In response to the Metropolitan Police (Met) announcement of
a new Race Action Plan, which promises a “communities-first, frontline focused,
inclusive” policing model for Londoners, Green Party London Assembly Member
Committee Zoë Garbett issued the following statement:
I want to express my respect for the efforts of the many
Londoners who contributed to the development of this new policy.
However, I am deeply concerned that it has taken the Met
almost two years to take a stand against racism after Baroness Casey's initial
report. Additionally, I fear that this new plan fails to address the most
important demands of Londoners.
The data is clear. Londoners do not want safer
strip-searching policies for children: they want toprohibitstrip-searching of all
children.
Overcoming the entrenched racism in the Met will require
much more than just a shiny press release.
As the Labour Party Conference meets in Liverpool and Brent's lead member for Regeneration also takes on a leading role in the national Labour Yimby (Yes in May Backyard) Group a well-researched report has been published that raises doubts about the strategy.
The YIMBY Group seeks to label any opposition to massive housing developments as NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard) - self-interested communities interested only in maintaining their own privilege - the Public Interest Law Centre report shows that the issue is more nuanced.
Although Cllr Tatler has argued that any increase in housing supply in Brent will lower rents through market mechanisms, according to My London Office
of National Statistic data shows that Brent has seen the steepest rise
in rents over the past 12 months of any local area in England or Wales.
The average rent is now £2,121 per month - a rise of 33.6% since 2023. This compares with a London average rise of 9.6%.
“Immediate
action is needed to adopt policies aligned with UN standards of affordability.
Time is running out, and the impact on children in temporary accommodation is
especially urgent.”
PILC has launched a report that has
found that estate regeneration projects that feature demolition routinely
underproduce truly affordable housing for low-income Londoners and increase
rents of council and social housing by an average of more than £80 per
week.
We commissioned Dr Joe Penny of UCL’s Urban
Laboratory to analyse six of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ regeneration projects
across three London Boroughs including The Aylesbury Estate and The Heygate
Estate.
The report has found that the word “affordable” is
used with no consideration for what is truly affordable for people who need
these housing options the most and there will be a net loss of 2,151 truly
affordable council homes.
What is
cross-subsidy estate regeneration?
The cross-subsidy approach to estate regeneration
has been the dominant model of estate regeneration for the past two decades and
looks set to continue under the Labour government.
It is when council estates are demolished to make
way for expensive properties which are put on the market or rented privately.
In theory, the new private homes fund the construction of “affordable” homes on
the sites.
“As legal aid lawyers, we witness daily injustices
stemming from the housing crisis. This research, for the first time, clearly
demonstrates the damage caused by current “affordable” housing policies and the
push for demolition, which disproportionately affects many of our brave,
working-class clients” said PILC’s legal caseworker and community
legal organiser Saskia O’Hara.
Challenging
the narrative
The new Labour government and the Greater London
Authority maintain that cross-subsidy models are the answer to the housing
crisis. However this report shows that it is making it worse.
“The findings from this report evidence the urgent
need for a fundamental rethink of estate regeneration in London” said Dr Joe
Penny who wrote the report.
“The current cross-subsidy model is badly failing
council and social housing tenants, as well as those on housing waiting lists.
Truly affordable homes – that is, homes that cost no more than 30% of net
household incomes – are not being replaced in sufficient quantities; social and
affordable rents are increasing beyond what those on the lowest incomes can
afford; and structurally sound buildings are being wasted amid a deepening
housing emergency.”
Using the
evidence in the fight for affordable housing
These resources are designed to empower residents
facing displacement from demolition of their housing estate and communities
facing gentrification because of regeneration plans to challenge the plans with
hard facts.
We’ve been active in supporting local residents and
grassroots campaigns to challenge injustice from gentrification for many years. |We use the law as a tool to assist,
support and empower communities at the frontline of gentrification.
We work to support local residents and campaigns to shift the power balance
away from demolition and cross-subsidy regeneration back to the people who live
there.
As movement lawyers, we seek to be on the ground with campaigners, offering
legal services as just one tool or tactic amongst others in a campaign.
Cllr Paul Lorber has returned to the issues revealed in the Barham Park Trustees accounts in an email to Kim Wright, Brent Coucil Chief Executive Officer:
You
will recall that last year when challenging the accounts and the poor way
officers were managing the Charity’s property and finances, I made the specific
point that rent reviews in line with Leases in place were not implemented as a
result of Trustee and Officer failures to notice.
