From Brent Council Website

 From Transport for London

 In line with new Government regulations on the wearing of face coverings on public transport from Tuesday 30 November, we are reminding all customers travelling on the TfL transport network that they must wear face coverings for the duration of their journeys or risk being fined, unless they are exempt. 
 
The Government has confirmed that face coverings will become compulsory again on public transport and in shops across the country in order to help prevent the spread of the new COVID-19 Omicron variant in the UK. Since the Government removed the national requirement to wear a face covering on public transport, face coverings have remained mandatory on TfL services under TfL’s condition of carriage but enforcement powers under these conditions were highly limited.
 
This new regulation means that customers must wear a face covering that covers their nose and mouth for their entire journey, including on transport services, in stations and on platforms, unless they are exempt. Additionally, face coverings should be worn by everyone in taxi and private hire vehicles for the duration of their journey. Exemptions include people who have trouble breathing, children and anyone who finds it difficult to manage them correctly.
 
TfL’s 500 uniformed enforcement officers and TfL's police partners will be out across the transport network ensuring that customers comply with the Government regulation. Anybody who does not comply may be refused entry, directed to leave the network or face a fine. 
 
Customers are reminded to treat everyone on the network with respect and compassion, and to understand that some customers and staff will be unable to wear a face covering for medical reasons or other permitted reasons that may not be immediately obvious.
 
Scientific advice suggests that although face coverings are unlikely to prevent an individual from catching the coronavirus, they can help prevent someone who is infected from infecting others and thus help control the virus.
 
To support the reintroduction of national regulations, TfL is also handing out face coverings at key locations across the capital for a short time to help Londoners do the right thing and keep each other safe.  Alternatively, face coverings can be purchased at a number of local shops or online. 

TfL is continuing to ensure customers can travel safely and confidently on its services. Tube trains and stations are cleaned with hospital-grade cleaning substances that kill viruses and bacteria on contact and provide ongoing protection. Independent testing by Imperial College London has been carried out monthly since September 2020, taking swabs of touch points in stations, buses and air samples in ticket halls. No traces of coronavirus on TfL’s public transport network have been found. 

TfL's enhanced cleaning regime continues to make the network cleaner than ever, with more than 1,100 hand sanitisers installed across the network, and at least 200 UV light devices continually sanitising escalator handrails. TfL’s buses and trains are well ventilated, with air on a typical train carriage changing every two to three minutes on average.

 Dear Editor

Children spend 6 months of the year in school, and if you include holidays and weekends, 6 months of the year NOT in school. Places like these WERE Stonebridge, Church End, Roundwood, and South Kilburn Adventure Playgrounds where children had the opportunity to play outside doing all the things they love to do, but cannot do at school or at home. 

They enabled children and young people from different ages, schools, abilities, backgrounds, and postcodes to come together in a spirit of challenge, adventure, managed risk, learning through experience, creative expression, and low-key safe supervision.

Brent closed them all down as part of their ‘austerity measures to save money’. 

But what was the real cost of these closures? Where do the children play?

In August 1982 the local paper ‘The Willesden and Brent Chronicle’ published a front-page article entitled ‘Under 5s living in Sky prisons’ ‘A shocking report released last week shows that despite Brent Council’s policy of housing families with children in flats below the fifth floor, a quarter of the under ten-year-olds on South Kilburn and Stonebridge Estates live above that level.’

Well at least they had a policy back then even if they didn’t stick to it! What is the policy now? As more and more high-rise blocks are crammed into every corner of the Borough’s available open-space, and patches of land, where now demolished community facilities once stood…where do the children play? If you live in a high rise, or even a low-rise do you let your children out to play somewhere within your locality where you feel they are safe when out of sight? Or is it now a world where children don’t play outside any more, just stay indoors when not at school, and play on their PlayStations and Xboxes?

We keep a Facebook page for all the past-users of Stonebridge who remember their childhoods there so here are a couple of comments from there;

“Some of my best childhood memories were spent at the playcentre with my sister and friends/ neighbours (names deleted) The playcentre shaped our lives and made us the people we are today. There was and will never be another place like it.

I Loved making wax candles, and wax hand moulds. The chips after school from the tuck shop the inflatable in the square pit, The rope swing, the wooden tower/climbing frame that I never got to the top of, because all the older kids owned it the firework displays. The children of today can only dream of a childhood like the one that the staff provided us with. 

Thank you all, for everything you did for us growing up x “

“Spread the word, the kids need somewhere to go other than the street corner or their bedroom. Just like we did and had.”

“We had so much fun going there every day in school holidays. I used to look forward to the trips. I’ll never forget it”

“Omg my kids loved it there and so did I.”

 Glynis Lee

The Brent Infrastructure Fund Statement 2020-21 has now been published.  LINK It covers the Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) which includes Strategic and Neighbourhood elements, Section 106 and Section 278 Funding.

There are several headline items in the report. The first is the total amount of money in the CIL pot, money derived from the contribution of developers to the general infrastructure of the borough and second, the proportion of that which has not been allocated.

STRATEGIC CIL

So what was SCIL spent on? Wembley got the majority of the funding and that is Wembley Park - Tokyngton Ward (Muhammed Butt's ward) rather than other parts of  Wembley.

Details:

Wembley Two Way Working & Wembley North End Road - As identified in the Core Strategy and Wembley Area Action Plan, there is the need for new road connections and junction improvements to support the ongoing development of the  Wembley Growth area. These include two significant road improvement schemes which have been implemented to improve traffic flow and connectivity through the area.

The first phase of the Wembley Two Way working project was completed and operational on 22nd March 2020 and plans for the second phase and further improvements on First Way and South Way are being developed. The new North End Road connector to Bridge Road opened on 11th June 2021 ahead of the EURO 2020 tournament initially operating as a T junction. The Highways and Infrastructure Team are working with Transport for London on signalising the new junction by the end of the year.

Olympic Way Public Realm Improvements– The improvements are a recognition that Wembley Park is an area of national and international importance. The high quality public realm supports the ongoing transformation of the area into a thriving, attractive environment where people want to live with access to shops and entertainment.

Public and private investment for Olympic Way has involved a new treatment to the Bobby Moore Bridge, new hard and soft landscaping throughout, a new crossing at Fulton Road, new lighting, trees, street furniture, wayfinding, WIFI, a new public square, and replacement of the ‘pedway’ with steps, lifts and flexible covered space to form an iconic new entrance to the national stadium.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CIL

The CIL Regulations 2010 stipulates that at least 15% of CIL receipts must be spent on neighbourhood project.  Of that 15% up to 25% may be spent on priorities identified by Neighbourhood Forums. Two are established in Harlesden and Sudbury Town and another is under consultation in Kilburn. Neither of the former were allocated anything and £1,5m of the total £2m went to Wembley. Brent Council points out that the projects are recorded in the originating borough but may be for services across the borough, Some of the projects are in initiatives of the Council itself.  

In line with the CIL Regulations, NCIL can be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, public realm improvements, cultural and sports facilities, healthcare facilities, and other community facilities provided it is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on the area.The NCIL must be spent on priorities agreed in consultation with the local community. These priorities must be aligned with the needs of the local community. 

 
CIL funding has no immediate deadline and therefore is available on a rolling annual basis. It is important to recognise that CIL receipts can only be spent on capital projects, although associated revenue spending to maintain those capital items is also permissible

SECTION 106

Section 106 funds are secured through planning obligations and are site specific (rather than general) to mitigate the impact of development. Clearly the claim on 'affordable housing' needs to be broken down as 'affordable' is such a slippery concept in Brent usage.

 

 Dear Wembley Matters Editor

The pavements in Wembley High Road were last upgraded at large cost when Ken Livingstone was Mayor of London just before one of his re-elections.

Over time many areas were driven over and damaged. I have been calling for proper repairs for some time. Instead of timely and effective repairs the Council patched up the slabs with ineffective shovels of asphalt.

During some developments the section of pavement between the square and Ealing Road was relayed with asphalt. This is in perfectly good and safe condition. More recently the developer of the Uncle building on corner with Park Lane provided new slab pavements outside their building. Many of the pavements behind railings in the High Road are also perfectly good condition requiring just minor repairs.

When money is short and pavements in residential roads requiring improvements are ignored is not the time for the Labour run Brent Council to waste money. Sadly this is exactly what Labour Councillors have decided to do - just 6 months before the local elections.

Magically (actually taxpayers money provided by the Government) Brent Council stashed away £17 million from Covid Grants and a staggering £3.5 million has been allocated to Wembley High Road.

Instead of cost effective repairs Labour Councillors decided that all the existing paving (including the completely new pavements next to Park Lane, the asphalt paving and good slabs) replaced with extremely expensive small paving stones.

All this is happening in the run up to Christmas when the High Road is busy with people trying to access the shops. Very disruptive for shoppers and local businesses. 

I estimate that the pavement repairs and the other improvements (new seating etc) should have cost around £1million - which means that at least £2 million is being wasted  - could have been used to upgrade and make safe pavements in many dangerous streets across Brent which actually need it.

The same Labour Councillors who decided to waste this money have also just announced their proposals for another 3% Council Tax Rise on top of all the rises in previous years.

The tragedy for local democracy is that these kind of bad decisions in Brent are made by a handful of people without any effective scrutiny. The Cabinet is made up of Labour Councillors only and there is no effective or independent scrutiny as these Committees are also chaired by Labour Councillors.

A change in the way Brent Council is run is desperately needed. We need both a Fair Voting System (and return to Committees) to end the scandal of one party getting almost all the Councillors on just half the votes.

