benefits. I echo the sentiments of my fellow residents, [ ] and implore the committee to prioritize the well-being and sustainability of our community.

 

This submission takes up the issue of the claimed benefits to the local economy:

Objects

 

I object to the proposed changes to planning permission.

Businesses in the wider vicinity(not adjacent to the stadium or benefitting from increased footfall)are finding that clients are choosing to avoid event days particularly due to a lack of adequate accessible parking and increased delays due to traffic congestion.

Those that do benefit are in a narrow related category only.

There is a noticeable reduction in revenue with clients either avoiding event weekends or not being able to allocate adequate time within retail premises.Many businesses commit additional staff for normal busy weekends and certainly this will have a direct effect on hiring or retaining staff.

Traffic management as proposed in variation 2 will only exarcebate the situation.

 

A supporter of the application wants something in exchange:

 

  I live in Chalkhill and I am in favor of this planning application as it will support the economic activity of the National Stadium and the greater area around it.

However, this has to work both ways and I would like the National Stadium to contribute to 2 things in exchange for getting planning permission:

1. The activity of the National Stadium brings a lot of anti-social behaviour and the National Stadium should be responsible for policing the area during the events, including cleaning up the streets within the entire CPZ area. Enough of the garbage on the streets, people peeing in public, etc.

2. The activity of the National Stadium should bring financial benefits to those who have to endure all the nuisance it brings. Chalkhill is one of the poorest areas in London yet it is located just opposite the National Stadium. There are no sports facilities in Chalkhill yet it is located just opposite of the "Temple of Sports". This is not acceptable. Brent Council is broke so the National Stadium should invest heavily in sports facilities in Chalkhill. The Chalkhill open space by the river Brent is in dire condition and could benefit from a running track, "artificial" football ground, basket ball ground, tennis court, etc. No one uses the BMX and scooter tracks and they should be removed. The upgrading of the Chalkhill open space should be done in tandem with an upgrade of the Poplar Grove Centre (perhaps a swimming pool?) which should become open to the public again. Basically, there is room, with the financial and managerial support of the National Stadium, to make a big impact to one of the poorest communities in London.

 

And another takes up the issue of movement around the Wembley area:

 

In as much as I support this application as it will be useful for the local economy. However, I have reservations around residents' parking access as this may be affected by visiting individuals taking up parking spaces which are already low in number around the area. Will the council offer Event Day Parking Permits to residents and their visitors for free or supply enforcement officers or a system to protect residents parking spaces. Also, I would ask that the Council takes into consideration the local residents who use public transport who will be seriously hampered by the changes in local bus routes being cancelled on event days and how this may impact on them. I'm for the planning permission to go ahead but some level of support around local residents travel needs and requirements would be welcomed.

 

Cllr Paul Lorber has stepped into the debate through a request to Brent Council:

 

This paragraph appears in the document produced for the Stadium in support of their planning application and included in the Brent Council Planning Portal:

 

 

5.12 WNSL has conducted pre-application discussions with the Leader and Chief Executive of Brent Council where the proposals in this application were presented. 

 

Following that meeting it was agreed between the attendees that: 

 

“The proposals presented were positively received and WNSL were commended for their professional delivery of stadium event operations to date. It was recognised that the flexibility built into the application to provide a range of dates to promoters and artists is a necessary requirement for WNSL to continually deliver global event success and retain Wembley Stadium’s world class status as an iconic venue for the delivery of sporting and non-sporting events. The benefits of retaining high quality acts at the stadium also reap great rewards for the borough of Brent through the growth of the local community, businesses, economy and tourism.”

 

The intent for including it by the applicant is clearly to influence others. Personally I do not believe this should have been included.

 

I recall that when previous changes to use of the Stadium was being considered (use by Tottenham for example) the Council organised public information and consultation meetings.

 

The latest proposals will have a major impact on the lives of tens of thousands of residents in the Wembley area.

 

One major impact overlooked is on families with a disabled resident requiring regular care when that care is disrupted because buses are diverted or cancelled and the carer cannot attend or is delayed.

 

I am not sure if Social Care or even NHS providers are consulted to seek their views on the impact of more Large Event days or increasing the capacity of smaller events to 60,000.

 

The Planning Meeting is too restrictive and means that the number of speakers is restricted.

 

The Council should organise a number of public meetings where the Planning Application and its impact can be fully explained and local people have an opportunity to have their say snd their concerns responded to.

 

Please confirm if any Public Meetings will be held in advance of the Planning Meeting.

