Art Exhibition showcasing work by refugee artists, forced migrants and Brent Youth - Kensal Rise Library until November 18th

 

Cllr Ryan Hack set to become Brent's new Deputy Mayor

 Cllr Ryan Hack (Brondesbury Park) is set to become Deputy Mayor of Brent after a narrow victory over Cllr Narinder Singh Bajwa (Northwick Park).  The post became vacant after the resignation of  Cllr Bajwa's ward colleague, Cllr Diane Collymore,  following a finding that she had breached the Councillor Code of Conduct LINK.

Cllr Hack is an energetic activist instantly recognisable from the cap atop his tall figure when he is out campaigning.

 

Cllr Hack will be one of the youngest Mayors of Brent when he takes over from Cllr Tariq Dar next year. His entry on the Brent Labour website stresses his local background and activism:

Ryan Hack was born and bred in Brent, largely in the south of the Borough, and was raised by a wonderful single mother, always living in social housing, as he still does today. He has attended local state schools in Brent from Curzon Crescent Nursery in Roundwood to Claremont High School in Kenton. Ryan became the first person in his family to attend university and holds a master’s degree in American Politics from UCL. His life has been shaped by the impact of austerity on social housing and food banks. After witnessing his father beginning to use food banks last year, he became an official volunteer at the Trussell Trust Food Bank in Church End. As Co-Convenor of the Brent ‘Right to Food’ campaign, he is committed to reducing food and fuel poverty connected to a Cost-of-Living-Crisis by working closely with mutual aid groups and key stakeholders to establish a food justice strategy in our community. 

 

Ryan is also an active member of the Brent Friends of the Earth where he is committed to transforming our local parks and high streets, where he has conducted for the past six years a monthly neighbourhood clean-up by tidying up our underpasses, alleyways and public parks in Brent. As a dedicated local activist, he fundamentally believes that he has the life experience and the passion that one can bring to bear in representing our community.

Cllr Bajwa is an officer of the Sudbury Courts Residents' Association and director of Harrow based Skyspace Homes.

Lib Dems call on Brent Council to promote action to help protect tenants and leaseholders from unsafe and defective new builds

 Wembley Park developments from King's Drive

 

 The Liberal Democrats have tabled the following debate topic for Monday's Full Council Meeting (6pm Brent Civic Centre):

Guaranteeing new builds are safe and free of dangerous defects.

 

The number of new residential buildings in the borough has increased substantially in recent years. New buildings have changed the landscape of our borough, with the vast majority of large towers blocks around Wembley Stadium, Wembley Central and Alperton.

 

Brent’s Labour Cabinet, particularly the Leader and former Cabinet Member for Regeneration, often point to significant building in the borough as their proudest achievement – but they always fail to recognise its negative impact on existing residents in Brent and those who end up living in these buildings.

 

A worrying number of new buildings in Brent have significant defects. The standard of some new builds is shockingly poor – issues include dangerous, faulty lifts in high-rise blocks, water and waste leaks, unsafe balconies and outdoor communal spaces.

 

At the planning stage, developers are keen to highlight how seriously they take building standards and commit to building good quality, safe new homes. Sadly, somefail to do this and very little is done to hold them to account. Brent Council has little involvement after the planning stage and Council Officers are on record as effectively stating it is not the local authority’s responsibility to do anything if there are issues in new buildings once built.

 

All residents deserve to live in safe buildings, free of defects. When issues arise, developers, construction companies and housing management companies must do a better job of resolving these issues quickly to minimise the impact on residents.

 

Brent Council should have a much tougher line on developers who consistently fail residents by building unsafe buildings with significant defects and should be a leading voice in calling for better regulation and accountability from developers who are failing residents in their buildings.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

*Create a borough-wide log of issues in new builds to get a better picture of the type of problems faced and urge the Labour Government, as part of their planning reforms, to enable decisions about whether to allow developers, who have issues in their existing stock, to continue building in our borough to be treated as a material planning consideration
 
*Urge the Labour Government to make it possible for local authorities to step in and act when issues in new buildings occur. Currently Brent’s Building Control Team are only responsible for ensuring that the construction of any new building is undertaken in line with building regulations. This needs to be extended to when building is completed and when issues present after the construction phase. Additional costs associated with increasing responsibilities for the Council should be permitted to come directly from CIL contributions made by developers.
 
