WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
BBC Question Time is going to be recorded at Queens Park Community School on Thursday 20th February.
Here’s the link if anyone wants to apply to be in the audience and potentially ask a question:
https://eu.castitreach.com/ag/mentorn/questiontime/welcome.html
Select 20th Feb Kilburn for the programme you are applying for.
From London Fire Brigade
Two London homes have been destroyed in separate fires involving an e-bike and e-scooter less than 24 hours apart.
The first fire happened at around 10.30am on Monday (3 February) when the battery on a charging e-scooter burst into flames at a house on Barlow Road in West Hampstead. The fire quickly spread across the ground floor and up the stairs and eight fire engines and around 60 firefighters were dispatched to put out the blaze. Thankfully no one was hurt but a dog was sadly later found dead inside the property.
Then on Monday night, at around 2.35am (4 February), the battery pack on a second-hand converted e-bike at a house on Bridlepath Way in Feltham caught alight. Six fire engines and around 40 firefighters were sent to the scene but the fire had already spread through much of the property once firefighters arrived. Four people left the house before firefighters arrived, including one via a window, with two of the occupants taken to hospital. Meanwhile, crews were able to rescue two dogs trapped in a room. A third dog that was inside the property was sadly discovered deceased.
Both fires are believed to have been caused by the catastrophic failures of lithium batteries for an e-scooter and e-bike. The incidents are yet another example of why the Brigade has been running its #ChargeSafe campaign, with e-bikes and e-scooters becoming one of the capital’s fastest-growing fire risks.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Prevention and Protection, Richard Field, said: “It cannot be underestimated the level of destruction each of these fires have caused with both homes completely damaged by fire and smoke.
“It’s extremely fortunate that no people have been seriously hurt but a dog was sadly found dead at the scene of each fire.
“Both of these fires were caused by catastrophic battery failures. When these batteries fail, they can cause ferocious fires, and the consequences can be devastating. We urge people who own these devices to follow the safety advice that will help to protect those around them and their properties."
The e-bike at the house in Feltham had been converted from a normal pedal cycle and been purchased second-hand. It was on charge in the living room and a generic charger was in use.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Field continued: “E-bikes and e-scooters are a green and sustainable way to travel around our city. However, they can pose a significant fire risk, if not properly cared for, this is particularly true for the batteries used to power them which have become one of London's fastest-growing fire risks.
“From our investigations, we know many of the fires we’ve attended have involved second-hand vehicles or a bike that was been modified using parts bought online. At this time, there is not the same level of regulation of products for e-bikes and e-scooters sold via online marketplaces or auction sites when compared to high street shops, so we can’t be confident that products meet the correct safety standard. We understand that people are trying to save money, but if you spot a deal that looks too be good to be true, it probably is.
In 2024, London Fire Brigade recorded 142 fires involving e-bikes along with 29 e-scooters. This means that on average, there was an e-bike or e-scooter fire once every other day.
Three people have died in fires caused by e-bike battery failures in London since 2023 and more than 100 people have been hurt.
Safety tips for e-bike and e-scooter users to follow
Northwick Park
That was certainly the feeling amongst objectors when they left the Brent Council Licensing Sub-Committee yesterday and perhaps that had to be expected when the Brent Public Safety Officer withdrew their concerns before the meeting.
It is notoriously hard to prove applications fail to meet the criteria specified for objections: preventing crime and disorder, public safety, preventing public nuisance and protecting children from harm. The councillors who objected, local residents and a barrister made a pretty good fist of it but were not helped by aggressive questioning from committee members who seemed to be much easier on the applicants.
Other issues emerged during the meeting including that Brent Council had sought appplications for festival organisers to hire Brent parks and that they has suggested Northwick Park when Fryent Country Park was deemed unsuitable. There was even a hint from the organisers that a contract was already in place.
The consultation with residents was late in the process and took place in the winter festival period. One observer likened finding out about the application to the scene in Douglas Adan's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when Arthur Dent was complaining that he had not heard about the plans to blow up the earth to make way for an inter-galactic highway:
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
The issue of how much Brent Council was going to be paid by the organisers is a close secret. Documents were restricted and press and public removed while this part of the agenda was discussed. Reports suggest a sum somewhere between £100,000 and £200,000. Brent Council would argue that this will be to the benefit of council tax payers.
Conditions were not good for public accountability and transparency with no livestream of the meeting, no microphones used and barely audible mumbling by committee members. I resisted a move to make me stop recording the meeting and delete the recording I had made. In the absence of livestreaming recording was essential in reporting the meeting.
The lack of public representation by Northwick Park Hospital to the Committe, amidst concern about the impact of the event on hospital patients, staff in the nearby housing, access to the hospital by patients and ambulances puzzled the objectors. They were told that a Working Group with the hospital had been set up by the festival promoters.
When asked about the posibility that festival goers would camp in the park and concern for their wellbeing, the promoters said this was unlikely but they would risk assess with the police if this happened and provide welfare support and water. They were seeking to cover all contingencies.
It was confirmed that festival goers would be expect to walk to the venue from Harrow-on-the-Hill tube station and residents' familiarity with the area came into play. The promoters had said the expected audience was three-quarters female and aged between 10 and 24. There were concerns about the safety of women and young girls walking in the dark for 2.5km over two busy roads and through a pedestrian tunnel.
Cllr Daniel Kennelly (Preston ward) reminded the hearing that the Betfred Challenge Cup Final was taking place the same weekend as the Festival. He expected the same 'Gold Standard' for security and welfare for the Festival as provided for Wembley events.
The event including set up and clearing would take place over 17 days but organisers were going to try and reduce this to 14. There was concern that this would put sports pitches out of use for the period but even worse, that the damage would make them unusable for longer. Residents gave example of events elsewhere in Brent where remediation of damage was poor and took a long time. The promoters said they would pay Brent to hire sub-contractors to do the work.
It should be noted that the licensing application also covers future and longer events in Northwick Park so this aspect will need proper oversight, something residents said was missing elsewhere in the borough.
A barrister represented 3 local residents individually, two of whom lived just 50 yards from the festival stage, and Sudbury Court Residents Association. Addressing the Sub-Commiitte he said:
You are told a professional noise impact assessment is being carried out over the coming weeks (in other words it hasn't happened yet); a full security and crowd management plan will be developed (in other words it hasn't been developed); we will work extensively with TfL to manage the ingress and egress of people through the stations to the park (in other words they haven't done it yet - it is an unknown quantity.
If you look at the plans you will see there's a gate close to Northwick Park tube station and [another] very close to South Kenton station but the applicant says Northwick Park station will not be used, 'discussions are underway with TfL to identify which station access should be used . It is anticipated that the primary transport hub will be Harrow-on-the-Hill.'
'Anticipated' we are told, 'discussions are underway' we are told.
The position is totally unclear and a recipe for chaos, I would submit.
He reminded the hearing that there would be a combined total of more than 100,000 on the Saturday of the festival in a comparatively small area.
(Not to mention the roadworks and public transport diversions!)
I have already published the concluding statement of the Sub-Committee but here it is again so it can be read in context:
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.
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:
