How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Brent Council would like you to believe that the answer is 530 new affordable homes. That is the number they included in the leaflet they sent out to every household in the borough last month, with our Council Tax bills for 2025/26. The claim that 530 affordable homes were delivered is on a page headed “Where Your Council Tax Goes”, directly following the words ‘Here’s how we spent your council tax last year’, so there should not be any doubt that it relates to homes delivered by Brent Council itself. But that claim is untrue!

 

When I saw that figure, I couldn’t understand where all those homes had been completed in the borough during the past year, so I put in an FoI request. Here is the answer (in red) that I received to the first point, which as well as confirming that the claim relates to the year 2024/25 says that 530 affordable homes was actually 434.

 

Extract from email of 31 March 2025 from Brent’s Strategic Housing Partnerships Manager.

 

I realise that, as the leaflet had to be printed around two months before the year end, there had to be some estimating, but to publish a figure of 530, more than 22 per cent higher than the actual number at 31 March is stretching the facts. Brent has claimed, in response to being challenged on the figures by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, that 530 was ‘correct at the time of going to press’, but that can’t be true either.

 

But the situation gets worse for the Council, as the second point I raised in my FoI request was where these affordable homes were “delivered”, and whether they were built by Brent or by another registered provider of social housing (such as a housing association). This is the response I received:

 

 

So, there it is, in black and white. Brent Council did not deliver 530 affordable homes in the year to 31 March 2025, and not even 434, the revised total of all of the affordable homes completed in the borough in that year. The Council itself delivered just 26 affordable homes in the year, less than 5% of the number its leaflet to Council Taxpayers would have you believe!

 

When Brent set out its five-year New Council Homes plan in 2019, it promised to deliver 1,000 new homes at “genuinely affordable” rents between 2019 and 2024. It failed to do that, and quietly changed the target to 1,000 “affordable” homes by 2028, just one example of the misleading information they have given over affordable housing. In the third part of my FoI request, I asked for a breakdown of the different types of affordable housing included in the 530 (or 434) figure, This was the answer:

 

This shows that only 101 out of 434 of the new affordable homes was at the “genuinely affordable” London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, that is just over 23% of the total. Brent Council has a planning policy which states that at least 70% of affordable homes provided (and 50% of new homes in developments of 10+ homes are meant to be “affordable”) should be genuinely affordable, so our planning system is clearly failing to deliver on what is an identified need for the people of Brent.

 

More than half of the affordable homes delivered were not even homes for rent, but shared ownership (45% of the total) and discount market sale (14%). ‘Discounted market sales housing’, which like shared ownership technically counts as “affordable housing”, even though it is not affordable to most people in housing need in Brent, is defined as homes which are sold ‘at a discount of at least 20% below local market value.’

 

The other claim over housing in the Council Tax leaflet is that ‘1,000 new council homes [are] being built this year.’ I asked for the details behind that claim as well, and this is the answer I received:

 

You will note that, again, between sending the leaflet to the printers and 31 March, the Council had to revise its figure down from 1,000 to 899. These are ‘expected completions’, and who knows how many more of these will not actually be completed by 31 March 2026? 

 

From the names and addresses of these ‘new council homes’ being built, at least three large sites, Alperton Bus Garage, Fulton Road and Quay Walk, amounting to 564 homes (62.5% of the total) are private developments, where Brent is borrowing large amounts of money to buy flats from the developers, rather than building new homes itself.

 

And this is the odd thing. It is (or should be) much cheaper to build new homes on land that you already own, but instead of building all of the homes on the Council owned former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue for rent (at the genuinely affordable rents which local people need), Brent has agreed that Wates, the contractor building them for the Council, can sell 150 of the 237 homes there privately. Only 56 of the new homes there (just over 23%) will be for renting to Brent families at the “genuinely affordable” LAR level.

 

Brent also owns all of the blocks of housing, and the land on which they stand, which are part of its long-running and much delayed South Kilburn Regeneration programme. In the latest deal for this, with Countryside, the developer will get more than half of the homes to be built on the site of Neville and Winterleys, to sell privately. The homes retained by the Council will all be for social rent, which sounds like a good thing, but that is because they will all be for existing Council tenants, being rehoused so that their homes can be demolished. There will be no new homes available for rent to families on the Council’s waiting list.

 

These dishonest housing claims, which have gone out to every home in the borough, give the impression that Brent Council is providing much more affordable housing itself than is actually the case. Who benefits from this deception? The principal beneficiaries are Cllr. Muhammed Butt (whose “Dear Resident” letter is on page 3 of the leaflet, saying what a good job his Council is doing, despite the huge cuts to its Central Government funding since 2010) and his Labour councillors. This propaganda on their behalf is in an official Brent Council leaflet, paid for out of our Council Tax, as they sent us the bill for this year’s increased amount!

 

The back cover of the leaflet contains an advert about Brent’s campaign against fly-tipping, featuring a photograph with “the usual suspects”. As the leaflet contains the lies I’ve exposed above, I will end this piece with an amended version of that advert.

 

Parody of the back cover advert. (Image by Brent Council, amendments by the author)

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

Volunteers in buckets for Brent River Catchment pollution project - hoping to start work tomorrow

 

Some of the volunteer 'samplers' at Imperial College Training Session

Teams of volunteers have been anxiously watching for rain during this dry period - not for the allotment or garden, but to get started on one on the biggest hands-on outdoor citizenship science projects of its kind.

The  Brent River Run-off project is a partnership between  CURB (Clean Up the River Brent), Brent Catchment Partnership (Thames 21) and Imperial College.

The project needs heavy rain to cause 'run-off' from roads and other pollution sources into the River Brent, Mutton Brook, Silk Stream, Wembley Brook, Wealdstone Brook and other tributaries.  Volunteers will be positioned along the waters to dip buckets ino the water to take samples, preferably before, during and after the rains.

These will be transferred into bottles, labelled and taken to local freezers before being collected by Imperial College for analysis in their highly advanced labs.

At present it looks as if the rains may come at dawn tomorrow so look out for volunteers in high viz dangling buckets from bridges and footways as you go off to work or enjoy your breakfast.

Volunteers will be positioned all the way from Edgware to Brentford where the Brent joins the Thames. 

 

UPDATED with statement by Leader of Brent Council. Muslim community upset over desecration of Muslim graves at Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery in Islamophobic attack

 

 

 

Thanks to Khalid on TikTok for sending this video via Twitter 

 

Muslim graves at Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery in Hertfordshire were reported to have been desecrated at the weekend with memorials and plaques damaged including those for children.

 

The cemetery is owned by Brent Council and has a separate Muslim section. As this section was singled there is little doubt that the attack was Islamophobic and should be treated as a hate crime against Muslims.

 

 

 

For the police  Inspector Will Rogers-Overy said:

 

Enquiries are ongoing to further establish the circumstances, and extra patrols have been deployed in the area to reassure the community. Senior officers are working closely with local community leaders, to identify those family members who will be most affected. In the coming days we will engage further with the Muslim community who will have been particularly impacted by this horrendous crime.

 

If anyone has information or witnessed the criminal damage take place, please contact police.

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said:

 

Our thoughts are with the families of those whose graves were desecrated, I cannot imagine how they must be feeling at this moment.

 

This is a very serious incident, and we continue to work closely with Hertfordshire Police to inform family members and bring the perpetrators to justice. I encourage anyone who thinks they have information that will help the investigation to call the Police on 101.

 

It looks as though Muslim graves have been targeted, in what appears to be an Islamophobic hate crime. There is absolutely no place for hate or discrimination of any kind anywhere, but particularly in London – a city where everyone is welcome and our diversity is one of our greatest strengths.

 

We will reinstate the damaged name plaques and return Carpenders Park Lawn cemetery to a peaceful, quiet place of remembrance as quickly as possible, once the Police have finished their investigation.

Further information from Brent Council:

  • Up to 100 graves were desecrated, including the graves of children and babies. We understand this happened on Saturday.
• Brent Council has been working with the police over the weekend to make sure everyone who needs to be is contacted, and that work will continue today.
• Hertfordshire Police are treating this as a hate crime.
• Carpenders Park Lawn cemetery is located in Watford but owned by Brent Council.
• Given this horrific incident, Brent Council will now be working closely with the Police to put in place any extra security measures needed to protect the area.

 

A relative affected writes;

 

After hearing the news of graves being desecrated at Carpenders Park cemetery, it was the most gut wrenching feeling. My husband is recently buried in this cemetery and the anxiety and feeling of nausea till we reached the cemetery I can’t begin to describe how my family and I felt. Thankfully my husband’s grave was unaffected but to see the destruction of children’s graves was callous and pure evil. How are these people allowed to get away with this? It’s incomprehensible. My husband is buried there I was too upset to write this till I saw from my own eyes.

 

In a statement released this afternoon Brent Green Party said:

 

Carpenders Park Law Cemetery Desecration of Muslims Graves. 

 

Brent Green Party express our  solidarity with the Muslim community  and call for a full investigation on the basis that is an Islamophobic hate crime totally alien to Brent's values as an inclusive community.

 

The Lawn Cemetery is a general burial place with different sections and non-Muslims have also been affected by the news and have expressed sympathy.  This is one comment in reaction to  this article beig posted on Next Door.

 

This is terrible. Carpenders Park Cemetery is a peaceful resting place for our loved ones of different faiths. I hope they catch the people that did this. Unfortunately it does not have cctv. Both my parents and family friends are buried there. It has a calming feel to it. I have been visiting for over 30 years and I have never heard of this happening before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All routes Wembley High Road and Wembley Triangle to re-open Friday April 19th as upgrade completed ahead of schedule

 From Brent Council

Wembley Triangle – 1 month ahead of schedule

We are pleased to inform you that the works are progressing really well and we should be opening all routes on Friday, 18 April 2025.

Please find below summary timeline for the remaining works:

• Saturday, 12 April. Wembley High Road will open on temporary road surface from 5am. Access to Wembley High Road from Wembley Hill Road and Ecclestone Place will remain closed.
• Monday, 14 April. Wembley High Road will be closed for road resurfacing from 8pm to 5am. Access to Wembley High Road from Wembley Hill Road and Ecclestone Place will remain closed.
• Friday, 18 April. All routes will be open as usual as our upgrades will be complete.

Signals installed and working at Bridge Road/North End Road junction but there's a small problem

 Bridge Road/North End Road Junction when it opened in June 2021

 

When the junction oof North End Road and North End Road was finally opened in June 2021 it is was immediately obvious that traffic signals were needed for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Wembley Matters, Brent Cyclists and others pointed out the dangers.

 

 The new layout

It has taken nearly four years for signals to be installed. A reader pointed out a problem, with the installation so I went to look for myself this morning. I saw someone wanting to cross North End Road towards Olympic Way looking for a button to press.

The control box is actually fitted away from the edge of North End Road on a post, and is partially oriented towards Bridge Road and Wembley Park  station.  It is no wonder that he could not find a button and that the reader had told me there was not one.

Even worse there were people trying to dash across Bridge Road there, in both directions, despite the railings on the station side. The new pedestrian crossing at Bridge Road is on the other of the yellow box.

A minor adjustment is needed that should not take 4 years to complete.

 

 

Neasden Shopping Centre Bingo Hall application to be heard next week - opposed by Dawn Butler MP and councillors on behalf of residents

 Tuesday's Licensing Sub-Committee will hear an application from Merkul Slots to open a Bingo Hall on the former premises of Santander in the Neasden Shopping Centre,

The application is the first since Brent Council launched its campaign for the government to change the law which they claim does not give local authorities enough power to turn down such socially harmful applications.

This application has attracted submissions from Dawn Butler MP fore Brent East, Cllr Liz Dixon and another elected representative who is not named.

Dawn Butler MP:

Dear License Committee, 

 

I am writing to formally respond to the Merkur Slots Application at 263–265 Neasden Lane application number 33757 for a Bingo Club Premises Licence/Gambling Premises Licence New Application.

 

My constituency of Brent East has been disproportionately impacted by problem gambling with betting shops and adult gaming centres planted amidst our most vulnerable and deprived communities, impacting those who can least afford it. According to Brent Council’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA), the borough’s problem gambling rate is 6.2%, which is over double the national average. Additionally, gambling-related harm costs the borough an estimated £14.3 million annually. Anti-social behaviour linked to loitering outside gambling shops is extremely problematic and I see this in casework I receive year-round.

 

The liberalisation of gambling legislation as introduced in the Gambling Act 2005 has been a serious failure for communities and this application just highlights the serious problems and I implore the Planning Inspectorate to take serious action and refuse the application. There is already a proliferation of gambling shops and adult gaming centres in my constituency, with three betting shops already within 100 metres of the proposed site. We know already that they have a propensity to cluster in poorer communities, which are more susceptible to gambling harm due to the hope that a big win will help them out of their situation.

 

It is deeply concerning that further details regarding the building have not been supplied. This is a strong community, and it is being blighted by these shops, whose owners hold the area in complete contempt and disregard. The fact that the application contains few details does not surprise me. I wrote to 7,000 households in Brent, to ask them for their own experiences of gambling and the betting shops in Brent.

 

This was going to form a response to the Government’s Gambling Review, the response to my call for evidence has been stark:

 

 • 97.5% were opposed to betting shops

• 80% questioned why more shops were being given permission

• 75% called for the number of stores to be limited

• 62.5% detailed experiences of anti-social behaviour in the locale of these shops.

 

I have heard from families who’ve faced financial ruin because of gambling  and from so many people for whom their daily lives are blighted by the associated anti-social behaviour, in particular street drinking and drugs, which circulate in close proximity to these gambling establishments.

 

To conclude, I strongly urge the Licensing Authority to reject this application. The people of Neasden deserve a vibrant, diverse high street that supports the well-being of all residents, not another exploitative gambling venue that deepens existing harms.

  

Anonymous representative:

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

This constitutes a formal objection to the proposed Merkur Slots application at 263- 265 Neasden Lane. As an elected representative and a voice for deeply concerned residents, I vehemently oppose this application due to its detrimental impact on the community and the area. City Hall has provided significant funding to Neasden and allowing this application to proceed would work completely against the efforts that all partners are making to improve the Town Centre and the area.

 

A Plague of Gambling Establishments:

 

Brent already suffers from an oversaturation of gambling venues. With 81 licensed gambling establishments, our borough boasts a higher concentration than  supermarkets, banks, or even schools – a truly alarming statistic. This over- proliferation, particularly in areas like Neasden, directly contradicts the principles ofm nresponsible community planning.

 

Fuelling Addiction and Social Harm:

 

The Brent Council Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) paints a grim picture:

 

 Epidemic of Problem Gambling: 6.2% of Brent residents grapple with problem gambling, a staggering figure twice the national average.

 Economic Devastation: Gambling-related harm costs Brent a staggering £14.3 million annually.

 Predatory Targeting: Operators like Merkur Slots exploit vulnerable communities, with Neasden, Harlesden, and Willesden bearing the brunt of this exploitation.

 The Deadliness of FOBTs: Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs) and online slots, despite being utilized by a mere 3% of the population, are the primary drivers of problem gambling. The addiction rate of FOBTs surpasses even heroin and tobacco, highlighting their devastating impact.

 

These stark realities underscore the urgent need to curb the proliferation of gambling establishments, especially in areas like Neasden Lane, to safeguard our communitynfrom the devastating consequences of gambling addiction.

 

Eroding the Vitality of Neasden Lane:

 

The proposed Merkur Slots development poses a grave threat to the vitality and viability of Neasden Lane as a thriving commercial centre.

 

 Anti-Social Behaviour Hotspots: The existing concentration of betting shops within a mere 100 metres of Neasden Lane already contributes to significant anti-social behavior. Adding another gambling establishment will only exacerbate this problem.

 Undermining Community Development: This application directly undermines the substantial investments made by City Hall to revitalize Neasden Town Centre.

 Deterring Diverse Businesses: The oversaturation of gambling establishments discourages other businesses from establishing themselves, hindering the development of a diverse and vibrant commercial landscape.

 

 Unsightly Development: The proposed design lacks the vibrancy and aesthetic appeal necessary for a thriving town centre. Instead of fostering a welcoming and engaging atmosphere, it will detract from the pedestrian experience.

 

Size, Location, and Nuisance:

 

The scale and location of this proposed development are entirely inappropriate:

 

 Residential Intrusion: The continuous operation of this gambling establishment will inevitably lead to increased noise, disturbance, and anti- social behaviour, severely impacting the quality of life for nearby residents.

 Ignoring Community Concerns: This proposal blatantly disregards the Brent Local Plan's emphasis on protecting residents from the negative impacts of commercial activities.

 

Exacerbating Social Inequalities:

 

This application raises profound concerns about its impact on the most vulnerable members of our community:

 

 Preying on Financial Desperation: Many individuals, particularly during times of economic hardship, turn to gambling as a desperate coping mechanism.

 Targeting Young People and Ethnic Minorities: Young people and ethnic minorities are disproportionately impacted by gambling-related harm.

 

This development directly contradicts the principles of creating healthy and inclusive communities. Instead of fostering well-being, it will deepen existing inequalities and exacerbate social challenges.

 

Conclusion:

 

The proposed Merkur Slots development at 263-265 Neasden Lane is an affront to our community. It represents a threat to the health, safety, and well-being of our residents.

 

I urge the Licensing Authority to categorically reject this application and prioritize developments that contribute positively to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of Neasden.

 

 Cllr Liz Dixon:

 

 

 

 

Conflicting views on Just Cravings late-night license application

 

Facebook video The Licensing Sub-committeewill next week consider a late night licensing application for Just Cravings for their premises at 150 Willesden Lane.

The application reads like an advertisement for the desserts:

Just Cravings is a dessert takeaway dedicated to offering a delicious selection of sweet treats to satisfy every craving. Our menu features a variety of handcrafted desserts made with high- quality ingredients, ranging from rich, indulgent chocolate treats to light and refreshing fruit-based delights. Customers can enjoy warm, gooey brownies, creamy cheesecakes, and classic waffles and crepes loaded with toppings, along with a selection of hot and cold beverages. Our establishment is committed to cultural diversity, creating an inclusive and welcoming space for all dessert lovers. The premises are square in size, and we are applying for a license for late-night refreshments only. No alcohol will be served on-site. We look forward to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for our customers to indulge in high-quality desserts at any time of the day or night.

Some local residents have complained of littering, noise, alleged drug use and much else while customers have rallied to support the black-owned business and its staff submitting 34 responses.

RESIDENTS

Dear Licensing Team, I am writing on behalf of local residents regarding the premises license application (No. 34282) for Just Cravings, located at 150 Willesden Lane, NW6 7TH. We wish to formally object to this application for a late-night license due to ongoing disturbances and violations of licensing regulations. For over five months—possibly longer—this establishment has been operating beyond 2:00 AM, despite not having a license for such hours. This raises serious concerns regarding regulatory enforcement. If the premises do not currently have permission to operate late at night, we urge the council to take immediate action to prevent further breaches. We invite you to visit the location any day at 2:00 AM to verify this matter firsthand. Since the shop has been operating beyond permitted hours, residents have experienced significant disruptions, including: Increased waste and littering in the area. Anti- social behavior, including groups gathering on neighboring roads engaging in drug use (including nitrous oxide) and leaving behind debris. Frequent disturbances due to loud altercations and reckless driving in and out of local car parks. Traffic congestion, with customers parking along Willesden Lane, causing obstructions and preventing buses from stopping at designated bus stops, particularly after 9:00 PM. Given the ongoing issues already affecting the community, all local residents strongly object to this application. The situation has already made daily life unbearable, and granting official permission for these extended hours will only worsen the problems. We urge Brent Council to: Enforce the current licensing regulations if the premises are indeed operating unlawfully. Consider residents' concerns when reviewing this application and reject any extension of operating hours. Consult with affected residents from REDACTED before making a decision. We trust that the council will act in the best interests of the community and enforce the necessary regulations. Please confirm receipt of this objection and inform us of any further steps in this matter.

 

CUSTOMERS

  

I am writing to express my strong support for JustCravings’ application to extend its operating hours until 2 AM. This business is a vital social hub, a boost to the local economy, and an example of the success of Black-owned enterprises in our community. JustCravings provides a much-needed venue where people can socialise in a safe and welcoming environment. Extending its hours would allow it to continue fostering community connections while contributing to the local economy. At a time when many businesses are struggling, we should be supporting those that are thriving; not unfairly restricting them. I have reviewed the objections to this application, and the primary concern appears to be littering. While this is, of course, an issue that must be addressed, it is not a reason to deny a business the opportunity to flourish. There are practical solutions to tackle littering, such as increased bin provisions and enforcement of waste disposal rules, which should be explored rather than using it as an excuse to block a business that adds value to the area. Furthermore, I cannot ignore the racist undertones in some of the objections. Claims that JustCravings’ customers are smoking cannabis or consuming codeine are baseless stereotypes, unfairly painting a thriving Black-owned business and its patrons in a negative light. These types of accusations appear to be part of a smear campaign rather than genuine concerns about public safety. If there were any actual evidence of wrongdoing, it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels, rather than being used as an excuse to deny a licence extension. Approving this extension would send a clear message that our community supports entrepreneurship, values diversity, and welcomes economic growth. JustCravings has the potential to put our area on the map, attracting visitors and further investment. It deserves our full backing. I urge you to grant this extension and support fairness, business success, and community spirit.

