UPDATE: Eleven Brent Labour councillors have now signed the Muslim councillors' letter to the Labour leadership requesting the Labour Party call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

Eleven  Brent Labour Councillors have now signed the letter from more than 250 Muslim Labour councillors formally calling on the Labour leadership to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the humanitarian crisis. The signatories include Council leader Muhammed Butt's brother, the deputy mayor and a former whip of the Labour Group.

It was signed by:

Cllr Tariq Dar MBE – Brent Council

Cllr Sandra Kabir – Brent Council

Cllr Saqlain Choudry – Brent Council

Cllr Rita Begum – Brent Council

Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair Planning Committee – Brent Council

Cllr Ishma Moeen – Brent Council

 Cllr Parvez Ahmed (Chair Licensing Committee) - Brent Council

 Cllr Ajmal Akram - Brent Council

 Cllr Amer Agha - Brent Council

Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam - Brent Council

Cllr Harbi Farah (Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Safety) - Brent Council

Dear Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner,

We the undersigned write to you as Muslim Labour Party councillors, formally calling  on the Labour Party to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the  humanitarian disaster.

5,791 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza since 7th October. Of  those killed 2,360 of them have been children. It has also been reported that 704  Palestinians had been killed in the previous 24 hours alone. This is in addition to 1400 Israelis who lost their lives in the shocking terror attacks of October 7th.

Everyday we fail to call on the government and the international community to push  for cessation of hostilities, Gazan children and hundreds of innocent men and women  pay the price. As a party that bases its principles on fairness and justice, we can not sit  idly by as Palestinian’s face collective punishment.

This week five UN agencies, including The World Food Programme (WFP) and the  World Health Organization (WHO) have called for a humanitarian ceasefire as they  described the conditions in Gaza as “catastrophic”. Leaders across all faiths, including  the Archbishop of Canterbury, have also called for a ceasefire and polling shows the  vast majority of Britons and Labour voters support this position (YouGov poll: 76% of  the British public support a ceasefire).

The humanitarian aid that has passed through into Gaza through the Rafah crossing is  a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the humanitarian crisis at large in the region.  Without an immediate ceasefire, UN agencies, NGO’s and charities have made it clear  that much needed aid will not reach pregnant women, children, critically ill patients  and those others that will simply be left to die.

Gaza is home to 2.2 million people, over half of whom are children. Before this crisis  began, over 80% of the population relied on aid, now this crisis has turned to  catastrophe. The innocent civilians in Gaza have had nothing to do with this crisis and  bear no responsibility to its outcome.

As Labour councillors elected to serve our constituents, the message we have been  hearing repeatedly over the past 2 weeks is simple, people just want an end to the  bloodshed and the loss of innocent life. No nation, no people or community should  have to endure collective punishment and the same should be the case for the  Palestinian people. We are also clear that hostages held captive must also be returned  to their families safely.

Therefore, as Labour Party councillors, as members, and as members of the Muslim  community we urge the Labour Party to urgently adopt a position of calling for an  immediate ceasefire, calling on the UK government and the international community  to act upon this proposal to save innocent human lives.

'Flood? What flood? Never heard anything about it,' say Wembley Point developer's agents as Tokyngton Wembley Point towers approved

 

 

Sometimes there is a jaw-dropping moment at Brent Planning Committee. Often it is the sheer audacity of planning officers' justification of developer's failure to meeting the demands of planning guidance. 

Yesterday it was the confession of the Wembley Point developer's agent team that they knew nothing about the August floods at the Argenta House/Tokyngton Avenue site adjacent to the area on which they wish to build. 

 

 

 Heavy pumping equipment at the site

 

They seemed pretty nonchalant about their ignorance but this leads to a second thought. Why did Brent planning officers not inform them about the incident which led to TV and newspaper headlines, with one person having to be rescued from their van and families evacuated.  Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, had even visited the site to reassure residents and tweeted about it. LINK

 

 

Even more troubling, the matter was smoothly passed over and the Committee went on to approve the application, with even the most sceptical coucncillor, Tory Cllr Jayanti Patel (substituting for Cllr Maurice), voting for approval.

This is the modelling of the water flow in the event of a flood - it goes into the Wembley Brook which residents of Tokyngton Avenue should be alert to.

