The initial 'revolutionary' marketing strategy.

Quintain, the major developer of Wembley Park, has announced that from October 5th its Build to Rent properties will be marketed as Quintain Living, rather than  Tipi.

Its image thus moves more towards selling a life style rather than independence from dodgy private landlords.

The life style approach can be seen here:

At the same time Quintain announced the appointment of a new chief operating officer for their estate. She is Danielle Bayless who is the vice president of operations for California based Essex Property Trust which has 23,000 properties.

In a further and perhaps relevant development reliable sources have told Wembley Matters that the new properties at Brent House in Wembley High Road appear to be unoccupied.  Just up the road are the many properties in the 'Twin Towers' which the developer is attempting to market under the friendly sounding 'Uncle' name.

Special Guest Post by Philip Grant  

It appears that Brent Council may have won an award, that it nominated itself for, in a Planning competition. The winning entry in the mixed-use development category was its 1 Morland Gardens scheme in Stonebridge, the subject of a controversial “victory” at the Brent’s Planning Committee meeting on 12 August.

While the Council and its architects have been quick to celebrate the granting of planning permission for their proposals, with computer generated images of how marvellous the building will look, Brent’s new Strategic Director for Regeneration is investigating serious concerns which have been raised. These include whether there was improper conduct by Council Officers in putting forward proposals which went against Brent’s adopted policy on heritage assets, and whether Planning Officers misled the committee over those policies, in order to get the Council’s scheme approved.

The report in “Planning Resource” says: ‘The project is aiming for BREEAM “Excellent” certification, with excess energy produced by the adult education building powering utilities in the homes.’ Whether that system works remains to be seen. One of the drawbacks of the proposed building is how close it will be built to the busy junction of Hillside and Brentfield Road. There will not be room for the trees shown on the left of the artist’s impression above, and they have yet to submit details of how they will provide fresh air to the college and the two floors of homes above it, which would suffer from harmful levels of Nitrogen Dioxide if the windows are opened.

According to the report, the proposals for 1 Morland Gardens include ‘a community garden’. I don’t rememberseeing anything of that description in the plans! Perhaps someone from Brent Council can explain where that community garden will be. I do know that their scheme is designed to be built out over the existing open space in front of 1 Morland Gardens, and over part of the existing Harlesden City Challenge community garden.

The report goes on to say: ‘The judges praised the use of a local community steering group to contribute feedback from hard-to-reach groups ensuring the building reflects local needs and aspirations.’ Brent has made much of its claims that the development proposals were guided by this “community steering group”, but it only met twice before the planning application was submitted in February 2020. At the start of its first meeting, on 20 August 2019, the members from the community were told by a Council Officer that the development would consist of ‘up to 65 new homes, a new adult education centre, café, and affordable workspace.’ As that is what was proposed after their “feedback”, it is difficult to see what the steering group’s role actually was, other than to sound good in Brent’s “spin” about the scheme.

I may be proved wrong, and the 1 Morland Gardens scheme, IF it ever gets built in place of the existing locally listed Victorian villa on the site, may prove to be a wonderful modern building. In which case, let's see whether, a few years down the line, the families who live in the flats and affordable homes it provides are happy in this “award winning” development. Or whether, as we have recently seen from South Kilburn, their dream homes turn out to be a nightmare.

Philip Grant.

Via Brent Council Website

Covid-19 cases rising in Brent: A message from Dr John Licorish, Public Health Consultant

Confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Brent and some other parts of London are rising again.

In the week ending Sunday 6 September 2020, there were 40 confirmed Coronavirus cases in Brent. People aged between 20 – 50 years old are the most affected group.

Brent’s rate is below the figure where a local lockdown would be considered, but we are concerned and we do all need to take action now to protect our family, friends and neighbours.

Of-course, we all want to go about our daily lives and return to some sort of normality but as we leave our homes more the risks increase.

Put bluntly, coronavirus has not gone away and it is still killing people.

Therefore, we all need to take extra care as how we behave is currently the only way to limit the spread of the virus.

You are most at risk when in busy crowds, confined spaces or close contact with others.

You are safest when you follow this advice:

• Wash hands, or use hand sanitiser, regularly and for at least 20 seconds
• Cover face, when using public transport or in busy spaces like high streets or shops where it may be more difficult to keep your distance
• Make space, try to stay 2 metres away from people you don’t live with – including in pubs and restaurants.

If you develop symptoms of the virus, please immediately self-isolate and book a free test online at or call 119.

More information, advice and support is available on the dedicated section of the Brent Council website. Residents can sign up for e-newsletter updates or follow us on Twitter @Brent_Council and Facebook.

We all need to take responsibility and follow the guidelines if we want to avoid a situation where we cannot visit each other’s homes or shops and other businesses need to close again.

Brent Trades Council and Stand Up to Racism have organised a  demonstration calling for the scrapping of Section 60. Section 60 has been widely used in Brent and Westminster. The demonstration is part of the Day of Action as the trial of George Floyd's alleged killers begins.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 allows a police officer to stop and search a person without suspicion.

Where a Section 60 is in place, it means police can search anyone in a certain area, for example, when there is evidence that serious violence has taken place or may take place.

It is set for a limited time and allows officers to stop and search people without reasonable grounds.

According to the organisers black people are 10 times more likely to be stopped by police than white people and BAME people four times more likely.

The demonstration is a 3.30pm on Friday Septembetr 11th outside Kilburn Police Station, Salusbury Road, NW6 6LT.  Nearest station Queens Park (Bakerloo and Overground)

Social distancing and Covid19 hygiene measures must be observed.

The Government's Planning White Paper has so far received little discussion locally but its proposals could have a far reaching impact on the borough and leave us defenceless against greedy developers, sub-standard housing and loss of amenity.

I publish below, with his permission, a detailed article by Paul Burnham of Haringey Defend Council Housing LINK which contains some suggestions on answering the consultation questions.

The government’s White Paper Planning for the Future, published on 6 August, threatens to rip up the planning system which was set up in 1947, based on public control over all changes in the use of land.

It is Robert Jenrick who is leading on this policy – the man who fast tracked planning permission to save a developer friend millions of pounds, after sitting next to him at a Conservative party fund raising dinner.

The White Paper brazenly suggests that this government is going to increase developer contributions to housing and infrastructure – by scrapping the specific obligation to provide affordable housing.

Why should we believe such nonsense.

Parts of the country are to be labelled as ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ zones, with little opportunity to oppose bad development plans. Powers for local authorities and communities to oppose bad schemes are to be severely restricted or scrapped completely.

The plans are predicated on redefining “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than council or social rent.

It is a top priority to stop this developers’ charter.

The loss of local authority powers and the loss of public scrutiny mean that there will be widespread opposition to these plans.

Unsurprisingly, the policies are being pursued with dishonest and evasive arguments.   But don’t be deterred. Please take a few minutes to complete the on-line consultation form, to build the opposition to the White Paper.

Please ask your residents association, Councillor, trade union or MP to make their objection as well. You may want to use the suggested responses below.

This consultation ends at 11:45pm on 29 October 2020.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Planning-for-the-Future/

Q3. Our proposals will make it much easier to access plans and contribute your views to planning decisions. How would you like to find out about plans and planning proposals in the future?

Other (please specify):

Comment: Your proposals severely restrict public participation in practice

Q4. What are your top three priorities for planning in your local area? (Please select only 3 answers)

Building homes for the homeless/ Increasing the affordability of housing/ Other (please specify):

Comment: Building 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

Q5. Do you agree that Local Plans should be simplified in line with our proposals?

No. Detailed plans are necessary to take proper account of the affordability and accessibility of housing for all including the poorest.

Q7(a) Do you agree with our proposals to replace existing legal and policy tests for Local Plans with a consolidated test of “sustainable development”, which would include consideration of environmental impact?

No. This reduces the ability of communities to challenge bad plans.  

Q8.(a) Do you agree that a standard method for establishing housing requirements (that takes into account constraints) should be introduced?

No.  The housing requirement needs to take account of those who need secure affordable rented housing (i.e. council and social rent), and not just testing the accessibility of owner occupation as you are proposing.

Q9(a). Do you agree that there should be automatic permission in principle for areas for substantial development (Growth areas) with faster routes for detailed consent?

No.  Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

Q9(b). Do you agree with our proposals above for the consent arrangements for Renewal and Protected areas?

No.

Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which do not provide affordable and council housing, and which segregate tenures. etc.

‘Renewal’ tends to mean that great improvements are promised, but we need to be able to see and challenge the detail before these plans are accepted.

Q10. Do you agree with our proposals to make decision-making faster and more certain?

No. Local authorities and communities need to be able to challenge bad developer proposals which are driven by profit rather than housing needs.

Q11. Do you agree with our proposals for digitised, web-based Local Plans?

No. Stop trying to kid us, there is nothing new about the internet, all plans are web based these days already. Hard copies of the plans should also be made fully available for ease of reference.

Q14. Do you agree there should be a stronger emphasis on the build out of developments? And if so, what further measures would you support?

Yes. Stop land banking by developers and housing associations.

Q15. What do you think about new development that has happened recently in your area? Other (please specify):

Excess provision of unaffordable housing designed to price out local people.

Q16. Sustainability is at the heart of our proposals. What is your priority for sustainability in your area?

Other:

Social sustainability as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers. This means banning the excess supply of unaffordable housing which is the prime driver of forced gentrification and social exclusion, stopping estate redevelopment schemes, and building 100,000 new council homes a year nationally.

Q21. When new development happens in your area, what is your priority for what comes with it?

More affordable housing.

Q22. (a) Should the Government replace the Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 planning obligations with a new consolidated Infrastructure Levy, which is charged as a fixed proportion of development value above a set threshold?

No. This proposal is cynically designed to allow (and in practice, to encourage) local authorities to reduce funding for council and social housing, in order to pay for infrastructure costs which are being squeezed by government cuts in revenue support grant. 

Q22. (c) Should the Infrastructure Levy aim to capture the same amount of value overall, or more value, to support greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities?

More value.

Greater investment in infrastructure, affordable housing and local communities is needed from developers – but also from government in the form of direct investment. Building social rent housing pays for itself in reduced benefit costs.

Q23. Do you agree that the scope of the reformed Infrastructure Levy should capture changes of use through permitted development rights?

Yes.

Q24. (a) Do you agree that we should aim to secure at least the same amount of affordable housing under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on-site affordable provision, as at present?

Yes.

Q25. Should local authorities have fewer restrictions over how they spend the Infrastructure Levy?

No.

Q25 (a) If ‘yes’, should an affordable housing ‘ring-fence’ be developed?

Yes.

Q26. Do you have any views on the potential impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?

Yes.

The proposals restrict the right of local authorities and communities to influence bad development proposals which are driven by profit seeking private developers. Reducing the scope of local plans would undermine policies which protect groups with protected characteristics, and other lower income groups, and those without savings, or in debt. Merging affordable housing obligations with infrastructure contributions will tend to undermine housing provision for the most deprived groups. Implicit throughout this document is the redefinition of “affordable housing” as lower cost market provision, rather than understanding the assessed need for social rent housing for those with lower, insecure and variable incomes, and especially those with low savings or who are in debt. The focus on funding affordable housing through developer contributions ignores the well documented failures of this strategy as developers very effectively game the system, not only by reducing their contributions in immediate cases but though policy capture at local authority level as well.  

The outcome if these proposals were to be adopted would be more overprovision of unaffordable housing, weaker public policy controls over the vested interests of the private developers, less provision of really affordable housing, and more stigmatised housing developments with tenure segregation, worse housing for the poor, etc. This would adversely people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010: ethnic minority groups, especially black and Asian people and people of mixed heritage, and female headed households especially single parent female headed households.

IT GETS WORSE 

In addition to the planning White Paper, the government is also proposing four parallel and very nasty changes to the current planning system:

(ONE) Housing targets which will pressurise councils to demolish council estates in London.

(TWO) Prioritising ‘First Homes’ discounted home ownership, with prices capped at £250,000 outside London and £420,000 in London, over other forms of affordable housing.

(THREE) Removing the requirement to provide affordable housing in developments of up to 40 or 50 homes (instead of 10 as at present).

(FOUR) Extending the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major developments of up to 150 homes.

As with the White Paper, please make your objection in person, and through your organisations.

This one is urgent, bearing in mind the closing date of 1st October.

https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MHCLG-Changes-to-the-current-planning-system/

suggested responses are offered to 13 of the 35 questions below.

Proposal ONE: The standard method for assessing housing requirement numbers in strategic plans

Q1: Do you agree that planning practice guidance should be amended to specify that the appropriate baseline for the standard method is whichever is the higher of the level of 0.5% of housing stock in each local authority area OR the latest household projections averaged over a 10-year period?

No.  The formula is based on the affordability of home ownership, when it is decent secure and really-affordable homes for all that are required, and not this obsession with the over provision of market sector dwellings.

The National Housing Federation predicts that ‘in London the likely uplift for targets will be about 50%’. The formula used will produce high numerical targets for the production of unaffordable homes in London in particular, and would be used to force councils to pursue demolition and gentrification plans which are targeted against working class communities.

Q3: Do you agree that using the workplace-based median house price to median earnings ratio from the most recent year for which data is available to adjust the standard method’s baseline is appropriate? If not, please explain why.

No. This formula is based on private ownership alone. It is housing for all including secure council and social rent which is required as a priority.

Q4: Do you agree that incorporating an adjustment for the change of affordability over 10 years is a positive way to look at whether affordability has improved? If not, please explain why.

No. The basis of the assessment should be the number of people on the waiting list including concealed households, and newly forming households.

Proposal TWO: Setting developer contributions for First Homes

Q8: The Government is proposing policy compliant planning applications will deliver a minimum of 25% of onsite affordable housing as First Homes, and a minimum of 25% of offsite contributions towards First Homes where appropriate. Which do you think is the most appropriate option for the remaining 75% of affordable housing secured through developer contributions? Please provide reasons and / or evidence for your views (if possible):

i) Prioritising the replacement of affordable home ownership tenures, and delivering rental tenures in the ratio set out in the local plan policy.

ii) Negotiation between a local authority and developer.

iii) Other (please specify)

The proposed target of 25% of affordable housing as First Homes should not be proceeded with. This proposal directs affordable housing policy towards near-market and market-supporting options rather provision for those most in need, i.e. council housing at social rents.

Q15: Do you agree with the removal of the site size threshold set out in the National Planning Policy Framework?

No. Affordable housing policy based on housing needs assessments, with priority given to the greatest need, must be applied to all sites without exception.

It would be a retrograde step to widen the ‘exceptions’ to affordable housing policy.

Proposal THREE: Supporting small and medium-sized developers by reducing affordable housing requirements

Q17: Do you agree with the proposed approach to raise the small sites threshold for a time-limited period?

No.  This would damage the interests of the homeless and those in the highest housing need.  Affordable housing is not a burden on the housebuilding industry, instead affordable housing should be the purpose of the housebuilding industry.

Q18: What is the appropriate level of small sites threshold?

i) Up to 40 homes

ii) Up to 50 homes

iii) Other (please specify) one dwelling

No exceptions.

Q19: Do you agree with the proposed approach to the site size threshold?