 

 Make comments  objecting, supporting or neutral on the Brent Council Planning Portal HERE

Unfortunately some residents are having trouble accessing the site. If so search for Reference 24/1329.

 

Brent Council explains the Wembley Library changes

 I have recently been asked about the Wembley Library plans by people who have been in the Civic Centre and found the ground floor library closed. A temporary and much reduced library has been installed on the first floor shared with a Hub and with a restricted number of study spaces available elsewhere in the Civic Centre. The changes will cost more than £2m are are expected to be completed in the Autumn. The new main entrance to the Civic Centre will be next door to Sainsbury's - the present library entrance.

This is the statement from the Brent Council website:

Transformation of Wembley Library and Community Hub

Brent’s award-winning Civic Centre opened in 2013, replacing the former headquarters at Brent Town Hall. The building attracts thousands of visitors each year who come to speak to customer services, get married, register births and deaths, study, socialise and more.

As one of the greenest public buildings in the country, it uses 70% less energy, saving money and protecting the environment, and it brings all our services under one roof.

Since the building first opened, we have been regularly checking how people use the building to ensure it continues to be a welcoming space creating a positive experience for all visitors.

Customer Access review

Since the Covid pandemic, more residents access our services online and face-to-face support is being prioritised for residents with the most complex need.

In 2021, we launched a review to improve the way customers and residents access our services in the Civic Centre to respond to the changing needs of those using the building.

We received feedback from over 500 residents, staff focus groups, workshops and surveys.

As a result of this consultation, we will be making some changes to the building to improve the customer experience.

The key layout changes

The redesign will see changes to Wembley Library, the Community Hub, the Customer Services Centre and the Registration and Nationality space on the ground floor and the mezzanine floors.

The benefits will include:

• A new welcoming main entrance to the building on Exhibition Way by Sainsbury’s and new customer waiting area.
• A new dedicated customer area on the ground floor, where customers can meet with Hubs and Customer Service staff. This will include more meeting rooms so that customers can have private and confidential conversations with staff
• A new purpose-built and enclosed Children’s Library
• A repurposed mezzanine floor with a flexible and multi-use Library space and an increased number of study spaces
• A private Family Room for confidential meetings
• The building will be more accessible for visitors with wheelchairs, pushchairs, and complex needs
• A dedicated digital area to support residents and visitors

Work update

Construction work to revamp and improve Brent Civic Centre is now underway.  Work is expected to be completed in autumn 2024. Throughout this period, all services will remain operational. A temporary library service will be available on the first floor of the civic centre. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience. 

Democracy in Brent – Council and Leader responses to my open email.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Martin reports Cabinet’s (in)action over my efforts to get 28 May minutes corrected.

 

If you have been following the saga over the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease, and what happened at the Brent Cabinet meeting on 28 May, you will know I feel strongly that the subsequent official minutes for item 7 are not a correct record.

 

On Sunday, Martin published a guest post from me, setting out the text of an open email which I had sent to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, and all the members of his Cabinet. This forwarded an email I had sent to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), which gave details of the changes I believe needed to be made to the minutes, to make them a correct record, which is what minutes of meetings are meant to be. I wrote: ‘I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.’

 

In the hour before that meeting, there was an exchange of emails between the Corporate Director and myself, followed by an email from the Council Leader after the meeting. As Martin has published my views, I think it only fair that he should also publish the Council’s response to them.

 

Here are the full texts of the email exchanges on Monday 17 June, so that followers of “Wembley Matters” can read them if they wish to, and make up their own minds on the issues. All of the emails were copied to the Council Leader, Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive. (As I am writing this, I will reserve the right to have the final word! You are welcome to agree or disagree with me in the comments section below.)

 

Monday 17 June at 9.15am, from Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance):

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your emails relating to this matter and I note your main concerns identified in your email of 14 June 2024 (now copied to the Cabinet and Chief Executive) following your consideration of Mr *****’s email of earlier that day.

 

The main purpose of minutes of a Cabinet meeting is to establish a clear record of the decision(s) taken.  The minutes should also establish the reasons for the decision(s) including any alternative options which are placed before Cabinet but not agreed.  This can be done by reference to the report relating to the decision.

 

The minutes meet these requirements.

 

Other details of the meeting are not required to be included.  In respect of what is included I cannot see that the minutes are inaccurate.

 

In respect of the first section you wish to substitute, the decision and reasons are required to be recorded in the minutes.  The minutes refer to the potential options being presented in the report, they do not state that the Leader specifically presented these options himself. You had of course already spoken about the Options so there could be no doubt that the Cabinet was aware of them and of the views of those who supported the petition to take note of them.  In agreeing the recommendations in the report, the Cabinet was agreeing to note items as recommended as Mr ***** explained.

