WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Leslie Barson, of Granville Community Kitchen in South Kilburn, a long-time community activist, spoke at the 'Unravelling Regeneration - Stories of a Community' Metroland Exhibition last month.
This is a first hand account of the impact of regeneration on the lives of local people and on the community resources that have supported them over the years.
Today's Licensing Sub-Committee was a lengthy process with plenty of detail that I will cover in a later blog post.
After the Sub-Committee convened in private (no press or public) they issued the folowing statement. Audibility was poor in the Boardroom (no microphones) but this is the gist of what I recorded in the statement that was given verbally.
The Sub-Committee has made its decision irrespective of any political considerations.
Regarding the view of one resident that the application be declared void, the Sub-Committee do not consider it should be voided. They consider that sufficiuent documentation had been provided and had been made available to all parties and time given for representations to be made.
Therefore the Sub-Committee do not agree that the application should be voided.
The Sub-Committee had regard that they should make a decision that is proportional and justified by the evidence presented to it.
The Sub-Committee listened carefully to the represenations made by the parties at the heaing and have taken full account of every representation.
The Sub-Committee are aware of the fact that this application is Stage 1 of a two stage process. The Brent Safety Advisory Group (BSAG) still has to give the go-ahead taking into account what has happened at this stage. That go-ahead has NOT been given as yet.
Further the final timing and the duration of the event [K-Pop Festival] will be dependent on what that final determination is.
So the role of this consultation is to determine the impact of the event on the licensing objectives and that is the only role that the Sub-Committee plays today.
The Sub-Committee notes that the applicant has met with residents and plan to continue to meet them, especially for a debrief, prior to this year's and future events.
The applicant has confirmed that they will provide a [dedicated] telephone mumber for residents to use for any concerns they have when the event is taking place.
The Sub-Committee has taken full account of the fact that the applicant has agreed to adhere to all the conditions set by the licensing officers, the [inaudible] consultants and public safety officers - in other words, the responsible authorities.
In the circumstances therefore the Sub-Committee have decided that it is indeed appropriate to grant the licence, in short, subject to the conditions agreed and any additional conditions given by BSAG (Brent Safety Advisory Group).
The Sub-Committee are also of the view that adherence to these conditions, and other undertakings that were given by the applicant, do promote the licensing objectives.
A more detailed decision will be issued shortly and once that decision is with you, you will have 21 days from the date of the decision notice to appeal the decision of the Sub-Committee if you are not in agreement.
That appeal must of course be made to the Magistrates Court.
This is a shortend version of the decision and a more detailed version will be sent in due course.
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
The Community Centre in the foreground next to Harriet Tubman House
A reader asked, 'Where is the money coming from?' with regard to the development proposals for charity 'Making The Leap' proposals for its premises in Kensal Green LINK.
The answer is, out of the charity's "unrestricted funds", raised by
Making The Leap for their general charitable work, much of it from donations.
And it is not a small amount. Their accounts show that in the year ended 31
March 2024 they spent £120k in 'early stage costs' on this building project,
and they have probably spent a lot more since, in paying for all of the expert
consultants producing documents to support their planning application!
Brent Council is to adopt changes to the Council Tax Support scheme that will require residents to pay at least 35% of their Council Tax Bill (increased again this year by 4.8% D-band total £2,133.15). It will also require non-dependent members of the house-hold to pay £8 weeky if not in work and £20 if in work.
The majority of resident respondents rejected the proposed changes at consultation but the Council faced with a new deficit of £16m and a potential saving of up to £8m in council tax support costs will go ahead. The changes do not affect pensioners as they are in a separate Government administered scheme.
The Cabinet report states:
The aim of these changes is for all households to contribute towards the Council services that residents in the borough benefit from. However, it is recognised that where a resident is unable to work because of their disability they may face a particularly significant impact, as they may have higher disability related costs and will not have the ability to increase their income. The Council Tax Support scheme seeks to reduce this impact, by disregarding all income from DWP or HMRC benefits in the Council Tax Support calculation. This includes disability related benefits, disability premiums, carer’s allowance and much more.
The Yellow column above is the reduction in the amount of Council Tax to be paid.
The yellow column above is the weekly amount of Council Tax that non-dependant members of the household will have to pay
The results of the Council's consultation are below showing the majority of respondents rejected the change. The majority of respondents were non-recipients of Council Tax Support:
The consultation enabled people to comment and these make interesting reading including the comment in this article's headline:
Out of 397 responses, 115 respondents also left comments.
For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Reasonable – These respondents thought that the changes proposed were reasonable given the Council’s financial situation and need to make savings. These respondents in general thought that the scheme was generous and that it was a fair proposal to introduce a minimum contribution for all Council Tax Support recipients.
• Scheme Recommendations – Some respondents raised suggestions for the new scheme. These included: Reducing the top band to 80% instead of such a steep drop to 65% & reducing last band to 15% (instead of 20%), having council tax support as a monetary value (i.e. £) rather than a % reduction, including a vulnerable group to be exempt from 35% minimum contribution & including other income, capital or savings into the means testing (e.g. property, benefits income, etc.)