*Create a dedicated helpline for tenants and leaseholders in new blocks across the borough, for them to be able to report issues so that the Council can assist in guaranteeing action from the relevant bodies and when necessary to support residents in raising complaints with the Housing Ombudsman.

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou

Alperton ward

When is complaint not a complaint? – Part 2 Is there a 'cover up culture' at Brent Council

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Opening paragraphs of Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September 2024.

 

On 2 October, Martin published my guest post “Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease – When is a complaint not a complaint?” The email of 27 September above from Brent’s Chief Executive had been sent in response to my request for her to conduct a Final Review of the formal complaint I had made on 30 August. I requested that as I was not satisfied with the initial reply of 9 September from a Corporate Director, which did not even mention the word “complaint”.

 

The grounds for my complaint were detailed in a guest post a month earlier, “Bobby Moore Bridge – formal complaint submitted over advertising lease award”. Briefly, they were that the Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, and the recommendation to make the award under Option B, were biased, and that the main author of that report had an undisclosed conflict of interests, which had only come to light months later.

 

 I wanted to understand the reasoning behind the Council’s decision not to treat my “concerns” as a formal complaint, which had apparently made before the first response to that complaint on 9 September, and what evidence it had been based on. I requested some details in an email to Kim Wright on 11 October (the text is in the comments section under the 2 October guest post). The Council decided to treat this as an FoI request, and I received the response to that on 11 November.

 

If the information provided is correct (and you would expect it to be, as the response came from a Senior Brent Council Lawyer), the decision (that my formal complaint was not a complaint) was made between 30 September and 3 October, after the Chief Executive had told me of the decision.

 

In reply to my questions about what information the decision had been based on, that the matter I’d formally complained about ‘had not affected me personally’, and ‘had not caused me an injustice’, the response in both cases was: ‘Please refer to council officer’s emails sent to you dated 27/9 and 3/10.’ In other words, if Brent’s Chief Executive said that I had not suffered any personal injustice as a result of actions by the Council, or one of its Officers, that was sufficient evidence on which to base a decision justifying her claim!

 

Extract from Brent’s FoI response of 11 November 2024.

 

The response had already told me that the (apparently retrospective!) decision had been made by ‘The Complaints and Casework Manager in conjunction with the Corporate Director, Law & Governance.’ My final request had been for ‘any documentary evidence relating to’ the decision, and ‘any communications, and any advice sought or given, in respect of it.’ I was informed that the only documents were Kim Wright’s email to me of 27 September and the Council’s Complaints Policy (a copy of which was attached). ‘No further communication is held.’

 

I have set this out in detail so that any reader who is interested can see how Brent Council operates. If it does not want to deal with a complaint, it says that it is not a complaint, without having to provide any evidence. It hopes that you will give up and go away, rather than admitting that something has been done wrongly, and trying to put it right! 

 

Anyone who knows me will realise that I am not put off by such tactics. This is the full text of an open email which I sent to Brent’s Chief Executive on 12 November:-

 

This is an Open Email

Dear Ms Wright,

 

Further to my email of 25 September, requesting a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint to you of 30 August 2024 (see copy attached), you will have seen my Internal Review request (sent yesterday evening) to the FoI response of 11 November, to the questions I raised in my email to you of 11 October.

 

This is getting complicated, and is taking up quite a lot of Senior Council Officer time. The reason for that is that you and other Council Officers appear to be trying to "give me the run-around", hoping that I will give up, so that you do not have to deal with a perfectly reasonable and genuine complaint that I raised.

 

This latest letter, from Brent's Senior Constitutional & Governance Lawyer, exposes that there is no valid basis in evidence to show why Brent Council should not treat my complaint of 30 August as a complaint within the Council's Complaints Policy.

 

It appears from her FoI response that the "decision", 'that this issue does not fall within the scope of the Council's normal complaints procedure', set out in your email to me of 27 September, was not made until several days after you had sent that email, rather than before Minesh Patel's original email reply, in your absence on leave, of 9 September, which is what you had suggested.

 

And that "decision", for which there is no documentary evidence, appears to have been founded solely on a claim in your email of 27 September that: 'In this particular case you have not suffered a greater degree of personal injustice than anyone else affected by the matter raised.'