 

Cllr Donnelly-Jackson thanked you for your contribution, which was for the purpose of representing the residents who supported the petition, and I think recording that as Cabinet thanking residents is not inaccurate.

 

There is no general requirement for Cabinet members to vote by a show of hands or to formally state their support.  Cabinet members were given the opportunity to indicate that they did not agree the recommendations which the Leader had proposed be agreed, for example if they had thought Option A was the correct choice.  None of them chose to do so.

 

In respect of your second proposed substitution and your intervention to raise a point of order, the minute clearly captures the import of the Leader’s response.  As a member of the public observing a Cabinet meeting you would not have the formal right to raise a point of order.  However, given you stated the point you wish to raise anyway, had the Chief Executive or Head of Law considered there was a matter of concern to address I am sure they would have provided advice.

 

In summary, although I wasn’t at the meeting, I have watched the webcast and do not consider the minutes to be an incorrect representation of the decision or the reasons for it, including the options which were presented by the report.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Debra Norman
Corporate Director, Law & Governance

 

Monday 17 June at 9.35am, my reply to Ms Norman’s email:

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for yoùr detailed response to the concerns I raised.

 

I note what you have said, but still believe that the minute for item 7 of the 28 May Cabinet meeting is NOT a correct record, and should not be accepted by Cabinet as such.

 

I would be grateful if you would, please, publicly make clear at the meeting that a member of the public involved at that meeting does not accept that minute as being a correct record, and have that included in the minutes of today's meeting. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Monday 17 June at 9.59am (meeting started at 10am!), reply to me from Ms Norman:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email.

 

This would be a matter for the Leader.

 

Best wishes

 

Debra

 

Monday 17 June at 11.08am, from Cllr. Muhammed Butt’s to me:

 

Thank you.

 

The minutes were accepted as a true reflection of the cabinet meeting held in May.

 

Regards

 

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council
Labour councillor for Tokyngton ward.

 

It is not often I agree with Cllr. Butt, but I think that what has happened over this matter, since the open email I wrote to him on 20 May (about the need for the voting on the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease to not only be fair, but to be seen to be fair) is a ‘true reflection’ of the state of Democracy in Brent under his Leadership.

 

I said above that I would have the final word. This is the reply I sent to the Council Leader, with copies to Cabinet members and Brent’s Chief Executive and Corporate Director … etc.:

 

Dear Councillor Butt,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I will pass on your message to those who are interested.

 

I hope that you and your Cabinet colleagues will consider, along with the Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Law and Governance), the points I made in my email of 15 June, about the need for Cabinet decisions, and votes on them, to be more visibly seen to be considered and made, in the interests of open democracy.

 

That is also something where "Change" would be welcomed. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent residents deserve to be treated with more respect by our elected councillors*. The least we should expect in a democracy is that the decision-making body, Brent’s Cabinet, considers  decisions carefully and votes properly on them in its public meetings!

 

Philip Grant.

 

* They were democratically elected. Cllr. Butt topped the poll, receiving 1447 votes, when he was elected to represent Tokyngton Ward in 2022, and Labour councillors won 57.6% of the votes cast in Brent, on a 30.67% turnout. Under our first-past-the-post system, that gave Labour 49 out of 57 Council seats, and after such a victory it was unsurprising that Cllr. Butt’s councillors voted to give him four more years as Leader of the Council (a post he has held since May 2012).

Labour urged to 'get a grip on the unrelenting cladding horror show'

 The cladding crisis has hit properties in Brent (see LINK) and End Our Cladding Scandal  has been in the forefront of the campaign to achieve justice for the occupants of affected buildings along with Brent Cladding Action Group.

End Our Cladding Scandal has recently issued a statement LINK calling for a stronger commitment from Labour on the issue:

Since the Grenfell catastrophe in 2017, we have welcomed the support from Labour MPs – whether that given to individual leaseholders or the Shadow Housing team’s ongoing engagement with our campaign. This included commitments made by Sir Keir Starmer in 2021 and the plan to create a “Building Works Agency” to solve the building safety crisis if Labour was re-elected – a plan which we helped to shape.

In October last year, Labour’s full final policy platform explicitly stated that “Leaseholders should be protected from the costs of remediating cladding and non-cladding defects in all buildings irrespective of circumstances.” Labour’s manifesto now only states that it will “review how to better protect leaseholders from costs and take steps to accelerate the pace of remediation across the country” and that there must be a “renewed focus on ensuring those responsible for the building safety crisis pay to put it right.”