• Scheme still too generous – Some people agreed but thought the minimum contribution should be higher, for example, 50%.
For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the changes proposed would cause them to fall into further financial difficulty. The cost-of-living struggle was frequently mentioned as well as an inability to pay the additional council tax that would be required. Many people raised concerns around their disability and the inability to find work or increase their income. Some answers highlighted that pushing residents into further financial difficulty could increase the demand on other council services and reduce the actual savings achieved by this change.
• Protecting the Vulnerable – Many respondents raised concerns around disabled residents, the elderly, carers, or parents all with a reduced ability to find employment and cover the council tax shortfall that will be created because of this change to their support. These answers raised worries that this scheme change would affect those on a low-income unfairly and expects those with the lowest income to find spare income that doesn’t exist. Responses highlighted that people were already struggling and this change would only serve to exacerbate their struggle.
• Unfair – These replies often highlighted that they thought it was unfair to target those in receipt of Council Tax Support who have low-incomes already and an inability to pay council tax often being carers, disabled or in receipt of benefits only. Some answers highlighted that the people receiving this support are already on the poverty line and this change could push people into poverty. Some respondents believed that the change would breach Discrimination & Human Rights & Equality Laws.
• Find savings elsewhere – These answers highlighted the need for the council to find the savings from somewhere else. Some of the reasons given were that this change would be potentially more costly in the long run due to increased demand on council services or increased outstanding debt. These responses raised that the changes were targeting individuals who don’t have the means to contribute more, and many suggestions were received to look to the wealthier residents within the borough for savings. Other suggestions included: advocatingfor more equitable funding from central government, finding efficiencies in other areas of spending, increase income rather than cut services, targeting outstanding debt/fraud or council tax evasion or reducing Brent employee salaries.
Question 2 - Changes to the Council Tax Support non-dependant deductions
(£8 deduction for non-dep in household out of work and £20 deduction for non-dep in household in work).
Out of 397 responses, 88 respondents also left comments.
For the people that Agree or Strongly agree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Fair – These respondents thought that it was fair to ask non- dependants to contribute towards household bills including Council Tax and sensible to look at household income as a total rather than only the income of a claimant or partner.
• Simpler – Comments highlighted that a two flat-rate deduction system is an improvement on the previous system and would be simpler or easier for residents to understand.
• Unfair – Whilst these people agreed with the proposal, they believed in general that the £20 deduction for working non-dependants was fair whereas the £8 deduction for non-working was too much of an ask.
• Scheme Recommendations – These comments made suggestions to not take non-dependant deductions for students.
For the people that Disagree or Strongly disagree, the top themes that emerged were:
• Financial Difficulties – These respondents thought that the charges proposed were too much of an increase especially considering the current cost of living. Some people highlighted that £20/week for a working non-dependant would be over £1000 per annum and a significant portion of the Council Tax bill. These respondents highlighted that this change would not be affordable, further push families into poverty or struggle and that this change would hit the poorest.
• Unfair – Some of the suggestions received thought that the £8 deduction was too much for non-dependants that are not working, disabled or students. Some people believed that deductions for working non-dependants should be means tested & based on their income level, with higher earners contributing more.
• Find savings elsewhere – These comments suggested that Brent look to other ways of making the savings or cutting costs. These included looking at efficiency savings within the council, increasing fines for parking penalties/littering/anti-social behaviour etc. or empty property rate.
Brent Citizens Advice Bureau conducted their own survey of the impact of the changes. They said: Since 2021 Brent Council has made over 40,000 referrals1 for enforcement action against residents with council tax arrears. The proposed changes risk seeing an increase in enforcement action against households already struggling with debt, and with very little income available for new or increased bills.
We conducted a flash survey to determine how the proposed changes to CTS could affect Brent residents. In total, we surveyed 32 CTS claimants over a period of 3 weeks. The survey was targeted at Brent residents who already receive some level of CTS, with questions aiming to establish respondents’ current council tax liability, level of council tax support, and whether they maintain a positive budget. This enabled us to assess how the proposed changes will alter the financial situations of individual households.
Key Findings
• The average council tax bill increase for the CTS claimants we surveyed was £524.98
• 13 out of 32 CTS claimants we surveyed did not have enough income to cover their monthly costs, despite receiving the maximum level of CTS.
• 2 in 3 CTS claimants we surveyed will receive a new or increased council tax bill that they currently do not have the monthly income to pay.
Their report and its recommendations are worth reading in full:
The Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday February 4th will received a report on complains against councillors during 2024.
The report gives a commentary on trends in complaints:
During consideration of the previous complaints review report last year, the committee asked that future monitoring reports provide an outline of any trends being identified in terms of complaints and outcomes.
The Committee will be aware that the Code only permits the investigation of complaints against Members made in their “official capacity or when giving the impression [they] are acting as a member of the Council”, unless it relates to a serious criminal offence being committed in the Member's private capacity.