 

There was no supporting evidence for that claim. In fact, you already knew that the open tender process for the new advertising lease from 31 August 2024, seeking best value for the Council, with separate bids that would give the opportunity for Cabinet to properly consider the tile murals in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway, had been my suggestion in 2021, which had been accepted by your predecessor, Carolyn Downs.

 

The process was meant to be fair and transparent, and I had put in a great deal of effort to try to ensure that it was. My complaint (there can be no other valid description for it) was that the Report and recommendation, which Cabinet accepted, had been biased, and that its main author had an undisclosed conflict of interests. How could that not affect me personally, or give rise to an injustice, not just to the people who signed the petition which I presented on 28 May, but to me personally?

 

I would ask you again to carry out a Stage 2 Final Review of my formal complaint of 30 August, in the hope that this matter can be satisfactorily resolved without my having to refer it to the Local Government Ombudsman.

 

In answer to another FoI request, which I received on 14 October, I was told that the new advertising lease agreement between the Council and Quintain from 31 August 2024 had not yet been signed. If that is still the case, then my suggested remedy No.1 still applies (as does the second suggested remedy in my open letter of 30 August attached).

 

I look forward to receiving your reply. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

The Leader Foreword from the Cabinet Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease report, 28 May 2024.
(The “supplier” referred to is Quintain Ltd, through its Wembley Park subsidiary)

 

You will notice a reference to some other FoI requests I made, to which I have received some partial responses. Among the information gleaned on the Report to the 28 May Cabinet meeting is that the “Leader Forward” in it was not actually written by Cllr. Muhammed Butt himself (but by the Officer with the alleged undisclosed conflict of interests):

 

‘The foreword for the report was discussed by the Leader and Head of Communications, Conference and Events at a face-to-face meeting and the steer the Leader provided was included in the report and cleared by the Leader.’

 

My request for ‘copies of all email or other documentary contacts between the Contact Officers and the Leader … in the preparation of the Report’, was denied. The reason given was that:

 

‘complying with this request would exceed the cost limit set by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Under Section 12 of the Act, public authorities are not required to comply with requests if the estimated time to locate, retrieve, and extract the requested information would take more than 18 hours.’

 

I doubt whether it would cost that much to provide the relevant emails etc between two people from 1 April and 14 May 2024, so I have asked for an Internal Review of that response!

 

There was an Appendix to the Report, headed "Advertising Lease Bid Evaluation", and I had also asked for ‘all the information in that Appendix 1 which was not exempt information.’ That request has also been refused:

 

‘The appendix includes commercially sensitive details related to an ongoing procurement process, as well as market-sensitive information. The public interest in keeping this information confidential outweighs the interest in disclosing it, as premature disclosure could harm the commercial interests of the bidders and the council.’

 

But the procurement process is not ongoing (it ended at the Cabinet meeting on 28 May!), and I had only requested the non-exempt information, not any commercially sensitive details. Again, I’ve asked for an Internal Review of this response. What is Brent Council trying to hide?

 

I feel that the treatment I have received in trying to pursue my complaint demonstrates a “cover-up culture” at Brent Council, which appears to go right to the top of the organisation. That is not a healthy state of affairs, especially for a public body paid for at our expense!

 

Philip Grant.

 

Cllr Kelcher's casting vote gives approval to 318 room aparthotel in central Wembley. Cllr Dixon abstains.

 The approved 6, 8 and 10 storey aparthotel replacing the two storey Euro Hotel

 

 The 7 building student accommodation named Wembley Edge was approved at Planning Committee last night. There was opposition from owners of neighbouring sites that were concerned that the application would limit their own development options but only Cllr Dixon voted against.

As it turned out it was the application to build an up to 10 storey hotel on the otherwise two storey family home side of Elm Road in central Wembley where the decision was really on the edge!

 

The 20 minute video below features the end of decision making where there is a tied vote (Cllr Johnson was absent) and prompted by the planning officer Chair of the Committee,  Cllr Kelcher votes for the proposal. 

 

Cllrs Saqib Butt, Begum and Akram voted against and Cllr Kelcher, Chappell and Patel for. Cllr Dixon abstained. 

 

 

 

 

Cllr Akram intervened after the vote to ask whether the vote could be retaken to give Cllr Dixon a chance to vote against the application. If you listen carefully to the video Cllr Dixon, asked for reasons for her abstention, says (16.50):

I think it is against because I'm not confident that we are following our, some of our, policies around the tall zone and I think it is out of character.

