Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

This image is a screenshot from a video featuring Cllr. Promise Knight, Brent’s Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters’ Security, which was produced by a PR company to promote the Council’s “infill” housing scheme for Clement Close. The video was shared in Martin’s blog about residents’ opposition to Brent’s plans, in July 2022.

 

My use of images from that video in this guest post is not intended as a personal attack on Cllr. Knight. Her words in the video are official Brent Council housing policy, which she may have been reading from an autocue, and I don’t doubt that she believes them to be true.

 

I’m writing this blog as a follow-up to one last month, “Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?”, after my expectation that concerns over Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme (raised in a deputation on 9 March 2022) would be considered at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 6 September were dashed in a single sentence from the Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely:

 

‘I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.’

 

The only information I was aware of which had been presented to the Committee was a written response, sent from a Council Officer two months after my deputation, which made no reference to the Cecil Avenue housing scheme part of it. Cllr. Conneely’s sentence referred to two lots of ‘information’, so I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for both of those, and have now received two documents in response to it.

 

I will ask Martin to attach these. The first includes the “Housing” section of the original “Poverty Commission Update” report, my deputation and the Council’s response to it, and then refers to information about the Cecil Avenue scheme which the Council had sent to me, and had not previously provided to the Committee. There is no indication of when this was supplied to them, and whether this was to all members, or just to the Chair.

 

  

Information reassuring the Committee that Brent had provide information to me!

 

After that brief “note”, it sets out the text of an email which Cllr. Promise Knight sent to me on 13 July 2022. I must apologise to Cllr. Knight, and to “Wembley Matters” readers, as I’d said I would share her reply with you. I thought I had done, but I’ve now found my “possible guest blog” document, unfinished and never submitted to Martin! Here is what she wrote:

 

‘Thank you for your email regarding the proposed development of the Cecil Avenue site. It is my understanding that you asked similar questions at Full Council of November 2021 and received a written response.

 

In summary, the Cabinet report of August 2021 that considered proposed developments in Wembley Housing Zone set out the position. 

 

Brent Council signed funding agreements with the GLA in 2016 and 2018, securing £8m grant to deliver 215 affordable homes across six sites within the WHZ by 2025, through a rolling programme of acquisition and development, and used £4.8m grant to acquire Ujima House. 

 

Heads of terms were subsequently agreed with the GLA to amend the existing WHZ funding agreement to refocus the £8m grant to deliver 152 affordable homes solely on the two council-owned Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites. 50% affordable housing is proposed across the two sites, with London Affordable Rent homes, increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing above minimum levels secured at planning. The development will also include workspace to support job creation and economic growth, community space, highway and public realm improvements and new publicly accessible open space. Reviewing the WHZ financial viability, the GLA also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme.

 

The council can also use its own capital, secured via ‘prudential borrowing’ in order to deliver additional affordable housing. Each opportunity to deliver housing is considered on its individual merits via development appraisals that assess a number of variables per site that ultimately evaluate viability. The intention of the council is to maximise the availability of affordable housing across the borough while ensuring that the proposals represent good value for the council and that borrowing is sustainable. The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant available hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

 

Although Cllr. Knight’s email gave more financial details than had previously been supplied to me, it does contain errors. The 50% affordable housing (which is what private developers are meant to provide) is not proposed to be all at London Affordable Rent. Sixty-one of the 98 “affordable” homes the Council intends to retain at Cecil Avenue (after transferring 152 other homes to a developer, for private sale) are to be for shared ownership or “Intermediate Rent”.

 

And my 9 March deputation to R&PR Scrutiny Committee (and follow-up emails to the Chair) urged the Committee to challenge the viability (they could get the details of this, while I’m not allowed to see them because of “confidentiality”), and to question Cabinet Members and Senior Officers as to why they cannot provide more genuinely affordable homes on the former Copland School site.

 

 

I’ll go back to what Cllr. Knight said in her Clement Close video, using images from it (with several lines of text edited into a single picture, for ease of reading). One of the main arguments used by the Council for why it needs to build so many new homes is:-

 

 

They make much of their “Brent Labour” promise of 1,000 new Council homes by 2024 (although a September 2021 “Life in Kilburn” blog showed that many of these would not be for households in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list):-

 

 

And now the key point, used to justify the many “infill” schemes on existing Council estates:-

 

 

The former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue is a large piece of vacant Brent Council-owned, brownfield land in Wembley. The Council has had planning permission to build 250 homes there since February 2021. What an opportunity to make the most of that, and deliver a quarter of the entire 1,000 new Council homes target, in just one project! 

 

Work could already be underway (they currently don’t expect to “start on site” until next year) to deliver those homes, yet the Cabinet and Council Officers seem fixated on pushing through lots of smaller “infill” projects, against the wishes of many existing residents.

 

The second document which the Chair of R&PR Scrutiny Committee had received, headed ‘Mr Grant Clarification’, is unsigned and undated. It sets out ‘the current position’, and there has been a significant change from the written response sent to me last May. My deputation pointed out that the Report on progress in meeting the Poverty Commission recommendations (which Cabinet had accepted in September 2020) made no mention of social rented homes.

 

The Brent Poverty Commission recommendation for ‘more social rented homes’.

 

In May I was told:

 

‘In 2021, following discussions with the GLA the council received £111m of GLA grant, this falls within the 2021 – 2028 programme and will allow the council to build 701 Social rented homes, which are currently in development and feasibility stages. Delivering social rented homes remains a major priority of the council.’

 

This is in line with what both Brent and the GLA were saying last year:

 

 

The “Clarification” document now says:

 

‘The Poverty Commission report stated that the council is on track to deliver more than 1000 council homes by 2024 and a further 701 council homes by 2028. These are intended to be provided at London Affordable Rent levels.’

 

Although both Social Rent and London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) are classed as “genuinely affordable”, they are different, as I pointed out in a guest post in July. Even if Brent Council were to charge the maximum “rent capped” amount for Social Rent (which it does not have to), this is still cheaper than LAR. My ongoing dispute with the Council over the rents for two new Council homes at Rokesby Place, which were wrongly changed from Social Rent to LAR (by Planning Officers!), showed that the tenant of each four-bedroom home would have to pay £772.20 a year more (on 2022/23 figures) if the tenure was LAR.

 

The second document also suggests that Brent is likely to include more ‘intermediate housing (for example shared ownership)’ as part of the so-called “affordable” housing that it builds. It is already going down that road, both at Watling Gardens, where Cabinet approved a change of 24 homes from LAR to shared ownership in June, and in its Cecil Avenue proposals.

 

A placard from a demonstration against Shared Ownership.

 

But the Advertising Standards Authority has recently ruled that shared ownership cannot be described as “part rent, part buy”. Legally it is just an “assured tenancy”, which has been dressed-up as home ownership for political purposes. The rent rises each year are not “capped” (as Social Rent and LAR levels are). If the “owner” of a “share” defaults on their rent (or service charges) their home could be repossessed, and they would lose all the money they have paid for their “share” of the property.

 

And, shared ownership is NOT affordable to most Brent households living in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list!

 

The direction that Brent Council is travelling over its provision of New Council Homes is moving away from what the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report showed was needed. It found:

 

‘More than 90% of couples or lone parents with two children cannot afford LB Brent social rents, and no family with two children (whether couple or lone parent) can afford any rent that is more expensive than LB Brent social rents.’

 

If that is true, then why is Brent not building affordable homes for Social Rent?

 

Philip Grant.

 

If you do nothing else this weekend turn up for this amazing Fundraiser in Willesden on Saturday to help our Trades Hall survive for another century of struggle!

 

 

 Brent Trades Council took to the airways to publicise the 100th Anniversary of Willesden Trades Hall on K2K Radion this week in a sort of labour movement Desert Island Discs.