I
raised and pursued this issue despite knowing that this would cost Friends of
Braham Library (an organisation running a Community Library in Barham Park of
which I am a Trustee) substantial amount of money.
I
was proved to be right and the Property Unit eventually addressed this
oversight and pursued the rent reviews and backdated the collection of the
correct amounts due. The extra amount due to the Trust up to 31 March 2024 came
to around £20,000. Friends of Barham Library’s rent increased by around
£750 a year and we paid over almost £2,000 backdated amount.
I
get the impression that one of the large tenants has not yet paid the extra
£15,000 or so due to them because of the failure to uplift their rent from
2019.
The
Barham Park Trustees have now agreed to embark on a commercial approach in
dealing with the buildings in Barham Park. The intent is to renew leases which
the Council Officers decided to run out - deliberately or by oversight - for a
limited number of years only.
The
new approach will have a serious impact on some of the small charities
operating in Barham Park including the Barham Veterans Club who were originally
set up by a partnership between Wembley and Middlesex County Council as far
back as 1947. The days when the Veterans could use their premises free of
charge and were supported with a £4,000 a year grant are long gone.
I
will pursue the issue of commercial rents another time. My concern in this
email is the double standards employed by Brent Council when dealing with
itself as compared to how they deal with the voluntary sector and charities.
The
affairs of the Barham Park Trust are managed by Brent Council Officers. While
ultimate responsibility lies with the Trustees - currently all Labour
Councillors including the Leader - they have effectively washed their hands of
responsibility and delegated virtually everything to officers.
Any
arrangements between the Trust and the Council have to be at “arm’s length” and
not on any favourable terms.
The
Council has been allowed to lease one Unit in the Barham Buildings for a
Children Centre. That Children Centre was closed many years ago and the
supposed replacement use and activities of the unit is highly questionable.
The
Lease prepared by Council Officers between the Trust and the Council is highly
unusual.
While
Leases with 3rd party charities or community organisations have an upward only
rent review every 5 years - and I have high lighted extra rent this generates
above - surprisingly the Lease with the Council has no such clause and no
rent increase has been applied.
This
is clearly very odd and very unfair. While expecting charities to pay more the
Council has ensured that it does not have to. The Council has a clear conflict
of interest but has also clearly failed to follow the simple ‘arm’s length’
rule to ovoid it.
Officers
also ensured that the Council benefit is amplified allowing the lease to expire
while continuing to pay the old rent rather than a newly and independently determined
market rent.
So,
while imposing market rents on others the Council has ensured that the impact
of pursuing a market rent policy is avoided by the Council itself.
This
clearly is not right. The Barham Park Charity has lost out as a result of this
cavalier approach while Charity tenants have been treated less favourably while
also being threatened with eviction if failing to agree to pay market rents.
As
I was denied the right to speak at the recent Trust Meeting, I am making my
concerns public.
I
look forward to an equal public explanation and justification as to why in
relation to the Unit the Council leases from Barham Park Trust the Council is
not treated the same as everyone else.
According to My London Office of National Statistic data shows that Brent has seen the steepest rise in rents over the past 12 months of any local area in England or Wales.
The average rent is now £2,121 per month - a rise of 33.6% since 2023. This compares with a London average rise of 9.6%.
Brent's Deputy Mayor, Cllr Diana Collymore, has offered apologies to Brent Council, and a face to face apology to a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) more commonly known as a parking warden, following an argument over a parking infringement in London Road, Wembley. She was issued with a PCN (Penalty Contravention Notice).
An investigation using video and written evidence found that Cllr Collymore had been in breach of several provisions of the Councillor Code of Conduct. The councillor who holds a Blue Badge had not realised there were parking restrictions that applied in that area, even to a Blude Badge holder, as there is a No Loading restriction. However, the double yellow lines were barely visible. I understand the lines have been repainted since the incident.
Cllr Collymore, who before becoming a councillor was a local community activist, apparently lost her cool in the heated outburst.
The Complainant alleged Councillor Collymore:after asking why a ticket had been issued, did not permit the CEO the opportunity to explain why the ticket had been issued,
stated
“the officer got married to a woman in order to regularise his [stay]
in the UK”. Implying that the officer got his immigration document
through
an illegal means.
repeatedly stated she did not require a response from him.
informed
the CEO that he “does not know how to carry out his duties, that she
will speak to someone higher in the council and, that she will report
him to the immigration services.”
repeatedly stated she is a councillor and will report the CEO to council officers.
The complaint was backed up by video evidence which has been sent to Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council.