Brent Travellers stand up for their community at Brent Cabinet following legal notice that would force some to move from Lynton Close site

 

The voice of Brent Travellers came over loud and clear in a presentation at Brent Cabinet yesterday. Elizabeth Corcoran, supported by Nancy Hawker (London Gypsies and Travellers Association), spoke eloquently on behalf of  residents of the Lynton Close Travellers Site.

The full presentation and the response from Cabinet member  Cllr Fleur Donnelly-Jackson can be seen in the video above.

The situation had arisen because of over-crowding at the site and a resulting fire risk. A conflict had arisen over the the introduction of a waking fire watch because of fears of strangers walking around the pitches and a waking watch hub being in the children's play area. Assurances that the fire watchers would be introduced to the residents had not been followed. The issue had not been resolved but the residents did want to ensure fire safety and re-open discussions.

Elizabeth advocated for the equal rights of Travellers as one of Brent's ethnic minority groups and said that their right to maintain their culture would be infringed by their displacement as a result of the compliance order. She spoke of the impact on children who had built up relationhips with teachers in their school. Many had additional or special needs and had waited years for support. The uncertainty was affecting the mental health and wellbeing of extended families. She cited the high suicide rates in Traveller communities. Bricks and mortar were not how Travellers wished to live and made them feel imprisoned.

She concluded:

I kindly urge the council to reconsider this course of action, to engage with our community and to find a better solution that respects our cultural beliefs and ensures our safety without uprooting.

Collaboration and understanding can lead to solutions that honour our heritage while addressing the safety concerns.

We have the elderly, the vulneable and those wih special needs, This is affecting their well-being. All we are asking is; work with us, help us find a safe and fair way for us to remain in our homes.

Let's talk about what can be done with respect and not removal. In conclusion I would ask for fire safety measures to be put in place and land found for a temporary caravan site in the face of this humanitarian emergency.

In response Cllr Fleur Donelly-Jackson said that she had made notes on the presentation and shared some of the concerns expressed. She said residents of Lynton Close were valued members of the Brent community. She said that the 28 day deadline to comply with licensing conditions was not an eviction notice but a request for the pitch holders to resolve the breaches of licence within 28 day.  

She said that the council knew that there are extended families living in their additional mobile homes and that what they were asking of these families was 'incredibly' difficult. However, it was important to stress that they don't have an automatic right to accommodation in Lynton Close in the same way that adult chidren living in over-crowded social homes don't have an automatic right to live in that home either.

The first duty of the council was to ensure residents' safety.

Cllr  Donnelly-Jackson welcomed the representatives' offer on the waking watch and confirmed that the council agreed in principle and officers would now work through the logistics and practicalities of putting the watch back in place.

The offical Cabinet Minute records Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt's comment:

In bringing the item to close, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) also took the opportunity to assure the residents of Lynton Close of the Council’s willingness to continue working with them to mitigate the issues and safety concerns which had been identified with work also ongoing to find an appropriate alternative site that would work for the community and their requirements.  He also thanked residents for their cooperation in seeking to progress implementation of a Waking Watch scheme to mitigate fire risks on the site. In response to the comments raised regarding equity, diversity and inclusion, Councillor Butt assured those present that the traveller community was not regarded any differently from others in the borough and would be afforded the same rights, recognising the legally protected characteristic that the Council had a duty to consider.  He concluded his remarks by reminding residents of the community meeting which had been scheduled and would provide a further opportunity to hear from and respond to residents and outline the measures to mitigate the safety issues associated with the site whilst supporting the community and ended by once again thanking the representatives for taking the time to attend the meeting and ensure the views of the traveller community at Lynton Close were represented.