Maha Rahwnji interviewed  Mary and Diane to learn about the history of the iconic building. Mary Adossides is Chair of Brent Trades Council and Secretary of the Willesden Trades and Labour Hall Society and Diane White is Manager of BBMC and bassist in band, Akabu.

 

Tickets include food and range from £5 unwaged to £20 general entry and £50 solidarity. Book HERE.

The  Celebration of 100 Years of Working-class History in Brent fundraiser  will be held on Saturday 15th October 2022, from 7pm till late at the Brent Black Music Cooperative (Theorem Music Complex). High Road Willesden. Nearest tube Dollis Hill,  Close to the Trades Council building.

 

 

Programme

 

Akabu - reggae band

Food and Bar

with contributions from

- Dawn Butler MP on why the Trades Hall matters

- Chris Coates, a short history of the Trades Hall

- Fitzroy on the Apollo Club

- Sundara Anitha on the Grunwick strike and screening of a clip from the Grunwick strike

 

 

The history of this amazing building

 

The Willesden Trades and Labour Hall was registered as a friendly society on 30 August 1922. The Trades Hall became the HQ of the Labour Party, but also of local trade unions. 

 

Through the 1920s and ‘30s, the Hall was mainly used for union and LP meetings with popular speakers such as Sylvia Pankhurst. In 1932 the local branch of the National Unemployed Workers’ Movement was given the large hall for 2 days every week and later in October, 60 of the 500 strong Scottish and West Coast contingent of the National Hunger March slept over in the hall. In February 1934, the Hall was under police surveillance during a meeting of 12 women from the Catering Section of the Willesden Hunger March Solidarity Committee. 

 

The Labour Party was still an active presence in the Hall and continued to organise larger meetings there, including on the Cuban crisis 1962. In June 1962, during a brief visit to London, Nelson Mandela was invited to address the Willesden Trades Council in the Anson Hall. 

 

When Willesden and Wembley joined to form the London Borough of Brent in 1965, it became the home for the merged Brent Trades Council. In 1969, the Trades Hall welcomed the London Apollo Club which became a famous London music venue, occupying much of the Ground floor. It is said that Bob Marley played there when he first came to London. During the 1970s until this century, the Apollo Club became one of the most popular reggae venues in Brent. 

 

The 1980s brought dramatic economic changes to Brent with major factory closures of well-known names like Smiths Industries and Guinness. The building became nationally known during the Grunwick dispute 1976-78, when a small group of mainly Asian women workers in a photo-processing factory in Chapter Road took strike action to protest their low wages and poor working conditioning. 

 

By the turn of the century, it was clear that deindustrialisation, had deeply affected the Trades Council’s base and income. The Society, which owns the building, ceased to be a registered. The Trades Hall and the Apollo Club are now closed to the public for health and safety reasons as the older part of the building is in a poor state. Celebrating the centenary of this iconic building and of its rich working class history will provide the opportunity to relaunch the hall and the Apollo Club to serve as a Labour Centre in Brent at a time of revival of the trade union movement.

 

Guest Post - Lifting the cloak of Muslim invisibility in Brent; Tackling the Hindutva threat

Guest post by Khalida Khan

 

In recent weeks, an attempt was made by the Indian Hindutva movement, who have a fascist anti-Muslim ideology, to provoke communal disturbances in Wembley. The abysmal way this was handled by the local MP, police and council is a textbook of how authorities are being manipulated by a far-right organisation trying to import Hindutva into the UK.

 

Whilst scrolling Twitter, I was extremely disturbed to see a poster, mobilising Muslims to a demonstration outside a Hindu Temple on Ealing Road.

 

 The fake poster

 

Even at first glance the poster seemed suspect. It allegedly came from an organisation called ‘Apna Muslims.’ In Urdu this is incorrect use of language and bad grammar, and it contained many other inconsistencies which convinced me this was fake.