In considering sanctions for the breach Brent Council's Monitoring officer took into account Cllr Collymore's actions to remedy the breach, namely her written apology to the Council and her personal apology to the CEO. The following sanctions were imposed:
Censure or reprimand by way of a report for information to the Audit and
Standards Advisory Committee, which has responsibility for oversight of Member
standards issues, with a summary of this decision.
It was also suggested that
Councillor Collymore be given the information again about appropriate use of
her blue badge.
Request that Councillor Collymore undertakes refresher Code of Conduct
training and refresher equalities training.
Providing a copy of the transcript of the headcam recording to the
Leader of the Labour Group so the group can consider its relevance to council
positions.
The last point is significant because Cllr Collymore apart from being Deputy Mayor also has positions on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee, Corporate Parenting Committee, Regulatory Sub-Committee and the Service User Consultative Forum for Pensioners.
The Labour Group in considering removal from any of the positions will presumably take into account the findings in the Monitoring Officer's Report and the sanctions already imposed, as well as any advice from the London Region of the Labour Party.
Cllr Collymore, along with many other councillors, was not present at last night's Full Council Meeting. A request for a statement from the Mayor by Liberal Democrats was refused.
Report of South Kilburn Regeneration meeting held on the 18th September 2024.
The council announced that they have not appointed a sole developer yet for all the remaining sites of the South Kilburn Regeneration programne.
Currently there are 3 sites being developed with:
(1) 46 social homes for rent out of a total of 328 homes at The Peel site
(2) 72 social homes for rent out of a total of 209 at the NWCC`sit
(3) 18 homes for social rent at the Granville/Carton site but I do not know the total number of remaining homes.
(NWCC is Neville, Winstanley, the Carlton Centre and some of Carlton House).
The South Kilburn Promise was to provide a 50\50 ratio of social homes to other tenures but at these 3 sites the numbers of social homes has fallen way below the 50% ratio. Also the overall aim of the South Kilburn regeneration is to increase the number of social homes in South Kilburn by 800 by the end of the programm but this target may not be achieved either.
The next site to be developed will be The Hereford & Exeter site but not until 2026 as the council are still discussing with the GLA over funding issues and it would also need the sole developer to be appointed to develop the site.`
All the remaining sites are waiting to go to planning with the next one being The CCZ site being submitted in 2025. (CCZ is Craik, Crone & Zangwill House.)
Finally, there are still 284 tenants waiting for a new home in South Kilburn.
The council also reported on anti- social behaviour issues at Unity Place which only opened in 2019. They have appointed two Block Champions to monitor Unity Place, which has over 300 tenants and leaseholders living there.
Before the first Masterplan was published in 2004 the council said that developing the South Kilburn estate would eradicate all the anti-social behavour elements living there at the time. Something seems to have gone wrong as antisocial behaviour issues are rampant across the estate.
Appointing unpaid tenants as Block Champions to deal with all the issues affecting South Kilburn blocks will not solve the problem and what we need is more police to visit the estate, along with council safety teams on a regular basis.
Supporters of the petition gathered outside Brent Civic Centre were joined by some councillors
The presentation and response
Supporters of the campaign to 'Divest for Palestine' gathered outside Brent Civic Centre yesterday afternoon ahead of the presentation of a 2,000 petition calling on the Council to divest its local government pension fund from any companies deemed complicit in the current attacks on the Palestinian people, Israel's illegal occupation and the apartheid system.
They were joined by a number of Labour councillors and a small pro-Israel Government counter demonstration was joined by Cllr Michael Maurice.
Apart from a battle of loudspeakers the demonstrations were peaceful.
There was some heckling by the pro-Israel supporters when the petition was presented and more serious disruption when people began to leave after the presentation.
In her response to the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign petition, Cllr Mili Patel siad the Council did not 'activelyinvest directly' in UN considered occupied territories nor does it 'actively invest directly' in arms companies.
She has asked the Council's Chief Finance Officer to conduct a full audit of all the Council's allocations in line with the UN's principles for responsible investment.
The phrase 'actively invest directly' recognises that that may be indirect investment via fund managers or the London Collective Investment vehicle. The need to trace those investments was encapsulated in the similar Camden campaign with their slogan 'Disclose, Divest'.
The response did not include a commitment from Brent Council to work with other London councils in putting pressure on the London CIV.
When the Palestine Solidarity Campaign asked Brent Council recently to list its investment they responded that they were unable to do so.