No. The government’s argument is disingenuous. This is not about assisting small and medium enterprises in the building industry, instead it is about finding an excuse to roll back criteria for the social sustainability required in development, as specified in Chapter 2 of the NPPF (2019) and Resolution 42/187 of the United Nations General Assembly, to which it refers.

Q23: Are there any other ways in which the Government can support SME builders to deliver new homes during the economic recovery period?

Yes.

Proposal FOUR: Extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime to cover major development

Q24: Do you agree that the new Permission in Principle should remove the restriction on major development?

No. This is a bad proposal which would severely limit the capacity of local authorities and communities to challenge bad development proposals.

Q28: Do you agree that publicity arrangements for Permission in Principle by application should be extended for large developments? If so, should local planning authorities be:

1.     required to publish a notice in a local newspaper?

ii) subject to a general requirement to publicise the application or

iii) both?

iv) disagree

If you disagree, please state your reasons.

Local authorities must write to all local residents

Q32: What guidance would help support applicants and local planning authorities to make decisions about Permission in Principle? Where possible, please set out any areas of guidance you consider are currently lacking and would assist stakeholders.

Proper local authority and community scrutiny must be retained in full.  

Impacts of proposals: Public Sector Equality Duty

Q35: In light of the proposals set out in this consultation, are there any direct or indirect impacts in terms of eliminating unlawful discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations on people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty?

None of these four of these proposals advance equality of opportunity, and all of them are directly harmful to people who share characteristics protected under the Public Sector Equality Duty: Black Asian and Minority Ethnic households, disabled people, and female headed households.

The recommendation is to withdraw these proposals. The government should provide affordable housing grant at an adequate level to build 100,000 new council homes a year at normal council rents.

 I tweeted proceedings of Monday's Planning Committee in real time and reproduce the three main items below to give you a flavour of the proceedings. The latest tweets appear first for each application.

The meeting started late, presumably this was the reason. Cllr Deneslow will be replaced at Monday's Council AGM by Cllr Kelcher.

CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL 3G PITCH
 

(Last tweet bove should be Claremont not Kingsbury. Kingsbury High School withdrew a similar application after opposition from residents)

BRIDGEWATER ROAD, ALPERTON

WATKIN ROAD, WEMBLEY PARK

The full list of appointments to Brent Council committees has now been published ahead of Monday's Council AGM and can be viewed HERE

It confirms the unofficial list published by Wembley Matters earlier.  The Lib Dems remain unrepresented on any committee. The nominations will be rubber-stamped at the meeting.

A Wembley Matters reader tells us about her housing offer from Brent Council

Today I intend to make myself voluntarily Homeless!

I have been accepted as Homeless by Brent Council and they have made me an offer of accommodation that is totally unsuitable.

It is a two bedroomed flat in the basement of a chicken shop in Harlesden High Street and is only half a step up from a bed in a shed.

The outside door to the flat shows evidence of having been nibbled by rats and leads into a corridor shared with the kitchen of the take-away. At the end of the corridor is an extremely narrow stone staircase (down which is would be impossible to bring any furniture) which leads to a yard used by the chicken shop as an extra storage/preparation area.

Stepping over what look to be a permanent puddle you finally gain access to the flat which is dark and unfurnished - probably because no furniture could be brought into the flat - in fact there is no room for any furniture.

The lounge is so small that you'd have to choose between putting in a mini sofa or a table in as there is not room for both.

In the 'master' bedroom there is no room for a bed and a wardrobe and in the second bedroom you might just about be able to fit in a single bed and a bedside table.

There is no storage space in the place and any furniture would have to be brought in flat packed as nothing could fit down the stone steps.

It is a health and fire hazard and totally unsuitable for a person of my advanced years and arthritis. My son is an adult with autism, agoraphobia and anxiety issues and his mental health could only be compromised by such conditions.

Brent has made no concessions to my son’s condition and has told us we must move there and then appeal against our allocation from there. Failure to sign the lease and move in will result in our being intentionally homeless.

They will not even consider any medical circumstances or appeals under The Equalities Act until I sign a years lease on this hell hole.  The pressure to sign has been enormous.

It's quite possible that you'll read the above and think I should be grateful for any offer but Brent's use of substandard private rentals effects all of us as Council Tax payers.

The rent which Brent is guaranteeing the landlord - whether the flat is occupied or not is £346 per week or £17,992 per annum coming directly out of our Council taxes to line the pockets of a landlord who would be unable to rent that property at that price on the open market and which has been empty for some time.

I'm sure that there are light and airy 2 bedroom flats in Harlesden for which the market rent of that magnitude would be fair but a subterranean cupboard with rodent and hygiene issues should not be allowed to be rented under the umbrella of 'market rate' in the area.

If, as I will, I refuse to take this flat I will be bounced off the Council's waiting list despite having been on it for 8 years and having lived in Brent for 43 years. I have been desperate to get secure housing for myself and my son; as in common with most parents of disabled children I worry what will happen to him in the long term. However I genuinely believe that I would be causing him more harm by taking that flat than I will be doing by refusing it.

The only winner in this situation is a landlord who thinks it is acceptable to charge the Council such an extortionate rent to house the most vulnerable in society in such sub-standard accommodation.

MMCL

Concerned residents rallied in support of the writer of yesterday's post who publicised the unacceptable state of the Harlesden chicken shop basement offered to her and her son as the final offer to a family accepted as homeless.

On Twitter, Facebook and email people made suggestions re possible actions and some wrote directly to Brent Council asking for action to be taken.

Leader of Brent Council, Muhammed Butt, wrote yesterday evening to say that he was asking Cllr Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare) to work with officers to look look into the matter.

By this morning Carolyn Downs, CEO of Brent Council, had written to another concerned residents to say that the offer had been withdrawn and another offer would be made. She went on to say that the property was managed by a housing association on Brent Council's behalf and that they are investigating that now.

Thank you for everyone who offered advice and contacts and who made representations to the council.

 

View of North End Road, Michaela School, Victoria Tower from access ramp (Olympic Way

Works started on Monday on the construction of the new access road and footpath connecting North End Road with Bridge Road, Wembley Park.  The notice said that the stairs and ramp would be closed to pedestrians from  yesterday but they were still open today.  The works are due for completion in April 21st 2021.

A view of the new steps was also available today.  They will replace the pedway as part of the £17.8m 'improvements' to Olympic Way approved by Brent Council, paid from Quintain's  Community Infrastructure contribution.

Chicken Shop Basement Update

The Mayor of London has committed Londoners to paying £65 million a year for a quarter of a century for the Silvertown Road Tunnel, Caroline Russell AM revealed today raising doubts over the commitment to 'build back better' as a result of the lessons learned during the Covid19 shutdown.

Last year, Transport for London (TfL) signed a contract with Riverlinx which committed them to the Silvertown Road Tunnel project, but it was only in March after months of requests being stonewalled that the Mayor published the contract in highly redacted form. The entire document on ‘Payment Mechanism’ simply consisted of a contents table and a note stating the details were ‘excluded commercially sensitive information’.

A small, discreet note in TfL’s recently published accounts reveals, along with further commentary from TfL auditors Ernst and Young, a failure by the Mayor to be straight with Londoners on the cost of this polluting motorway tunnel.

The £65m annual cost included in TfL’s accounts indicates that the total cost from 2025 to 2050 could be £1.6bn before including inflation, which even at 1.6 per cent RPI (the current figure for July) would lead to a total payment by TfL of £2 billion by 2050.

Caroline Russell said:

The Mayor has not been straight with Londoners. Last year he told us Silvertown Road Tunnel would cost £1 billion, in March it was £1.2 billion, and now we finally see what TfL will actually pay and it’s heading for £2 billion. This is outrageous.