The reasons she gave were very similar to those given by councillors who voted against.

Cllr Kelcher told Cllr Akram that they'd had the chance to vote and it stood. Cllr Dixon did not contribute further. Cllr Akram said the reasons for rejection were quite clear, it was overbearing and not in character with the area. He added, 'It's quite upsetting that it's been put forward and approved, but that's the decision that has been made.'

During the discussion and questioning of planning officers there were concerns that it was a tall building but not in a tall building zone and that this approval would set a precedent for more tall buildings on Elm Road, especially as the developer had been buying up the 2 storey houses. Much of the support for the application came from local businesses on the High Road. Planning officers said that it contributed to the growth of Wembley as a metropolitan area.

Cllr Saqib Butt said:

This is an aparthotel. It is not giving our residents any sort of benefit whatsover, apart from blocking the light, outside of a tall building zone in a completely residential area.

Ironically on the other side of theChiltern railway is Princes Court that used to be designated a site of distinguished suburban development. I don't know if that is still the case.

Local Post Offices Under Threat

 Yesterday's list of potential closures includes Cricklewood, Kilburn, Harlesden and Kingsbury.

The fightback has started with Cricklewood:

Cllr Tariq Dar on Next Door:

Cricklewood post office is at risk. The potential closure of Cricklewood Post Office has spurred strong and immediate opposition among local councils and residents. Representatives from the Tri-Borough areas, Brent, Barnet, and Camden, along with Cricklewood residents, are forming a dedicated campaign group to advocate for the post office’s continued operation at Cricklewood Broadway. 

Meetings are already underway to discuss campaign strategies, including drafting letters to Post Office executives and organizing a public awareness effort. This coordinated response emphasizes the community’s reliance on the post office for essential services and underscores a commitment to keep it accessible. Community members are encouraged to stay engaged and support upcoming initiatives, as further details will be shared soon on the campaign’s progress.

 This proactive approach draws on past successes in defending the post office and reflects a unified stance against closures that could impact vulnerable groups and local businesses. Watch for updates, and consider joining the campaign to support this vital effort.

Report: Making transport in London truly accessible for all disabled people

 

From the report

 

After decades campaigning for safer streets, more toilets, and a transport network for all Londoners, yesterday Caroline Russell AM hosted Transport for All at City Hall to launch the group’s new report, Accessibility Review of the PTAL Index.

 

Produced by Frontier Economics and Revealing Reality with funding from the Motability Foundation, the Accessibility Review measures how transport accessibility is currently classified for planning purposes, and recommends different indicators be used to better serve the needs of disabled people.

 

The only transport access criteria used on a statutory basis in London, a Public Transport Access Level (PTAL) figure measures the level of access to public transport in the capital, and is calculated using several factors: 

 

• Walking distance to the nearest stations/stops; 
• Waiting times at the nearest stations/stops;
• Number of services at the nearest stations/stops; and
• Distance to major rail stations.   

 

Informed through research by and engagement with disabled people and using King’s Cross, Soho and Southwark as test cases, the Accessibility Review builds on these traditional PTAL metrics by suggesting new criteria to more accurately reflect accessibility across London’s transport network.

 

The additional criteria suggested in the report are measures which:

 

• only includes stations or stops with step-free access
• rank less crowded stations as more accessible
• rank stations without toilet facilities as less accessible

 

 

 

Caroline Russell AM speaking at the report launch

 

 

Green Party London Assembly Member Caroline Russell said:

 

If we want to build a city that works for absolutely everyone, then we need to start by understanding exactly what matters to disabled and visually impaired Londoners travelling around our city.

 

I was proud to host Transport for All here at City Hall for the unveiling of their new report, which I hope will provide a much-needed blueprint for improving the way we address and expand accessibility measures in our planning policy.

 

Deborah Persaud, a research participant and Chair of Transport for All said:

 

London should be a city for everyone, but current planning systems result in many disabled people being effectively barred from parts of the city. It’s time Transport for London added accessibility measures to planning calculations, so London can start to be truly open to everyone.

  

A copy of the full report, Accessibility Review of the PTAL Index, can be viewed here.