Accordingly, any decision that purports to find a breach of the Code whilst the Member in question was acting in their private capacity, would be liable to challenge. The Committee will see from Appendix A that one of the main findings at Initial Assessment Stage in respect of the complaints over the past 12 months is that the Councillor “was not acting in their capacity as councillor.
This trend may reflect changing public expectations. Members of the committee will note that one element of the consultation referred to in this report [Open consultation Strengthening the standards and conduct framework for local authorities in England LINK] is the possibility of extending the Code to some categories of behaviour by members outside their role as a councillor.
The other main reason for complaints not proceeding beyond initial assessment stage is that the complaint "did not disclose sufficiently serious potential breaches of the Code to merit further consideration”.
The main rationale for this finding has been that insufficient evidence has been submitted to support the allegations made and/or when considering the allegations in context, there was no significant evidence to suggest the Councillors had behaved in the manner complained off. Indeed, in some cases the evidence indicated aggressive or otherwise unreasonable behaviour by the complainant towards the councillor.
The Committee should note, the main recurring factor in relation to escalating complaints to the Assessment Criteria Stage have been based on the contents of the complaint and that there may be a serious issue to consider, with an opportunity for the councillor concerned to comment being necessary to establish if this is indeed the case.
The report is accompanied by a document listing the complaints and action taken.
Calvin Robinson at Christ Church, Harlesden, 2022
Calvin Robinson giving a salute, resembling a Nazi salute, at National Pro-Life summit in the U.S.
I first met Calvin Robinson when he was a by-election candidate in Kilburn back in 2016. Tall and lean, of mixed parentage and with a huge afro, he was not your typical Brent Conservative candidate. He did not win the by-election nor the Camden by-election that followed. His adherence to the Rightwing Henry Jackson Society should have been a warning.
He joined the Brent nest of rightwingers when he became a governor at Michaela School in Wembley, where Suella Braverman had been the founding Chair of Governors.
Robinson moved on from the Conservative Party to support the Brexit Party as a candidate in 2019 and in August lst year became the lead spokesperson for UKIP. He was dismissed from GB News in 2023 following his support for Dan Wootton who had been suspended over Laurence's controversial comments on Wootton's show.
Robinson was a Free Church of England deacon of Christ Church in Harlesden and then a priest in the Nordic Catholic Church. Moving to the U.S. he joined the Anglican Catholic Church until they defrocked him following the Nazi salute incident.
The Church said:
While we cannot say what was in Mr. Robinson’s heart when he did this, his action appears to have been an attempt to curry favor with certain elements of the American political right by provoking its opposition.
In a personal statement Robinson said:
My attempt at dry wit, in that typical British way, was not a joke at the expense of WWII, nor an admission of my membership in the Nationalist Socialist Party. That would be an incredibly ignorant and bad faith assumption to make. The responses are very telling, though. The people who understand, cheer – those who have eyes to see. The people who do not want to understand, reach for their pitchforks. They have found a new channel for their hated. They remain in my prayers; may the Lord soften their hearts.
Where Robinson will go now is anybody's guess but he will certainly not be avoiding the limelight. The publicity may well have brought him to the attention of one Donald Trump.
Watch this space.
From Richmond Council
The Leader of Richmond Council has today reaffirmed the Council’s long-standing opposition to the expansion of Heathrow Airport, including the construction of a third runway, following the latest announcement from the Chancellor.
Councillor Gareth Roberts stressed the significant harm the expansion would cause to local communities, already heavily affected by flight paths.
Richmond Council has been clear and consistent in its stance: a third runway at Heathrow would have catastrophic consequences for our borough and for London. The environmental damage, increased noise pollution, and disruption to local communities are simply too high a price to pay, especially when viable alternatives exist that can support sustainable economic growth without compromising our health or our future.
We fully recognise Heathrow’s importance to the local and national economy, but a better Heathrow does not have to mean a bigger Heathrow. Growth should never come at the expense of the wellbeing of our communities or the health of our planet. The airport has yet to present a credible plan showing how its expansion would align with the UK’s net-zero targets. It continues to ignore the ongoing issues of noise and air pollution that are severely affecting our residents.
The Chancellor’s decision to prioritise short-term economic growth over the long-term health of our communities and the environment is deeply disappointing. This move fails to consider our climate commitments and disregards the devastating impact a third runway would have on families and households in our borough and across London.
Richmond Council has long warned about the challenges posed by Heathrow’s expansion and remains committed to working with the government to protect local communities and the environment from its harmful consequences.
Councillor Roberts is actively reconvening a cross-party coalition of councils, local MPs, Assembly Members, and community groups to oppose the renewed push for expansion at Heathrow. “This coalition was instrumental in overturning the government’s approval of a third runway in 2020, and by uniting once again, we will continue to fight for the protection of our borough and the wider London community from the adverse effects of this expansion.”
Last month, Richmond Council restated its opposition to a third runway and updated its policy position on Heathrow’s planned developments, including opposing any increase in night flights, challenging airspace modernisation, and supporting renewed efforts on easterly alternation.
