Despite overwhelming rejection of amalgamation at the informal consultation stage, the Brent Cabinet today approved moving ahead to a formal consultation on the merger of Malorees Infant and Junior School. The schools are in Brondesbury Park ward.
Patrick Martin, speaking on behalf of NEU members said that in their view an amalgamation would add nothing of benefit to the schools. They already operated as a Federation with staff teaching across the two schools with a single governing body and senior management.
Operating as a 2 form entry primary school as a result of amalgamation would result in a loss of funding of up to a annual £186,000 and this for a school already in deficit. They were being asked to agree a voluntary 5% cut in the hope of refurbishment. This would impact on the educational provision for pupils.
A previous successful bid for a multi use games area (MUGA) had been stopped when plans for a rebuild seemed to be likely. Rebuild as an option seemed to be in doubt given the economic situation and resulting building delays and increased costs.
Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, was unable to be physically present and was then unable to connect online so Muhammed Butt, Council Leader, read out her statement.
She startd by offering to meet opponents of the amalgamation and said that its advantages included access to the DfE Schools Rebuilding Programme for both the infant and junior school.
Merging the schools would provide financial resilience and a robust case had been made by the Governing Body. She acknowledged the alarm and anxiety of parents and NEU members but said there would be no redundancies or worsening of conditions of service. There was no danger of academisation as had happened at Byron Court. The merged community primary school and foundation junior school would reopen as a maintained primary school: Malorees Primary School.
Shirley Parks, Director of Education, Partnership and Strategy, took questions in the absence of Gwen Grahl. She said that the funding reduction took account of changes in the national formula and assumed a new building.
Changes in the local area, including the situation regarding Islamia Primary and the attraction of a new building would mean the school roll would probably increase [funding is per pupil]. The schools were now in the active DfE rebuilding programme for consideration between April and December this year.
There had been parental concern that because the two schools were currently separate that a small number of infants were unable to get a place in the junior school. As one school they would be guaranted a place.
The Governing Body was confident that it could manage the funding reduction over a period without impact on staff
Amalgamation would ensure that the new school would help build one community and the school would only have one Ofsted inspection [one for each part of the school at present] relieving stress on staff.
Interestingly, the documentation revealed that there was no parent governor on the Governing Body at present. This is similar to the Byron Court situation where parents were not fully represented on the governing body.
The extent of the land for the two schools
Cllr Muhammed Butt concluded by assuring the delegation that there were no plans to build homes on the Malorees land. The Junior School Foundation would transfer their land to Brent Council. The situation at Kilburn Park, also a Foundation School, was different as the redesignation of the land for non-education purposes was a result of the South Kilburn regeneration.
On the issue that a 200 plus on-line petition against amalgamation had not been included in the documentation, Butt said that this was because it had not come via the usual route. It had been checked and the issues raised had been addressed in the Cabinet report.
There were no questions or comments from Cabinet members before they voted to go ahead with a one month formal consultation.
If amalgamation goes ahead (likely whatever the outcome of the formal consultation) the combined school would open as Malorees Primary School at the beginning of Summer Term, 2026.
This guest post by a local resident draws readers' attention to an issue of concern happening just over Brent's border.
PROJECT
FLOURISH is a proposed housing development by Ballymore/Sainsburys in
partnership with the Berkeley Group. But the small parcel of highly contaminated
ex-industrial land at Kensal's old Gasworks site, at the northern top of
Ladbroke Grove London W10, presents multiple serious health concerns. After a
badly handled Southall gasworks site which was approximately 88 acres, the Kensal site
is a tiny 12 acres, therefore the area of land contaminated, waste-pits and
underground waste-tanks, is likely to be far more highly concentrated within
this small space.
Airborne
toxins, at this scale, are believed to continue to have a detrimental impact up
to 7km away, depending on wind speeds/directions. So draw a circle, starting at
Hendon, northwards, then clockwise to Highgate, Islington, Hoxton, Liverpool
Street, Lambeth, Brixton Wandsworth, North Sheen, Kew, Ealing, Wembley,
Kingsbury, then back to Hendon, don't forget to include everything within that
circle.
PLEASE USE THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP. Please inform your friends in
other parts of London.
Ballymore
were investigated by the Financial Times in 2021 for a disreputable history of
shoddy workmanship, with many expensive repairs needed, post-construction and
occupation, paid for by the new lease-holding residents, who then could not
sell-on their properties. Further, Conservative MP and (then) Levelling-up
Minister, named and shamed Ballymore as one of the building firms who refused
to sign the “safe building register,” post-Grenfell.
THE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE
POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS PARTICULAR GASWORKS SITE MAY BE THE MOST
CONTAMINATED OF ALL OF THE UK's OLD GASWORKS SITES – due to its industrial
urban location, the area that it covered and its tiny size.
At least 16 toxins
are found in old gasworks sites.
Sainsburys, Ballymore's other
partner, intend to keep either the current or their new, planned bigger store,
open throughout the soil remediation and construction processes. The Sainsbury store at the top of
Ladbroke Grove is built, along with it's extensive car-park, on what is likely
to be the most heavily contaminated portion of the site (currently capped
The new development planned is
for housing density, with multiple mega-towers (29 storeys, 98 metres from the
ground). 2,500 new homes, no social housing.
LAWS
CONTRAVENED OR BREACHED:
Environmental
Protection Act 1990
The Royal Borough of Kensington
& Chelsea's own “Climate Emergency Action Plan” -Written as a policy
for protecting certain areas from over-population.
Sustainable Markets Initiative,
as Prince of Wales (now King Charles) launched TERRA CARTA in 2021 – a mandate
that puts sustainability at the heart of the public sector. “The TERRA CARTA
offers the basis of a recovery plan that puts nature, people and
planet first,
Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC)
Planning Regulations (Greater London Authority) as set out in London Plan
Policy S1
Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Protection Act 1990. Part
2A Contaminated Land – Statutory Guidance.
The current plans to remediate the toxic soils of the Kensal Gasworks site is
full of very serious health hazards. Dirty work, done cheaply, in a densely
populated area, with an ancient Cemetery and listed Nature Reserve nearby.
The official
planning process only considers objections from that borough's own residents,
before granting planning permission. Located about as far north of Kensington
& Chelsea Borough as possible, near the boundary, in a place where many
boroughs meet, the toxic winds will not stop at Borough nor Constituency
borders. This plan will impact severely and, here and there, to the cost of
their health and well-being, on residents from all of the nearby boroughs.
Considering that a north wind is relatively rare, the most-part of the Royal
Borough, to the south, will be minimally impacted, it may well impact MORE on
those living, to the north, west and east (driven by prevailing winds), in
Brent or Middlesex, and to the west, Hammersmith & Fulham (the Park)
and Ealing.
After the Grenfell Tower disaster, after the following Inquiry, and after many
promises from the Royal Borough, they should know, and do, much better than
this.
PLEASE USE
THE TEMPLATE below to write to your MP adding information as above or from the
websites.
Dear MP
I would like to draw
your attention to plans involving an inevitable cocktail of dangerous airborne
volatile toxins, contravening laws, aims and promises, in a densely populated
area. 1 km from London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham's listed Nature
Reserve, (Wormwood Scrubs Park) and spreading across London.
Project Flourish is
planned by Ballymore/Sainsburys to excavate and remove by lorry, the heavily
poisoned soils, underground chemical waste-tanks and spoil-pits from the dirty
ex-industrial Kensal Gasworks site at the northern end of Ladbroke Grove. The
worst of it is believed to be currently capped-off underneath Sainsburys
car-park.
With a Shang-Hei style
housing density on the 12 acre site, the plans contain multiple serious health
and safety concerns. Firstly, that Dublin-based building company, Ballymore,
were investigated by the Financial Times in February 2021 for a record of
shoddy workmanship.
The Royal Borough of
Kensington & Chelsea have supported and promoted the plans throughout,
including gifting the developers some parcels of land and some of our roads
(Canal Close and Canal Way). A valuable local community resource will disappear
when the building used by many genuine community-based charities, gets
demolished.
A delegated decision has been made by Brent Council planners to refuse planning permission for a major expansion of the Gaudiya Mission, in Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green.
The application for changes to the Edwardian suburban house was opposed by 25 residents. The modifications included partial demolition of
existing kitchen and temple room, a proposed basement extension with rear
lightwell and railing, a single-storey side-to-rear extension, a rear dormer
extension, alteration to side fenestration, a single-storey outbuilding in rear
garden and installation of 2 front rooflights, and refuse storage to the front and
cycle storage to the rear of the mixed use place of worship and dwelling house.
The reasons for refusal of planning permission were:
1. The accommodation proposed
at loft floor level does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of
the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of
accommodation and internal amenity for future occupants. As a result, the proposal
is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy
D6 of the London Plan (2021).
2. The proposal by not
offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement of the premises is deemed to
offer a poor level of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to
policies DMP1 & BD1 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041) and the guidance
contained within Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).
3. The proposal by reason of the
insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting
fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban
greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The
proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BGI2 of
Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan
(2021).
The final decision notice sets out the regulations regarding appeals and purchase notices.
Planning Committee preliminaries and the section on the restrictive covenant. (Video by Brent Council including rather irritating facial focus. Captions by Wembley Matters)
At last night's Scrutiny Committee it was interesting to see Muhammed Butt, as chair of Barham Park Trustees sitting on the opposite side of the table to his brother Cllr Saqib Butt, a member of the Scrutiny Committee that was scrutinising the Trust's actions.
In the event, as the video shows, Cllr S. Butt, along with Cllr Dixon and Clr Maurice were excluded from the section of the meeting regarding the restrive covenant because they were members of the Planning Committee that had approved George Irvin's planning application to build four 3 storey houses in Barham Park. A decision that could only implemented by removal/amendment of the restrictive covenant, an action subsequentally approved by the Barham Park Trustees on payment of £200,000. Cllr S. Butt is vice chair of the Planning Committee. Legal officers felt that the three should not take part because of how a possibe conflict of interest could be perceived by the public.
Cllr Lorber declared an interest but continued to take part as a member of the Scrutiny Committee after being warned by legal officers that a complaint might be made about his participation.
Sorry if this is confusing, it is complicated, but Philip Grant's address to the Committee, read for him by former Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd, sets out the issues:
The Report to the 24 February Trust Committee meeting states:
‘The restrictive
covenants were imposed in August 2011 to preserve the area's character and
limit development.’
Those aims are just as
important now as they were in 2011. Barham
Park is one of Brent’s Historic Parks and Landscapes, a heritage asset which the Council promised to protect.
The covenant does that
by prohibiting ‘any development in or upon the Property’, which is inside the park
and a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. Planning Committee were
misled into granting the development consent in 2023 and I’ll explain why if
you ask, so the covenant is the last line of protection.
The Trust’s February decisions
appear to mirror the Council’s Property Strategy, which Cabinet approved last
year. They do not reflect the charitable aims of the Trust, or the wishes of residents
who are meant to be its beneficiaries.
The Charity Commission
recommended local people should have a voice in the Trust’s decisions, and two
years ago I suggested to Debra Norman how this could be achieved. My idea was
ignored in the Governance review later that year, and the Chair refused to
allow my suggestion to be heard by the Trust Committee in September 2023.
Other residents and
councillors have also had requests to speak refused. Brent Council is the sole
Trustee, and as the Trust Committee are not acting in the Trust’s best interests,
I would ask you, please, to refer the matter back for further consideration.
When officers were challenged by Paul Lorber to publish Charity Commission advice on the covenant removal they referred to Commission's inquiries after a complaint from a member of the public. They had sent a response and the Commission was satisfied with the Trust's processes. They appeared to be referring to the letter published on Wembley Matters where the Commission said they were taking not further action 'at this time' but would keep the complaint on file in case there were other concerns in the future. LINK.
The detailed discussion included much confusion, particularly over whether the proposed development was car/garage free or not and comments made by the Planning Legal Officer that statements could have been drafted more clearly, can be heard in the video.
The final decision, made by the the Scrutiny Committee's three members left standing - Cllr Long, Mitchell and Malloy, plus Chair Cllr Daniel Kennelly voted NOT to refer the matters covered in the Call-in back to the decision maker, Barham Park Trust, or Full Council. Cllr Lorber voted to refer it back.
The decision took immediate effect so the changes to the restricted covenant and its purchase goes ahead and the four houses will be built.