We expected Labour’s manifesto to be high level; however, we are disappointed to not see more than this.

Labour may wish to restore the dream of home ownership to 1.5 million people across the country. But, right now, an estimated 600,000 people are trapped in unsafe flats with their dreams and futures ruined. The pace of remediation remains glacial with millions of leaseholders unable to sell and move on with their lives. Buildings insurance is also still a mess. Last April, Shadow Housing Minister, Matthew Pennycook recognised that ordinary people “have been struggling with the eye-watering cost” for years and that we “need ministers to act decisively to drive those costs down not yet more procrastination and tinkering around the edges.” He said that Labour would “look to quickly establish a risk-pooling scheme with government backing” – will a Labour government back the ABI’s Reinsurance Facility in the first 100 days if it wins the election?

We want, need and deserve to have firm commitments with a clear timeline to fix all buildings, ensure residents are and feel safe, and protect all leaseholders – all of whom are innocent and are still shouldering a desperately unfair burden. We have shown Labour how to do this at a meaningful pace and with visible grip in our manifesto.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report will be published on 4^th September and we expect this to spell out how successive governments played a huge part in causing this crisis by focusing on the interests of industry over residents and enabling decades of bad practice across the construction sector. We note that the National Audit Office is due to report on the pace of remediation in Autumn and this should add pressure on the next government to get a grip of this unrelenting horror show.

In recent years, we have worked with the Government, the Health and Safety Executive’s Building Safety Regulator, Homes England, the Leasehold Advisory Service, and many other stakeholders to hold them to account and set out how the building safety crisis can be fixed. Whichever party forms the next government must show the political will to deliver a much fairer and faster end to the building safety crisis. Labour’s manifesto is titled Change – we need details on how they will change the current ineffective approach to making homes safe. Fire won’t wait and neither can we.

Brent Cabinet to approve draft Tenant and Leaseholder Strategy tomorrow. Does it do the job?

 In September 2023, in a public question, I asked Cllr Promise Knight about Brent Council's actions over safety in its tall buildings post Grenfell and in the light of the Building Safety Act. It was important given what was emerging at the Grenfell Inquiry that tenants and leaseholders be fully involved.

Cllr Knight's Answer: LINK

 Photo: SkyNews.com

A further issue that emerged is that of the health dangers of damp and mould following the death of two year-old Awaab Ishak. LINK  Wembley Matters has written about damp and mould in Brent Council properties on the South Kilburn Estate LINK and Landau House, Kilburn LINK.

Tomorrow the Brent Cabinet will consider a draft Tenant and Leaseholder Engagement Strategy aimed at enabling tenants and leaseholders to challenge the Council on these issues in order to prevent another disaster.

The full Cabinet papers can be found HERE and the meeting is at 10am on Monday morning. They set out a series of arrangements and commitments:

 

Every person who rents or owns a home from the Council is important and should have a say in how their home is managed. This document explains how the Council will listen to what you think about living in your home and make changes based on your feedback.

By talking to you and others, the Council will improve services like fixing your home, keeping shared spaces clean, managing your lease, collecting rent, and making sure you are safe.

This document doesn’t talk about every service the Council provides, but any useful feedback will always be shared with the right people.

Events like the fire at Grenfell Tower show that listening to you is the only way we can be a good landlord. Over the next four years, we will work to rebuild our relationship with you, so you feel heard. We will also show you how your feedback has been used to make decisions.

We will be honest and open with information and improve how we communicate with you. This document supports the Council's plan to help everyone in Brent move forward together.

 

OUR COMMITMENTS

1. Commitment One: We have a culture that respects engagement & make changes using your feedback.

How we will do this:

o We will offer various ways for you to get involved and share feedback. o Achieve the National Engagement Standard set by the tenant  engagement support organisation, TPAS.

o Make sure our contractors (repairs) also offer ways you can get involved.

o We will train all new housing staff on engagement and refresh this  training annually.

o We will establish a tenant and leaseholder committee to hold the  Council accountable.

 

2. Commitment 2 – We will learn from your feedback.

How we will do this:

o We will regularly review feedback and complaints to spot areas for improvement.

o Share learning with housing staff and change our practice using this information.

o Host events each year so you can meet with housing staff and report any issues.

o We will use data to identify neighbourhood priorities and engage with specific estates to understand issues.

 

3. Commitment 3 – We will challenge stigma and make sure you feel included.

How we will do this:

o We will work with you to address any stigma and raise awareness among staff and contractors.

o We will ensure communication is respectful and inclusive.

o Offer training to all housing staff on challenging stigma and stereotypes  about people who live in social housing.

o Make community spaces places you feel safe no matter your age,  gender, sexuality, religion, ability, race & ethnicity.

 

4. Commitment 4 – We will make sure you influence decisions about the service we provide.

How we will do this:

o We will involve you in decision-making at both the neighbourhood and strategic levels.

o We will compensate you for your time and ensure you are part of assessing bidders and renewing contracts.

o We will work with you if you live in a high-rise block, so you feel safe and have a say on any work we need to carry out.

o Make sure your housing officer regularly inspects your block or estate and invites you and your neighbours to join them.

o Provide you with regular updates on changes to our service and how your feedback has been used.

 

5. Commitment 5 - We will be transparent with you and provide information so you can challenge us.

How we will do this:

o We will regularly share information with you using various channels about our performance.

o We will share the results of any consultation or engagement activity we carry out.

o We will meet with Resident Association representatives every two months (minimum) and present how we have delivered this strategy.

o We will support you in scrutinizing services and presenting findings to senior managers.

 

6. Commitment 6 – We will work with you to make a positive contribution to where you live.

How we will do this:

o We will promote opportunities for you to get involved in community activities.

o We will review community spaces to ensure they are used effectively and safely.

o Help you and your neighbours to apply for funding to run events and activities on your estate or in your community.

o Work with you and our partners like the Police on problems like anti- social behaviour and crime.

By working together, we aim to create a better living environment for everyone.

 

Keeping Our Homes Safe: A Plan from Brent Council

 

What’s Our Plan?

 

We want to make sure everyone living in our tall buildings is safe. We have a new

safety plan to help with this. The plan follows new rules introduced by Government

under the Building Safety Act 2022.

 

Why Do We Need This Plan?

 

There’s a new rule that says we must keep tall buildings very safe. Tall buildings are buildings that are 18 metres OR seven floors high and taller. We need to talk to the

people living there to find out how to keep them safe and keep them updated with

our plans for the building.

 

What Will We Do?

 

1. Sharing Information: We will tell everyone about important safety information.

2. Listening to You: We will ask for your thoughts and make sure we listen.

3. Checking on Safety: We will see if what we’re doing is working well.

 

Who’s in Charge?

 

Brent Council is in charge of making sure that the tall buildings it owns is safe for the people who live in them. We have specific people in charge of doing this:

 

 Senior Managers

 Safety Officers

 Housing Officers

 People who talk to residents

 

If you have any worries about safety in your home, you can email us at

BHMBuildingSafety@brent.gov.uk

 

Knowing Who Lives in Our Buildings

 

We need to know everyone living in our tall buildings, especially if someone needs help during an emergency. We will ask everyone once a year who lives in their home and if anyone needs special help. This helps the firefighters know who to help first.

 

Some examples include:

 

 If you have trouble walking or climbing stairs by yourself

 If you have poor eyesight or hearing

 

How We Will Share Information With You

 

We will use different ways to give you information:

 

 Letters to your home

 Posters in your building

 Information on our website

 

Every year, we will have a meeting about your building to talk about safety. You can ask questions and learn about any changes we are making at this meeting. We will publish dates of meetings on our website and contact you beforehand so you know when and where the meeting will be.

 

Asking for Your Opinions

 

We will ask what you think about:

 Big changes to your building and how that can affect you.

 Safety checks and repairs.

 Telling us about any new problems you have noticed.

 New safety rules.

 

Checking Our Plan

 

We will look at our plan every year to make sure it’s working. We will ask for your help to make it better.

 

Democracy in Brent – Open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone call – I wonder what that was about?)

 

Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting minutes a work of fiction?”, I added several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.

 

“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am, by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda). 

 

In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to protect his privacy):

 

FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect.

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,

 

I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.

 

I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

In my email below, I have set out the changes which need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.

 

While writing, I would suggest that the method of "voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed, as the present 'standard practice'* can lead to misunderstanding.

 

Cabinet meetings are the place where the public should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.

 

At the very least, when resolutions are put to Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

------------------------------

Forwarded message:

 

Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect

 

To: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Further to the emails today from *****  ***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.

 

I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are required to make the minutes a correct record.

 

1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease: 

 

Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.

 

Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.

 

(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque) to Quintain Ltd.

 

(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the four-year contract period compared with Option A.

 

(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by the lightboxes.' 

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.

 

Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was agreed.’

 

2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'

 

Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7 would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best wishes,  Philip Grant.

 

I hope that Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t be holding my breath.

 

Philip Grant

 

* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance Officer:

 

‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting. These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice in the way decisions are recorded.’