I have stood alongside many communities in opposing this tunnel which would run a belching, polluting road through the heart of some of London’s most deprived areas. 

 

The real financial cost has been hidden to avoid further opposition from the public and local politicians.
 

When my predecessor on the Assembly first started opposing this scheme in 2012 Transport for London described the cost as being about £600 million, we are stratospheres above that now and TfL will be saddled paying for this, even in our uncertain future.

 

The Mayor should have been clear about this cost implication for TfL from the start. As things stand, he should do the decent thing and cancel this polluting motorway tunnel now.

The Somali community organisation Gaashaan held a protest outside Brent Civic Centre yesterday alleging that Brent social services had 'unfairly and unjustly' removed chidlren from their parents.

In a leaflet distributed to passersby Gaashaan  claimed matters had been misinterpreted by the local authority and it had misused its powers.  They said, 'Many, many people  including the family's friends, relatives and others from the wider community are questioning  the motives behind this absurd and unjust decision which they believe harms the family and their children's welfare and wellbeing.'

 Gaashaan are demanding an investigation into all involved in the action and the reasons why children are removed 'when there were other ways to engage with and help this poor family.'

Brent Council has not yet responded to a request for a comment. 

Melanie Smith, Brent Director of Public Health, told last night's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that during the early months of the Covid19 pandemic many in Brent's BAME community felt disempowered and lacking in agency. Lessons had been learnt and Brent had realised the importance of engaging with the many different BAME communities in Brent and their community leaders. They had concentrated on Alperton and Church End which had the highest number of cases.  Messages had to be consistent and make sense to the communities concerned, for example over shielding in multi-generational households.

Confirming that access to primary healthcare was a major issue, Cllr Abdi Aden, who is of Somali background, said that many in the community who had been feeling sick had problems making appointments with their GP.  They had waited for hours in a queue at the medical centre only to give up and go home without receiving any help.

Cllr Mary Daly backed up the claim. Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ketan Sheth, interjected to say that many in the BAME community still suffered from a poor GP offer.

Dr MC Patel, chair of Brent CCG and NW London NHS lead on inequalities, offered to go with Cllr Aden to the surgery to address the issue of practices not affording access. He said unnecessary denial of access should not be tolerated.  He offered to talk to groups of 5 or so from the community to listen to their experiences and take action. 

Government guidelines recently issued should mean more face to face appointments with GPs rather than on-line arrangements which discriminated against those without internet access or lacking in English language,

Earlier in the discussion the high rate of BAME Covid deaths initially had been attributed to people not going to their GPs early enough. A speaker from Brent Healthwatch said that many residents had been hesitant about going to Northwick Park Hospital and were wary about getting infected there. Cllr Janice Long asked if late admissions to hospital was the cause of the higher death rate in Brent. She pointed out that there was only one medical centre in hard-hit Church End and asked what was being done to encourage people to go to their GP.

Cllr Ahmad Shahzad pointed out the structural issues affecting the BAME community including lack of opportunity and poor housing and said the death toll must not happen again - the Council had to safeguard the population. He said Public Health England and the BMA had been side-lined by the government.

Dr MC Patel said Brent CCG and NW London NHS were looking at devising an additional shielding list for Brent, that would include more people than the government list, and give them appropriate advice. The initial list did not include ethnicity as a factor and experience of the first wave means more needs to be done to include the BAME community, especially those with underlying conditions. Once offered it would be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether to be included in the vulnerable list.

Recently elected councillor, Gaynor Lloyd, said the elephant in the room was whether people would isolate as a consequence of being included in the list. She expressed doubt about a proposal to educate landlords about Covid19 and the risks stating, 'we all know about some landlords.'

 Dr MC Patel said that this was an opportunity for the local authority and health to work together. Joint work and shared commitment were necessary to make things happen and for 'Brent to do it differently.' He cited the response on care homes as being one example of success and said local hospitals had done well.  There was now a clear message to GPs to see patients face to face if that is what they wanted and the CCG were also looking at hot hubs for Covid patients.  It was a matter of 'making the best of what we've got.'