UPDATE WITH COMMENT FROM PAUL LORBER
This comment was too long for the normal comment word limit so published here instead:
Anne Wade (comment below the article) explains very clearly how important Barham Park is to local people and why it is important to keep up the fight to preserve it for the benefit of local people and not of private developers or Councillors who simply do not care.
If the Labour Councillors who act as Trustees or Council Officers managed the affairs of the Barham Park Trust ( a charity) effectively there would be no issues and no need to carry out any Scrutiny.
As I have pointed out for some time (and Wembley Matters has covered my concerns) the Barham Park Trust is managed very badly by both the Labour Trustees and by Brent Council Officers. I will give you some examples:
1. When Labour closed the Public Library in Barham Park they brought in a tenant who took over the Library space and most of the rest of the building. The Council claimed that dealing with just one tenant would make things simpler.
Over a number of years that tenant failed to pay their rent and built up arrears of over £60,000. A large amount is still outstanding today - this has cost the Council/Trust thousands of pounds in lost interest.
2. Most tenants occupying the building have Leases which state their rent and the service charges. The rents are subject to regular reviews. Council Officers working on behalf of the Trust failed to carry out rent reviews (until I pointed it out to them) and failed to charge service charges. This has cost the trust many thousands of pounds.
3. The Trust was persuaded to employ consultants at a cost of over £20,000 to undertake a major feasibility study to upgrade the buildings to generate commercial rents. The proposal is to replace the space occupied by long standing community organisations with Hotel Rooms and Shops. The Trust was told that a Silver Option would cost £3,162,000 and the Labour Trustees gave this a go ahead. While the consultants said that to deliver this option would require 'vacant possession' NO one bothered to ask when vacant possession could be achieved. As the Barham Community Library lease does not expire until October 2031 and much can change in 7 years this was a pointless exercise.
BUT it gets worse. Having told the trustees that the Council and not the Charity would pay the £20,000 consultancy fee - they charged the £20,000 to the Charity anyway "because the Council had no authority to pay it". Yet it is the same Councillors and same Officers who advise and make decisions for the Trust and for the Council.
AND to top it all - 2 years after the £20,000 was spent on the consultants and the Trustees accepted the £3 million option it turns out that the £3,162,000 cost is exclusive of VAT and that the Barham Park Trust would have to cough up over £600,000 in VAT extra on top if the daft project was proceeded with.
I could go on listing a catalogue of disasters inflicted on the Barham Park Trust as a result of poor management and poor oversight by the Trustees but I will save that for another day.
I will however say something about the saga of the Covenant.
The first point to make is that it was put in place to prevent further building work in the Park. It was part of the deal with George Irvin and he knew full well what the restrictions were when he bought the two existing houses. That was it - NO more!
If he does not like it he could always sell the two houses back to the Council - after all the Council has two Companies specifically buying up properties in the open market and there is nothing to stop the purchase of these two with the restrictive covenant in place.
The Council has now been dealing with the Covenant issue for 4 years. Council officers have spent vast amount of their time on this. Their time has not been costed but it won't be cheap and is met by Council Taxpayers and not by George Irvin.
Almost two years ago Council Officers advised the Trustees that it is normal for the development gain arising from varying the Covenant to be split on a 50/50 basis. The Trustees agreed to proceed on the basis of this advice.
The Trustees were presented with a 'revised' (it is not clear why it was revised) valuation showing the Development Gain/Profit that would arise after all the demolition, rebuilding and other costs at their meeting in February 2025. They have decided to keep the valuation and the figures confidential from the eyes of the public.
Members of the Scrutiny Committee were provided with a copy of the valuation a few days before the Scrutiny Meeting.
At the Scrutiny meeting I challenged Councillor Butt, Chair of the Trustees and Councillor Officers about the 50/50 advice and why the Trustees (all members of the Labour Cabinet) were prepared to accept a gross payment of £200,000 when this was a very long way from a 50/50 split. While I cannot disclose the exact figures I can say that my intervention at the Scrutiny Meeting was because the difference is MASSIVE! - and it is the Barham Park Charity which is the big loser.
On a final point it is important to stress that the £200,000 selling price is the 'gross' amount before expenses of the valuation and much more. The Trust will therefore benefit by much less than £200,000 although through another 'oversight' this is not mentioned in the Trustee Meetings either.