 

"In the event of a flood, floodwater from the River Brent which surfaces on the Site flows around the north and south of the existing Wembley Point building, discharging into Wembley Brook, which is within the demise of Argentina House(sic)"  [Design and Access Statement]

Cllr Dixon abstained on the basis that there was insufficient affordable housing in the scheme (24.8%) against a target of 35% if the Local Plan target of 50% could not be met. She was also concerned about the discrepancy between two independent viability ssessments that led to the reduction in affordable housing. She wanted developers to be more ambitious, even if that meant adding a few storeys to the proposals, and for officesr to be more demanding.

Despite many objections on the planning portal and 29 properties being affected by restricted access to light and overlooking, there  was no speaker against the 550 unit (only 116 'affordable') homes. This is in marked contrast to the number of public representations at the Mumbai Junction application at the last meeting.

 

 From the Design and Access Statement

 

Although Stonebridge Boxing Club was named as the occupant of the proposed community building in the Design and Access statement, the developer's agent hastily clarified on questioning that it could be another community organisation.

 

The application now goes to the GLA where you can register to be kept informed of progress. LINK

 

Call-in on Thursday to hold Brent Council accountable for alleged errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts

The saga of the Barham Park Trust accounts continues on Thursday when the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee considers a call-in of the Council decision to approve the accounts because of alleged inaccuracies which could lead to reputational damage.

The call-in follows attempts by councillors to query and correct the accounts at meetings of the Trust Committee which is headed by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and composed solely of members of his Cabinet. LINK

 

The call-in has been made by opposition members. 

 

Stonebridge Park tower blocks at Brent Planning tomorrow as flood issues highlighted by current events

 The proposed developments at the corner of Harrow Road/North Circular (Wembley side)

 

Videos of the weekend floods included one of partially submerged uncompleted new homes on a flood site. As readers know there was flooding at Stonebridge Park and Tokyngton Avenue earlier this year when the Wembley Brook was blocked by preparation work on the new Argenta House site. This week an application goes to Planning Committee for two more tower blocks to sit alongside Argenta 26 storeys and Wem Tower (aka Wembley Point, The Wem)  21 storeys. These will be 32 storeys and 20 storeys on a relative small site where the Wembley Brook joins the River Brent, close to the North Circular Road.

The application will be considreed by Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. Watch live from 6pm HERE,

 

 

The Flood Risk Assessment for the site includes illustrations that indicate the level of possible flooding from fluvial (rivers) and surface water.

As the amount of flooding and extreme weather events is accelerating faster than expected it is possible that at some point in the future all these buildings will be surrounded by water for a time.  The buidlings will be designed to be 'floodable' and plans will have to be put in place for evacuation of residents and workers (my highlighting):

 

Flood warning/evacuation plan

 

207. The EA have advised that ideally, applicants should demonstrate a new development

has a safe, dry access/egress route during a 1% annual probability flood event, including an

allowance for climate change, or else a route with a 'very low' hazard rating in accordance with FD2320: Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development. In situations where it's not possible to ensure dry access/egress routes, consideration may be given if it can be demonstrated that proposed 'wet' routes still remain safe for site users.

 

208. The development at Wembley Point does not have a means of dry access/egress during the design flood event. The applicant has submitted a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (Pell Frischmann, Ref. 102139-PF-ZZ-ZZ-RP-D-0003, dated 24/04/2023). This highlights that as noted in the SFRA Level 2, under the 1% (1 in 100) AEP plus 35% climate the whole site is submerged. The latest modelling shows that during a 1% AEP flood event plus climate change the depth of flooding across the site is circa 600 mm and the expected velocity is circa 0.98 m/s. The deep, fast flowing water means the post development flood hazard rating for the site is shown to be predominantly "Danger to Most". This means that safe access/egress route cannot be guaranteed during a flood event.

 

209. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has set out that when it is possible to evacuate the site, the evacuation procedure would be signalised via an alarm system for the shared and public areas, and the Flood Warnings Direct service for those in individual properties. The preferred evacuation procedure all residents, workers and visitors would be to leave the site and seek refuge outside on higher ground. The evacuation route would be to exit the site via the north-western access on Point Place and then head north-eastly towards Harrow Road. Higher ground to the north can then be accessed via Harrow Road.

 

210. If the site cannot be fully evacuated or in the case of sudden inundation associated with catastrophic failure of the Brent Reservoir, refuge should be provided on site, The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge. Following this, they should then wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise. The development deploys a water entry strategy, allowing water to enter the majority of the ground floor of the proposed buildings, therefore safe refuge must be sought on the upper floors.

 

211. The proposed evacuation route from the ground floor, through internal stairwells, to the first floor.  Following the instruction to evacuate, there are various locations of refuge that all residents, workers and pedestrians could use in the event of a flood. The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge, these can be accessed through the internal stairwell. If people are seeking refuge in the upper floors, they should wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise.

It does make you wonder about the wisdom of building here at all despite assurances that measures will be put in place. Perhaps the development should be renamed 'Stonebridge-on-Brent'.

Aside from all this the developer has returned with a lower amount of 'affordable' housing than in the initial application. The percentage now with the previous application in brackets:

Of the 515 units:

Private 77.5% (65.8%)

London Shared Ownership 8.3%  (11.1%)

London Affordable Rent 14.2% (23.1%)

Officers support the developer's viability assessment provided for the change.

There are many objections to the scheme on the Brent Planning Portal. many of them coming from occupants of the Wem Tower who claim that they have no prior warning of the massive development that will take place on their doorstep - although it has to be noted that there is one occupant who has submitted a long statement in support of the scheme.

Other objections come from the nearby two storey housing that will by overshadowed to the north of the development in Derek Avenue and Tokyngton Avenue.   

The application includes landscaping and minor play provision on the site opening up the site to the public.

The report considers concerns that the new development will spoil the views of the Brent Railway Stonebridge Viaduct:

The [Heritage] assessment notes that the development will be visible in the background when viewing [The Brent Railway Viaduct], but also noting that the existing Wembley Point building is also within that view. The heritage assessment sets out that while there would be some visual intrusion into the extended setting of the viaduct, that this is considered to cause a low, minor level of harm which would be "less than substantial" to the setting and significance of this heritage asset. Officers agree that the degree of change and harm would be limited, and consider that this would be "less than substantial". It is considered that this harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme which include the provision of homes (including Affordable Homes), new publicly accessible space and routes and significant improvements to the local streetscape and environment

One interesting aspect of the proposal is the provision of a 3 storey building to be occupied by Stonebridge Boxing Club, who have popped up in several planning applications.

 

 

 

The application is deficient in several respects as planning officers acknowledge in making their recommendation to councillors that it should nonetheless be approved. The familiar mantra that the 'benefits outweigh the harm' is used again:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole. There are some divergences from policy (such as the amount of external amenity and play space), and some impacts that go beyond guidance levels (such as the light received by some properties) and the proposal will result in "less than substantial" harm to one designated heritage asset. However, the benefits of the scheme are considered to significantly outweigh the harm. It is recommended that the planning committee resolve to grant permission subject to the stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement as set out above and subject to the conditions listed.

KIlburn Square campaigners: 'We are mildly relieved - and hugely frustrated'

Despite being the largest develeopment application tabled, Kilburn Square was the last item on the Agenda at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday and discussion was abandoned when a leaking roof led to audio problems.  Wembley Matters contacted  campaigners for an update on how things stand now.

Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, which includes Kilburn Square estate and six surrounding streets,  has been coordinating a dialogue with Brent for two and a half years. He says in the aftermath of Wednesday’s unexpected outcome:

 

We are mildly relieved – and hugely frustrated:

 

·         Frustrated that Brent has pressed ahead to Committee with this non-viable, all-Council-rent version of the scheme – refusing, despite our Official Complaint, to amend the Tenure Mix to reflect the seemingly inevitable switch of over a quarter of the flats to outright sale, to make the sums work 

 

·         Relieved that the Chair’s attempt to restart the meeting at approaching 9pm – normally the target finish time – was thwarted by the continuing AV problems; we felt the Committee would be too tired to do our scheme justice after intense debates on the two previous Agenda items. But…

 

·         Frustrated that we were even listed last on the Agenda; one of the Officers acknowledged privately that this large and controversial scheme deserves at least an hour and a half, if not longer 

 

·         Frustrated that the Affordable Housing team, in their remote offices and without even engaging with the Board of the Housing Co-op (who manage the estate for the Council) concocted the original wildly over-ambitious “Mini Master Plan”, proposing 179 extra flats - 80% more households vs 2019 - on a reduced physical space

 

·         That scheme was announced three years ago; had the team stayed with what is in the Local Plan’s Kilburn Square Site Allocation (100 new flats - by 2037!)… and the 80-100 units outlined in a March 2020 Cabinet report, they could have had construction almost finished by now

 

·         Frustrated that, when comprehensive rejection from estate residents and neighbours pushed the Policy Coordination Group into agreeing a smaller scheme was needed… the reduction offered was only around 20% 

 

·         Frustrated that in that second phase the project team tried a Divide and Rule approach, with a tokenistic and controlling approach to seeking estate residents’ consent and a message to close neighbours that they should withhold their thoughts until the Planning Application arrived

 

In January 2021, Brent’s Housing Director told the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: “We will not force homes on anyone…we have developed only with the support and encouragement of local residents” so, how did that play out for our scheme..?

 

The PA was filed a year ago (!), with a long list of tick-box pre-engagement activities; but NO evidence of resulting community support for the scheme…

 

… whereas the Application has attracted: 

·         Around 120 individual Objections

·         A suite of 20 detailed submissions from KVRA on specific topics 

·         Supporting emails from our MP, the Green Party at City Hall, CPRE, Brent Parks Forum

·         Three Collective Objections (petitions in Council-speak) from surrounding streets, with 300 signatures

·         Three COs from Blocks on the estate, including the two most affected by the problematic Blocks C and E (the Committee Report curiously acknowledged only one…)…

·         …and a mere three supporting comments

 

So, one might have expected that, combining that with key policy breaches in areas like Climate Strategy, Amenity Space and Overshadowing, the Officers’ Committee Report would have recommended sending the scheme back to the drawing board (a smaller scheme could gain community support)?

 

But no: KVRA, working with three neighbouring RAs and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum as the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group, were airbrushed out of the picture, and the outcome of the ineffective engagement process was largely dismissed

 

Martin already published the Supplementary Agenda report issued on Tuesday. Here it is, with our Riposte in red LINK. I’ll  update readers in another post on our detailed Response to the full Committee Report

 

Expect a lively discussion when our scheme comes back to Committee – now planned for first up on the November 15 Agenda!

 

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Do you have views on the provision of student accommodation in Wembley/Brent? Contribute to the London Mayor's consultation.

 

 At a recent Planning Committee meeting where an application for new student accommodation in Wembley Park was made, existing residents spoke against on the grounds that it created would imbalance and undermine community cohesion because students were short-term residents not committed to the area. There were also concerns about anti-social behaviour. Countering this officers argued that students contributed to the local financial and cultural economy.

Now the London Mayor is undertaking a consultation on provision of student accommodation to which residents might want to conribute. Details below:

The Mayor of London is consulting on new London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to student housing, otherwise known as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA.

The guidance supports London Plan policy H15 to best meet student housing needs as part of a wider approach to housing delivery and regeneration. It aims to unlock PBSA delivery and also address imbalances to help achieve a more mixed and inclusive London.

This event is a Q&A session for stakeholders to bring any queries they have about the document or the consultation. It assumes that attendees have watched the two minute introductory video or read the draft document, both available on our consultation site.

Questions can be submitted in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk or you are welcome to just turn up on the day and ask them and listen to our responses to other people's questions.

[Images courtesy of Unite and Affordable Accommodation for Students Ltd]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the event free? Yes.

Who is this event for? The event is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups, developers, landowners, agents and Londoners to ask questions and find out more.

How will the session take place and how can I join? The session will take place online. Once you have registered via Eventbrite, you will be emailed a link to join the event 24 hours before the event takes place.

Will I be able to ask questions during the event? Yes the whole event is structured around Q&As.

Do I have to submit questions in advance? You are welcome to send questions through in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk which will help us prepare, but you can also just turn up and ask them and we will do our best to answer them on the spot.

Is this a repeat of the event on the 3rd November? Yes, there is no need to attend both events.

What if I have accessibility requirements? Please let us know when booking your ticket on Eventbrite. Please let us know as soon as possible. We will endeavour to meet any requests made within two weeks of the event, however these cannot be guaranteed.

Where can I find out more and share my views? To watch the introductory video, read the guidance and share your views, visit the consultation page. Consultation on the LPG closes on 11 January 2024

How can I find out more about this event? Please contact studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk if you have any further questions about the event.

We hope you can join us. RESERVE PLACE HERE

 

The consultation, including the survey (below) will be open until 11th January 2024.

We have 2 open-to-all Q&A events in October and November, and further engagement events are also planned with specific stakeholder groups, notably the cross-sectoral Mayor’s Academic Forum and boroughs. More information on the public events can be found on the 'events' section on this page.

All feedback will be reviewed and a consultation summary document will be published alongside the final guidance.

Register to be notified of planning policy consultations(External link) or sign up for GLA Planning News(External link).

You can email the team on: studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk(External link)(External link).

 

SURVEY

 

 

Brent Planning Officers recommend approval of Harlesden Adult Gaming Centre despite opposition from police and local councillors

 

Tonight's Planning Committee is full of controversial planning applications with Mumbai Junction and Kilburn Square returning to the Agenda (there is a Supplementary Report on Kilburn Square HERE) and are expected to have speakers making the case for refusal of planning permission.

You can watch the meeting live online HERE

Also returning to the Agenda is an application to turn two neglected shops on Park Parade, Harlesden into an Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) and reduced size betting shop.  Objectors cite anti-social behaviour and the presence of other AGC's in the area as reasons for objection. There is the additional moral and public health case against the exploitative nature of gambling joints in poor areas.

The application is unusual in that it is being opposed by local councillors, community organisations and the police:

60 objections were received in total inclusive of objections from Councillors, Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum and Harlesden Area Action Group, the Police Safer Neighbourhood Team and the Salvation Army.

 

The following Councillors objected:

 

Cllr Mili Patel –Harlesden and Kensal Green Ward

Cllr Jumbo Chan – Harlesden and Kensal Green Ward

Cllr Jake Rubin – Roundwood Ward

Cllr Elliot Chappell – Roundwood Ward

Cllr Fleur Donnelly – Jackson – Roundwood Ward

The Police objections are raised in a Supplementary Report that you can read HERE and I post an extract below:

An objection was received from the Met Police Designing Out Crime Officer, noting the following matters:

 

· That the close proximity of the public house (opposite) and off-licences either side and the nearby pawn shop can create a nurturing habitat for street drinking which in turn can increase the risk of antisocial behaviour (ASB);

· That the alleyway to the rear is not well observed and has poor natural surveillance;

· That the main entrance is recessed and provide a concealment opportunity and could be used as a toilet or to take drugs;

· That there is no mention of security in the proposal or a management plan;

· That the proposal indicates that the AGC won’t be staffed and could therefore be exploited by drug dealers or users. They consider that persons should be vetted prior to entry to ensure they are of suitable age and have not been barred;

· That the windows onto the street need to allow for surveillance into and out from the centre.

 

They also highlight that the local policing team raised the following concerns:

 

· That Park Parade has the second highest figures for recorded ASB in the town centre and is a known area where robbery often occurs, and for drug offences (both possession and supply);

· That there are organised gangs of drug dealers in Park Parade taking over and using premises to conduct their activities, and that an unsupervised venue will allow this to happen out of police view;

· That last year, an operation was conducted in the High Street where a betting shop was used by a 20 strong gang to drug deal out of sight;

· That there is a nearby college and school and that their pupils frequent Park Parade on their way to and from the education facility and could be influenced by the venue and its cliental;

· That there is a nightclub and public house opposite;

· That the town centre already has a street drinking problem contributing to ASB , and that the betting shop venues attract street drinkers;

· That there have been 6 Closure Orders in Park Parade relating to premises causing ASB or allowing criminality.

 

The Met Police advise that they have a number of recommendations should the application be granted, including:

· Security rated entrance doors;

· Video and auto intercom at entrance to ensure potential guests are vetted prior to entry;

· Glazing to main façade meets BSEN standards, with a roller shutter fixed to the exterior;

· That the recessed entrances are removed or have shutters or grills to eliminate this overnight;

· That the rear escape doors are alarmed and that they have a sufficient security rating;

· That the walls and doors of any cash room are security rated;

· That any external mailbox meets specific certification levels;

· That CCTV (with complementary lighting) is provided to specific standards and maintained by certified companies;

· That intruder alarms are installed

· That the applicant liaises with the MPS North West Licensing team.

 

Officers' comment:

The matters raised by the Met Police are acknowledged.

You might think the evidence supplied by the police is pretty daming but nevertheless planning officers recommend approval:

Recommendation: That planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set out in the report  and an additional condition requiring formal Secured by Design accreditation prior to first occupation of the units.

 

The premises shall not be used expect between the hours of 0800 hours and 2230 hours Sundays to Thursdays and between 0800 hours and 2300 hours Friday and Saturdays without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment by neighbouring occupiers of their properties.’