They did supply details when PSC made a similar request in 2020. These were the top five of their complicit investments at the time and a check on whether they still have such investments would be a starting point:
HSBC £4,663,056
HSBC invests over £830million in, and provides financial services worth up
to £19billion for, companies arming Israel. These investments include up to
£100million worth of shares in the company Caterpillar, who supply the Israeli
army with bulldozers which are weaponised and used to demolish Palestinian
communities, build Israel’s illegal settlements and apartheid infrastructure
including the apartheid wall and military checkpoints. For more info:
https://www.palestinecampaign.org/campaigns/stop-arming-israel/
Barclays £1,252,342
Barclays is a British multinational bank and financial services company.
Barclays hold approximately £1,167.6 million of investments in companies that
are known to supply the Israeli military. This includes Babcock, BAE and
Boeing, Cobham and Rolls Royce. More information available in War on Want’s
2017 ‘Deadly Investments’ report.
BAE Systems£970,233
According to CAAT, “BAE Systems is the world’s fourth largest arms producer.
Its portfolio includes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles,
artillery, missiles and small arms ammunition. It has military customers in
over 100 countries. BAE has a workshare agreement with Lockheed Martin
producing the US F-35 stealth combat aircraft. Israel, for example, took
delivery of its first F-35 in 2016. According to Investigate, a project by the
American Friends Service Committee, BAE has worked in cooperation with Lockheed
Martin and Rafael to produce and market the naval Protector drone used to
maintain the siege of Gaza along the Mediterranean coast.
Smiths Group £316,811
According to CAAT “Smiths Group is a global technology company with five
divisions: John Crane, Smiths Medical, Smiths Detection, Smiths Interconnect
and Flex-Tek. Smiths Connectors is part of Smiths Interconnect and comprises Hypertac,
IDI and Sabritec brands. Products include connectors used in fighting vehicles,
unmanned vehicles and avionics systems.” They have applied for a number of
military export licences to Israel.
Rolls Royce £294,535
Rolls-Royce is a British manufacturer that produces military aircraft
engines, naval engines and cores for nuclear submarines. Despite arms
comprising only 26% of its total sales, it is still the world’s 17th largest
Arms trade. In 2014, the year of Israel’s arial bombardment and ground invasion
of Gaza, which killed over 2,200 civilians, nearly a quarter of them children,
Rolls-Royce was granted export licenses for engines for military aircrafts to
Israel.
Following widespread public interest and concern, including on Wembley Matters, regarding the impact of Brent Council's Strategy Review on the voluntary and community sector, I have written (below) to the appropriate council officer:
I am writing in my capacity as a Councillor concerned about the potentially damaging impact of the new Property Strategy and it’s implementation on the Brent voluntary sector.
The Property Strategy agreed by Cabinet last week indicates that expired rents will be charged based on market values and that Section 25 Notices will be issued as part of the process to achieve this.
As you know your officers started issuing Section 25 Notices to a number of community organisations in Brent and you officers suggested a completely off the wall (some people may say off their heads) figures.
In the case of the East Lane Theatre Club in my Sudbury Ward a new rent of £75,000 Per year has been suggested.
I know of other organisations in Sudbury subject to the same Property Unit approach.
What assurance can you give that this approach will be applied consistently and that community organisations will be treated fairly and equally.
The Leader of the Council has suggested that “ELTC has been in the fortunate position of being able to have space since 1992 for the sun of £1,500 ….and I can assure you that there are many organisations past and present that would love to have been in that position of having had that space”.
He than also claims that “we must start at open market rents”.
He is clearly ignorant of the facts or has not bothered to find out or has not been briefed properly. As you know there a number of organisations in Brent - many occupying larger premises and since before 1992 - that do not pay any rent for properties which belong to Brent Council and for which the Council is the landlord.
As you know one of these properties is The Kiln Theatre (formerly Tricycle Theatre) with a much larger Theatre building of which Brent Council is the freeholder the rent for which is £1 peppercorn.
You have and should be able to publish the full list of all the Brent Council owned buildings where £1 or nominal rent is paid.
Is it the intention of the Corporate Property Policy to review all these subsidised rents too so as to put all community organisations on the same basis or is it the intention to penalise some with a Market Rent while favouring others with no rent at all?
You will appreciate that will all look very odd to any independent observer who may question the fairness of an approach the aim of which seems to be to deprive long standing organisations of their premises while others continue to receive favoured treatment.
Perhaps if the Cabinet were informed of this strange situation they may have asked some questions and perhaps even made a different decision.
Because of the public interest in this matter I am publishing this email and will also publish your response.