I (and others) have now been challenging Brent Council about the mismanagement of the Barham Park Trust and the neglect of Barham Park since at least 2011 (the year they closed Barham Park Library). Vast amount of money has been wasted on mismanagement and pointless consultants reports.
I am sorry to say that Barham Park is not safe in the hands of Brent Council or its self appointed group of Labour Councillors as Trustees.
It came as no surprise that the Labour Councillors on the Scrutiny Committee voted on block in support of their Leader.
There is however only so much that can be covered up. Watch this space.
The report, published today and outlined below will have major implications for local councils, including Brent, if the Government implements its recommendations. The section on the devastating impact of out of area placements is particularly relevant to Brent where the Council is unable to find afford accommodation in-borough and is recommending that families out of the area to find affordable private rental housing. LINK
A crisis in temporary accommodation in England is
leaving record high numbers of children without a permanent home. Many of these
children are living in appalling conditions, with significant impacts to their
health and education, says the cross-party Housing,
Communities and Local Government Committee.
The report points to the rising costs to local
councils of providing this accommodation - local authorities spent a combined
£2.29 billion on temporary accommodation in 2023/24 – with over 164,000
homeless children currently living in temporary accommodation.
The Committee’s report sets out a series of
recommendations for the Government and for local authorities and highlights the
shocking conditions of some temporary accommodation.
The report also outlines the damaging impact of
unsuitable accommodation to the development, wellbeing, education, and health
of children and flags safeguarding concerns around instances of children and
families sharing communal facilities with strangers, including those with a
history of domestic abuse.
The report points to egregious hazards present in
some temporary accommodation, including serious damp and mould, excessive cold,
and mice infestations, and overcrowding which results in cases of older
children sharing beds with their parents or siblings, and children without the
floor space to crawl or learn to walk.
The report also states that some temporary
accommodation sourced by local authorities is of such poor quality that it may
pose a severe risk to children's health. The Committee highlighting the
“shocking” data that temporary accommodation contributed to the deaths of at
least 74 children, of whom 58 were under the age of one, in the last five
years.
Florence Eshalomi, Chair of the Housing,
Communities and Local Government (HCLG) Committee said:
It is utterly shameful that so many families are
living in B&Bs, bedsits and hotels that are completely unsuitable to their
needs; having to travel for hours simply to get to school or work, not having
basics like cots and radiator covers, not even having the space to learn to
walk or crawl. When 74 children had their deaths linked to temporary
accommodation in the last five years, it’s clear we need to act urgently to
bring an end to this crisis before any more young lives are ruined or
lost.
The devastating reality is that over 164,000
children are stuck in a situation where they don’t have a permanent roof over
their own head, and that many families will be stuck in so-called temporary
accommodation for years. This isn’t temporary and it isn’t acceptable. We
cannot expect children to have the best outcomes in life if they spend so long
being forced to live out of suitcases and without basics like a private kitchen
and bathroom.
Our committee is clear that more must be done to
ensure children do not fall through the cracks into appalling conditions,
including by carrying out regular checks on the quality of accommodation and
making safeguarding a top priority when placing families.
Beyond the appalling impact on children and
families, this crisis doesn’t deliver value for money for taxpayers. Councils
in London alone are spending £4 million a day on this form of accommodation,
while billions are spent nationwide every year. That’s why our solution to the
housing crisis must include enough social housing and genuinely affordable
homes to ensure every child has a permanent place to call home.
Recommendations
The report’s key recommendations include:
All local authorities in England must carry
out mandatory inspections of housing before it is first used as temporary
accommodation, and whenever new residents are moved in. Currently many
councils do not carry out regular inspections of the conditions of
temporary accommodation used to house families, which the report states is
“unacceptable”.
The Government should establish a formalised
notification system, so that a child’s school and GP are alerted when they
move into temporary accommodation. The report highlights that currently
schools, GPs, and other public bodies are often unaware when children in
their care become homeless or change school due to a move into temporary
accommodation and this prevents schools offering additional support. The
Committee calls for the Government to bring about a more joined-up
approach between public services to support families experiencing
homelessness.