 

318 room 'aparthotel' for Elm Road, Wembley Central at Brent Planning Committee tonight

 

Euro Hotel, Elm Road, Wembley Central

Proposed Aparthotel (I don't remember Elm Road being that wide!)

No it's not!

Apart from the Wembley Edge planning application already descibed on Wembley Matters (LINK) another large development proposal that has been around for a while comes to Planning Committee tonight.

This is for the development of the site of the Euro Hotel (previously Elm Hotel) on Elm Road in Wembley Central and the adjoining Spiritualist Church in St Johns Road.

They would be replaced by an Aparthotel covering 10,090 square metres as against the current 1,258 square metres. 

The proposal:

Demolition of existing hotel building and community centre [church?] and erection of a part 6, part 8 and part 10 storey 318 room aparthotel plus basement accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2),servicing, landscaping and cycle and refuse storage.

So what is an Aparthotel. Officers provide the answer:

Apart-hotels are defined within the London Plan as self-contained accommodation (within Use Class C1), providing for short-term occupancy, with a concierge and room service. the length of stay would be limited to a maximum of 90 days per occupant, and a planning condition would secure that residencies at the hotel accommodation of 90 days or more are to be prevented, to ensure that the use of the hotel accommodation would meet the needs identified within the London Plan and Brent Local Plan for visitor accommodation.

 

Each room would have a double bed, with storage, a shower and toilet en-suite and a kitchenette facility. Inclusive access has been confirmed as integral to the design of the hotel. It has been confirmed that10% (16) of the hotel rooms would be accessible in accordance with London Plan policy E10.

Brent received a 33 person petition in favour of the development which appears to include local businesses and 14 objections.

The impact on neighbouring two storey homes in St Johns Road and Elm Road is considerable and unsurprisingly most of the objections come from them:

 From a legal view point, my main objections are:

1) that the location of this planning proposal does NOT fall under the "Tall Building Zone". This is a residential zone and height restrictions should be observed.

2) I have it on good authority that the hotel group own many proprieties around the area of the existing hotel (I believe they own nearly all the houses on Elms Road, many of the houses on St Johns Road going north right up to the bridge and they also own houses on Acacia Avenue). Consultations have been sent by post to all these properties and there needs to be due diligence in identifying who owns the property when the consultations are returned. I strongly believe that the hotel should only be allowed to vote once.

From a personal view point, my objections are:

The planned building development would block out all light, many houses on St Johns Road would be in the shade all year round, with no sunlight ever hitting the windows or paving; this means it will be mostly wet underfoot - even worse with snow and ice which would stay longer than normal.

Parking would be harder for residents, especially on event days: Hotel coaches would take up 3 or 4 parking spaces and would only need 1 permit per day to stay. The plans show that two resident parking bays would be removed and there is already a shortage of spaces. Please note that on St Johns Road, none of the houses on the west side of the road (right up to bridge) have off-street parking.

I would also add there would be major TV disruption for anyone who uses freeview and has a freeview aerial on their roof, as any house north of the proposed development will have their aerials pointing in exactly that direction. TV channels (especially HD) would be limited, or worse still, freeview may not work at all.

For all the reasons listed above, I strongly object.

View from St Johns Road towards the High Road.

 

Officers comment on the loss of the Spiritualist Church:

The redevelopment of the site would involve the loss of the existing Spiritualist Church. A schedule of areas submitted with the application indicates that the existing church building has a total GIA of 145sqm. The application proposes the reprovision of 220sqm of flexible F1/F2 community space over ground and basement floor level, indicating that the social infrastructure space would be fully re- provided.

They conclude regarding the whole application:

The aparthotel proposed with an ancillary flexible F1/F2 space is considered to make efficient use of the land, which would regenerate the site which would provide a positive contribution to the emerging streetscene and the positive employment and economic benefits associated with the hotel.

 

The building is considered to have an appropriate scale and massing of proposed buildings would relate well to the existing and future site context. As the report acknowledges, there is expected to be some impacts on existing daylight and sunlight light conditions to existing residential dwellinghouses nearby.

 

The impacts would be commensurate with development of this form and such impacts must be balanced against the planning benefits of the proposal. Overall, and on balance, the impacts associated with the development would it is considered be outweighed in this case by the benefits of redeveloping the site, economic benefits and public realm improvements.

 

The Planning Commitee begins at 6pm tonight and  can be viewed HERE