 

I searched this account to see what was going on. Twitter said no such account existed. However, the poster was already out there, being tweeted and retweeted by Hindutva supporters along with horrendous Islamophobic comments attached. Suddenly, my local MP Barry Gardiner, issued a tweet, the wording of which was upsetting and inflammatory against the Muslim community. He implied this alleged threat from Muslims was real, even though many people in the thread questioned whether he had verified that this was so. Almost instantaneously Barry Gardiner had informed the police, who responded with patrols outside local temples and mosques. Brent Council followed suit, filming a video with Muslim and Hindu religious leaders outside the Ealing Road Temple calling for community calm and cohesion. 

 

 

None of these authority figures seemed to have questioned the authenticity of the ‘Apna Muslims’ tweet. Just by clicking on the tweet itself as I did, for it not to have an account any more would have made anyone suspicious. Within minutes on Barry Gardiner’s tweet thread itself, Valent Projects, a consultancy who have been shortlisted for awards for investigating misinformation, had very quickly found the source of the original tweet and confirmed to him that it was fake, emanating from foreign accounts. Yet he made no effort to clarify the situation. 

 

 

 

I alerted Brent Council, the police and Barry Gardiner about the Valent investigation expecting that they would issue a statement with the true facts, and to reassure both the Muslim and Hindu communities. But my appeal was ignored.

 

These ill-advised tweets and actions from our ‘leaders’ were causing more panic in the community and unleashing threatening anti-Muslim hate tweets by Hindutva supporters. The MP’s, police and council’s immediate response in accepting this tweet as genuine, without proper checks is very worrying. It is an indication of how inbuilt anti-Muslim tropes and stereotypes exist in people’s minds and engender anti-Muslim prejudice. These influences have a discriminatory effect  because they effect how Muslims are viewed and treated institutionally, particularly by government agencies and public sector.

 

The Hindutva movement and ideology are hugely concerning to the Muslim community. We are watching with horror how Muslims in India are being subjected to eradication, rape, lynching, destruction of mosques and homes, and much more violations and abuses. Anyone who speaks out about this, receives venomous and abusive trolling on social media and even violence. Our local leaders’ shameful responses to the  social media Hindutva attack on Muslims in Brent, confirm that there is no understanding of the threat or empathy with the fear felt by Muslims that this atrocious ideology was coming to the UK. Rather, their actions added to the fear and demonisation of Muslims.

 

The fake call for a ‘Muslim’ demonstration outside the Hindu temple in Ealing Road was an extension of the recent events in Leicester. Hindutva supporters arrived in a large gang in Leicester to terrorise Muslims and cause community tensions.

 

Leicester police sent out messages that false accusations made against Muslims, such as burning of temples and acid attacks on Hindu women were fake. Why was this approach not replicated in Brent? Instead the police, Barry Gardiner and some local councillors took the stance of enveloping the Hindu community with protection and support in their festival of Navratri. This gave the impression that there was a real Muslim threat and their sympathies lay with the Hindu community.

 

The failure of these authorities to act robustly and without prejudice has motivated me to restart An-Nisa Society’s work to give a voice and representation to my community. We are the second largest faith group in this borough and still growing, yet we are invisible to the council. During my work I have personally been told that Brent doesn’t do faith, both by officers and councillors, although in reality the only faith they have an issue with is Islam and Muslims.

 

For decades Brent Council has focused on race-based identities, and deliver services around race. They fail to understand and accept that Muslims are a multicultural and multi-ethnic community who identify according to their religion. As a result, they ignored the needs and aspirations of our community. This is exactly what institutional Islamophobia is about.

 

I have lived in Brent for 60 years, and I have run An-Nisa Society, a Brent-based charity working with Muslim families for over 35 years. Over this period, I have witnessed Brent Council’s favouring of certain communities in the way they deliver services and the giving away of public land for places of worship, schools and centres. On the other hand, Muslims have always been neglected and ill-served by those who are supposed to serve EVERYONE in this borough. As the recent Al Jazeera’s #LabourFiles investigation shockingly confirms, Muslim needs are right at the bottom of the scale. In addition, when it comes to addressing Islamophobia, and particularly institutional Islamophobia, this concerning discrimination is virtually non-existent in the hierarchy of discriminations that authorities actively work to address.

 

In the six decades of living in Brent, I can categorically say that Brent Council has been negligent in its understanding and dealings with the Muslim community. We have never had Eid sponsored by Brent Council or a massive street procession. My kids and grandkids have never had the joy of a public celebration of Eid, in the way that Diwali or Christmas is celebrated.  In the much-promoted year of ‘Borough of Cultures’ there was not a single event from the Muslim culture! I am aware that applications to deliver Muslim cultural projects were rejected because they contained the word ‘Muslim’ and of course as we know the council does not support faith! The streets are thronging with Muslims of all races and ethnicities, yet we are still invisible to the council.

 

Muslim children and young people deserve better. We have been running a supplementary school in Brent since 1986, and have raised thousands of Muslim children, nurturing them to be upright young people and to develop a positive sense of self. For these kids, this is the only space to express themselves as Muslims. There are hardly any spaces for them out there, especially none provided by Brent Council. Muslim young people have to navigate Islamophobia, the securitisation of the community by Prevent and surveillance. In recent weeks, Muslims are now terrified about the Hindutva threat on the streets on Brent.

 

The followers of Hindutva are nothing like the Hindu community I have lived peaceably amongst for 40 years. Most of them are just as appalled as Muslims are. We must distinguish between the hateful ideology of Hindutva and Hinduism in general.  

 

The incident in Brent in the past weeks has been prejudicially handled by Brent’s leaders and authorities. We feel under threat and unsafe in this borough and beyond. As a community leader, I do not want our children and young people to live under the shadow of all these negative threats, without any support from the authorities. We call for those in power to understand the growing threat of Hindutva and devise a strategy on how to deal with the imminent danger and protect our community. For a starter, we expect a strong statement that Hindutva will be not tolerated  in our borough and that all communities deserve to live in peace and free from fear.

 

Khalida Khan

Director

An-Nisa Society

 

 

What is Hindutva

 

Hindutva is a right-wing nationalist ideology dating back to the 19th century. In its contemporary form, Hindutva promotes hatred towards all religious minorities especially Muslims and is inspired by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a paramilitary movement: the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the current ruling party in India has been referred to as the political wing of the RSS.

 

 

 

Barry Gardiner’s post and comments on it can still be viewed on Twitter on this LINK.

 

UPDATE: Mumbai Junction/John Lyon pub planning application return greeted with dismay by local residents. Developer's pre-app meetings with lead councillors, officers and planning committee.

The Sudbury Court Residents' Association have reacted quickly to the return of a planning application for the Mumbai Junction(John Lyons) site.  Although the applicant claim they have listened to Muhammed Butt, councillors and officers at a pre-planning meeting. Little seems to have actually changed.

 This extract indicates a Pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee!

 

Residents at consultation gave the plans an almost unanimous thumbs down and an anonymous comment  that seems to have been accidentally published on the Statement of Community Involvement is revealing:

 

The Sudbury Court Residents Association are informing residents about the proposal via a leaflet:

 Comment on the Planning Application HERE,

      

REVEALED: Restrictive Covenant on Islamia Primary School land

 Many thanks to Philip Grant for his assitance with this article.

 

The 'elephant in the room' on the proposed move of Islamia Primary School after eviction by the Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) Foundation has been the Foundation's plans for the site - they they merely said they want to develop it.

 

Wembley Matters has purchased a copy of the Land Registry entry for 129 Salusbury Road, the current site of Islamia Primary School. 

 

The following are details of the covenants contained in the  Conveyance dated 12November 1908 referred to in the Charges Register.  They appear to restrict any future development of the site, land and buildings, by the Yusuf Islam Foundation to educational use through schools. The only way that could be changed is by the owner applying to the Court (in this case The Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal) to have that restrictive covenant removed from the land.

 

The Purchasers do hereby covenant with the Commissioners to perform and observe the several conditions and stipulations set forth in the first schedule hereto. 

 

THE FIRST SCHEDULE above referred to 

 

That neither the land hereby conveyed nor any building or buildings now or at any future time erected thereon nor any part or parts thereof shall be used for any purposes whatsoever other than purposes authorised by the Elementary Education Act 1870 and the Education Act 1902 and the Acts extending and amending the same respectively [and that no building shall without the previous consent of the Commissioners in writing under the hand of their secretary be at any time erected on any part of the land coloured blue on the said plan].' 

 

This is what is known as a "restrictive covenant", so that the "burden" of the covenant relates to the land itself, and not to the owner of the land. 

 

For this to have effect,

 

'The original parties to the covenant must have intended that the burden of the covenant would remain with, and pass with the land every time the ownership changed.'

 

That quotation comes from a useful summary of the legal position  HERE. 

 

This seems to be clear evidence that the original parties to the covenant, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England ("Church Commissioners") and the County Council of The Administrative County of Middlesex (Middlesex C.C.), did intend that the land at 129 Salusbury Road, and any buildings on that land, should always be used for educational purposes as a school.

 

You can find much of the story of the Salusbury Road school site in Part 5 of Irina Porter's "Uncovering Kilburn's History' on Wembley Matters HERE. 

 

Philip Grant has contributed some further  historical background:

 

It appears that the Church Commissioners had bought the land in 1877. This may well have been for possible use for a school, as the Church of England was afraid that "Board Schools" set up under the 1870 Education Act would not teach religion. In fact, it was not until the end of the century that a school building was erected on the land for Kilburn Grammar School, a secondary school which had been founded by the Vicar of St Paul's Church, Kilburn, in 1897.

 

The Church Commissioners continued to own the land until 1908, when it was purchased by Middlesex C.C., after they and Willesden Urban District Council had jointly taken over the running of Kilburn Grammar School the previous year. Middlesex C.C. was abolished in 1965, at the same time that Willesden and Wembley Councils merged to form the London Borough of Brent. 

 

Brent Council then owned the land, and the school became the "comprehensive" Kilburn Senior High School in 1967, then merged with the girls school in 1973 to become Brondesbury and Kilburn High School. This ceased to exist when Brent had another reorganisation of its secondary schools in 1989, and Brent then sold the land and buildings. But they were sold to the then version of Yusuf Islam's charity, specifically to be used as a school, or schools, in line with the restrictive covenant.

 

Church End Festival Saturday - Noon to 6pm

 

Divest Brent calls on the Pension Sub-Committee to seize the opportunity and play its part in divesting from fossil fuels to ensure a planet habitable by humans

 

The Divest Brent delegation arrives at Brent Civic Centre

A delegation from campaign group Divest Brent made a presentation to the Brent Pension Fund Sub-Committee tonight to urge them to speed up the fund's divestment from fossil fuel copanies in the face of the climate emergency.

 

Glenis Scadding presented on behalf of the delegation and said:

 

Climate breakdown is gathering at shocking, unanticipated speed, with disasters occurring at 1.2 degrees of heating that scientists did not expect until we hit 2 or 3 degrees. If we are to save the planet from increasingly intense heatwaves, wildfires, droughts – and indeed keep it habitable by humans – we have to tackle the problem of fossil fuels NOW. 89% of CO2 emissions come from industry and from burning fossil fuels. You, the Pension Fund Sub-committee have a significant opportunity to play your part.

 

The International Energy Agency has warned that no new oil and gas exploration should take place, if we are to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Yet there are currently around 200 fossil fuel development projects, each expected to eventually emit over a billion tons of CO2. This alone would use up the entire global carbon budget and trigger runaway climate change – and ultimately, in all probability, the extinction of the entire human race.

 

 

The current high cost of fossil fuels means that projects to develop more of them, such as Jackdaw and fracking, are being given the go – ahead by Government. This is misguided short – termism since the time courses involved are too long to rescue us from our current energy plight. Much better to invest in new renewables, even Dr Chris Cornelius, the geologist who founded Cuadrilla in 2007, said recently that ministers would do better to look at geothermal energy and tidal power.

 

 

The only way to avoid the worst scenario is to reduce our fossil fuel consumption as soon as possible – and by divesting its Pension Fund from fossil fuel companies Brent Council would be doing its bit to send a signal that promotes investment into new renewable energy projects, not fossil fuels.

 

 

The primary purpose of the Pension Fund is to maximise investment returns to provide pensions to retired Council staff. Fortunately, just as the cost of renewable energy is now significantly lower than fossil fuels, so the outlook for renewable investments is much better than fossil fuels. The investment value of the fossil fuel companies are set to crash as petrol vehicles give way to electric ones (with the UK phasing out sales of new petrol vehicles by 2030) and hard economics persuades utility companies to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. Greenwashing by companies such as BP and Shell should not persuade you otherwise. Sub-committee members will not want to emulate their colleagues in local authority pension funds which lost up to £683 million in 2015 through failed investments in coal companies.

 

By divesting from fossil fuels Brent would be treading a well-worn path – 7 London boroughs have already committed to divest. The Islington Pension Fund chair has offered to talk to Sub-committee members and could answer queries.

 

We warmly welcome Brent Council’s Net zero roadmap but the measure used to identify the carbon intensity of an investee company or fund suffers from a major shortcoming: failure to consider scope 3 emissions. Fossil fuel companies are scored based on the carbon emissions of their offices, travel and power used in fuel extraction, but not on the emissions generated by burning them.

 

We do not underestimate the effort involved in Pension Fund divestment. Fossil fuel investments form part of an investment portfolio. In order to divest particular stocks and shares, the Fund will need to sell the entire holding in the investment fund in which they are held.  This is where Brent could benefit from the experience of those Boroughs that have already made the commitment to divest.

 

 

Brent Labour Party is already committed to divest – its 2022 manifesto promised to “redouble our efforts [to reach carbon neutrality] and call upon our partners to divest our Pension Fund of organisations that extract fossil fuels” All that is needed now is action.

 

 

Cllr Robert Johnson, chair of the committee, urged the delegation to hear the item updating the Council's  Net Zero Roadmap. The item is embedded below:

Islamia parents offered stark choice - either approve the move to Preston ward or the school closes

 Parents of children at Islamia Primary School in Queens Park have been offered a stark choice by the school's Governing Board: approve the move of the school to a site 6 miles away or it will close.

The informal consultation that opened on September 28th and closes on November 2nd will be followed by a formal consultation.

The consultation reveals that the Governing Board rejects Brent Council's favoured option of a refurbishment of present buildings on the present site and the building of a new block to accommodate a 2 forms of entry primary school.

Instead they favour demolition of all buildings on the site and the provision of a new-build two storey school. Brent Council does not think this is deliverable by July 2024 ready for a September 2024 start. The governors say they will endeavout to keep to tight deadlines to make this deliverable.

The consultation maintains the silence on the reason why the Yusuf Islam Foundation gave the school an eviction notice and merely says the Foundation intends to develop the site.

The governors appear to brush off the concerns  of parents unable to travel to the new site and state:

Muslim families who live in the north of the borough do not currently have access to Muslim faith education provision. In the future the population that the school serves may become more local to the new site.

 A parent told Wembley Matters:

This is quite unfair for current families.  Blackmailing tactics . Either approve the move or lose the school.

In reality local families will lose the school anyway.

Plus the consultation is inaccessible to many as it was sent out on the school App rather than via a paper copy.

 The consultation document can be found HERE,

 A consultation meeting for staff will be held on October 10th and there are two consultation meetings on Wednesday October 12th at the school at 9am-10am and 5pm to 6pm.

A further meeting will be held at a site to be confirmed near the Strathcona site on October 13th 6pm - 7.30pm.