The Government should introduce a new
requirement for local authorities to notify a host authority before they
make an out of area placement. Rising demand for temporary accommodation
has led some local authorities to resort to relocating families, placing
them in temporary accommodation 'out-of-area'. The distance of these
placements can be significant: the Committee heard cases which included a
family from Camden being placed in North Manchester, and a family from
Oldham being placed in Hastings. The report finds that out-of-area
placements have a devastating impact on families, leaving them far from
their extended family, friends, and support network, and causing
disruption to children’s education. Some local authorities are currently
falling short of their legal duties with regards to out of area
placements, by failing to notify the host authority appropriately.
The Government should work with the Local
Government and Social Care Ombudsman to ensure the Ombudsman has
sufficient resources and powers to investigate complaints of unsuitable
temporary accommodation, and take appropriate action. The report notes a
striking rise in the number of families placed in B&B temporary
accommodation for more than six weeks unlawfully. The Government already
requires that families are only housed in B&Bs as a "last
resort”. However, the report finds that for too many families, the legal
six-week limit on families being placed in B&B accommodation is
meaningless, as their local authority does not adhere to it and there are
no effective sanctions for breaches.
The report also calls on the Government to publish
its strategy on ending homelessness by July 2025 to help ensure that
Government, homelessness organisations, and local authorities can make
meaningful progress towards tackling the crisis in temporary accommodation
during this Parliament.
Brent East MP, Dawn Butler, met with five members of Brent
Friends of the Earth at Portcullis House, Westminster, on March 31st 2025, to
discuss Friends of the Earth's campaign for a Bolder, Fairer Climate plan, as
well as no new North Sea Oil drilling at Rosebank/Jackdaw, and our opposition
to airport expansion.
Dawn listened carefully and agreed with our points.
A summary of what we told her can be found here. Dawn was happy to
have her picture taken with our poster calling for a Bolder, Fairer Climate
Plan. She told us that she also opposed Heathrow expansion, and would look at
the FoE research documents which we left with her. We also gave her petition
cards we had collected at public events, signed by constituents supporting
FoE's call.
Brent West MP Barry Gardiner is due to speak to our
meeting in May, and we hope to meet with Georgia Gould MP at some point.
Anyone driving or taking the bus around the back of Wembley Stadium will be familiar with acres of Carey Group plant, now much of it moved to Aston Clinton in Buckinghamshire.
The company was started in 1969 by three Irish brothers and is now a huge multi-faceted company but still privately owned:
In 2023 Carey Group owned T.E. Scudder Ltd was fined for colluding in illegal rigged bids for demolition and asbestos removal contracts. Ten firms were fined a total of nearly £60m.
Now Circadian Limited, a Hong King based developer, has started a legal action against the Group alleging that it was over-charged £2.4m for demolition work at Lots Road Power Station in London.
The claim states, 'the Cartel Arrangements caused the price of construction services to be higher that they would have otherwise have been.'
The Carey Group have undertaken building work for Quintain Group and also own the Seneca waste processing plant in Wembley Park. They operate a charitable arm, the Carey Foundation and at one stage expressed interest in running the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre.
In September 2023 the Group made a profit of just £9m after a loss of £38m the previous year.
As it is after Noon on April 1st I can confirm that this was an April Fool.
Muhammed Butt poses for the cameras after being offered new role
Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt, was yesterday appointed to a part-time role as head of a government task force on 'mobile entertainment'.
Government sources said that funfairs, circuses and outdoor pop festivals were a neglected area of potential growth that could add thousands of pounds to local economies and utilise under-used parks and open spaces.
A Brent funfair that took place last summer
Butt's experience in Brent was cited as a key factor in his appointment. He told Wembley Matters, 'Fortunately I have direct access to one of the most experienced and successful entrepreneurs in the field and I am sure they will help me add value to my role. I look forward to the Brent model spreading across the country and contributing to Labour's commitment to growing the UK economy.'
He added, 'It is an honour to work for Sir Keir who I think is the greatest Labour leader since Sir Stafford Cripps.'
Recently Brent Council came close to securing a lucrative contract with a Korean Pop Festival company. Although the K-Pop Festival was postponed, Stage 1 Licensing Permission was granted by Brent Licensing Sub-committee and subject to conditions is expected to take place in 2026. LINK
Muhammed Butt's appointment is not expected to affect his role as Leader of Brent Council.