Simon Crawford of NW London Hospital Trust said that the emergency pathway at Northwick Park Hospital was now 85% of the pre-Covid level. Segregated pathways at A&E meant there were clear pathways for non-Covid patients. Presently there were 12 Covid patients in the hospital, a slight increase compared with 8 or so recently.  Patients' temperatures were taken when they first entered the hospital. Patients due for an operation were tested 3 days before the operation was due.  He emphasised, 'We are open for business. If you have an appointment, keep to it!'

He said that Northwick Park had been the busiest hospital in London at the peak and had been supported by other hospitals There had been positive coverage recently and they had been innovative in going with oxygen treatment rather than ventilating machines.  He said that Northwick Park had never run out of oxygen, contrary to reports.

The Trust has signed private sector contracts with Clementine Hospital and the London Clinic. Cancer referrals that had dropped by 50% were now coming back.

Cllr Neal Nerva, recently appointed to the Cabinet as lead member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said he was going to introduce a political dimension into the discussion.  Testing had become a matter of private competition and local government had been side-lined. Cllr Shahzad had been right about Public Health England being side-lined and there was also the failings of Test, Track and Trace.

Despite this, he said, the Council could not stand back, too many people were at risk in Brent.  He expressed confidence in the NHS and said people need to be seeking help for non-Covid conditions. The Alperton and Church End meetings showed the need for a wider Brent policy on social distancing and engaging with BAME communities.  Structural issues such as Housing, jobs, co-morbidities, learning for the Covid19 experience, would feed into the Council's new Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

All in all it was a useful discussion, although much more needs to be investigated and acted upon. The trio of councillors, Daly, Long and Lloyd, looked particularly effective as scrutineers.

Liverpool Against the Electronic Arms Fair declared victory today  after organisers of an international weapons show cancelled plans to use the city’s Exhibition Centre in November.

The Electronic Warfare Europe show, organised by Clarion Events on behalf of the Association of Old Crows, was due to be held at the Exhibition Centre from November 16-18. Organisers declared that the exhibition would now be moved to Seville, Spain in 2021.

Campaign founder, Green councillor Lawrence Brown, said: 

‘We are delighted that these merchants of death have recognised that there is no welcome for them here in Liverpool.

‘In just a few short weeks we brought together peace groups, local councillors from across the political spectrum, faith groups and anti-war activists to demand that the council, which owns the Exhibition Centre and manages it through the ACC company, close the door on this event.

‘This cancellation is testament to the efforts of all the people who have signed our petition, sent emails to our MPs and councillors, and planned for online and public demonstrations in the coming weeks.’

Electronic Warfare Europe blamed the threat of a further British government Covid-19 lockdown on the decision to move the exhibition to Seville in Spain next year.

However, the announcement followed a public call from Right Reverend Paul Bayes, Bishop of Liverpool who signed the cancellation petition and said:

‘In this time of pandemic the nations of the world should be helping one another, not shopping for clever new ways to kill and oppress people. I hope that Liverpool will say no to this Fair, and will say yes to life.’

Campaign chair Martin Dobson pointed out that the cancellation was made after plans were announced for a national Day of Online Action this Saturday and mounting pressure on Mayor Joe Anderson, who sits on the Exhibition Centre Board.

The Green Party had put down an emergency motion to be debated at the next Council meeting, Labour MPs had pressed the Mayor to cancel and Labour councillors were planning to force a debate at the Labour Group.

Mr Dobson added: 

 ‘Whatever, the reason, we’re pleased this arms fair has been cancelled, but we will be contacting our friends and colleagues in Seville and offering to support any campaign they launch to close it down there.

‘This must also act as a wake-up call to the Mayor, Council and Exhibition Centre Board to develop an ethical booking policy to ensure such a damaging event is never allowed again.'