All the best
Paul Lorber 

 Guest Post by David Walton

Previous posts have discussed the River Westbourne and its tributary the Malvern, which together form the borough boundary between City of Westminster and Brent in Kilburn  and which have a tendency to flood impact lives and homes both sides of this administrative, social and political divide.

City of Westminster's Finance, Smart City and City Management Policy Scrutiny Committee 30^th September 2021 published its Lead Local Flood Authority Section 19 Interim Flood Investigation Report findings. LINK This is based on what Westminster knows and disclaims any error in or omission from this report.

Report summary

The nearest rainfall gauge is at Putney Heath 8.5 km away and so it proved impossible to establish exactly how heavy the rainfall was on 12^thJuly, but it is estimated by Thames Water that more than the entire month's average rainfall fell in 1 hour*. Local sewers/rivers in this area were unable to cope. In Westminster approximately 230 properties were internal flood impacted with Kilburn Park Road (shared with Brent) needing to be evacuated. Underground lines closed due to flooding as was one primary school, three libraries and three community centres.

Thames Water reported that the rainfall on 12^th July was equivalent to a 1 in 300 year event. The second flooding on 25^th July in this same cross borough boundary area (this time a month's rainfall in 2 hours and another 1 in 300 year's event) is now subject to a second separate Section 19 Flood Investigation by the City of Westminster. The report states that the Environment Agency is not the responsible risk management authority for the 12^thJuly flood event.

The River Westbourne is report named as a combined sewer and it is described how in heavy rain it sewage discharges into the River Thames. The Kilburn sewer rivers were likely already at full capacity when heavy rains* started and tried to enter the network. The £22 million Maida Vale Flood Alleviation Defence is meant to deal only with a 1 in 30 year storm event/ not a 1 in 300 year one? The report states that the entire cross borough boundary flood area is Flood Zone 1 having an annual flooding probability of 0.1% from fluvial and tidal sources. There is however High Surface Water Flood Risk throughout this floods prone area.

Westminster is in 2021 trialling gully sensors to give real time information on silt level build-up in gullies, the aim being to clean gullies before surface water events. In the flood area these gullies were cleaned within 3 months of the event and were in effective condition for July 12^th event. (For the 25^th event many would have likely had blockages?)

Westminster Lead local Flood Authority interim recommendations are for

a) an increase in reliable rain gauges on site b) The LLFA to keep better records of past flood events for future reference c) to further optimise drainage maintenance d) wider catchment considerations (South Kilburn destroying all of its natural parkland flood defences) will be investigated by flood responsible agencies where the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee may be involved. e) Thames Water is organising meetings with LLFA's and its own Independent Review and these findings will inform the final S19 report. This process could take 6 months!

Thames Water reported that the July 12^th rainfall was more than the drainage "network was ever designed to cope with. To the best of our knowledge, our sewers and pumping stations performed as designed….." No system blockages were found either. The Northwest storm relief sewer was overloaded and a River Thames high tide prevented overflow flaps from opening.

"Where there is uncertainty over the cause of the incident and therefore responsibility for it, Thames Water needs to take action to support customers without concerns that in taking action we are wrongly accepting liability."

An Independent Flood Review has been commissioned by Thames Water, in a time scale which can meaningfully inform Thames Waters and other parties' plans (such as South Kilburns natural park flood defences all being destroyed upstream). Thames Water also now supports the Mayors 'Grow Back Greener' scheme to make sure that every Londoner lives within 10 minutes of a green space. So, extra funding for South Kilburn Public Open Space and Chippenham Gardens natural flood defence parks major upgrade works?

Westminster LLFA is attempting to be open about its struggles with its rivers and vales environment and climate change in this London boundary area and I would now expect Brent to follow this lead and to also seriously engage the issues to proactively protect Kilburn major Town lives and properties from escalating flood risk.

David Walton, FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn

Thames Water Interim Report on July 12th events   LINK

London FireBrigade Briefing on 'Major Incident' July 12th LINK

 Dear Editor,

 From Keep Our NHS Public

The Casey Review published today LINK  finds that the arrival of large numbers of ticketless fans at Wembley on the day of the final was predictable. What was unexpected was the ferocity and scale of these efforts. The behaviour of those who may not have come to Wembley planning to get into the stadium but joined in, often violently, when it became apparent that this was possible, was particularly striking.

However, warning signs (involving earlier matches in the tournament) were not recognised as parts of a bigger picture of trouble looming. This was largely due to assumptions that trouble was more likely to flare after the game and across London. Brent Council were the exception to some degree, having flagged concerns in the days leading up to the final. On the day around 9am a Brent Council official flagged up that ticketless fans were queueing up at pubs near the stadium.

Chapter 4 of the Review  concludes that although action was stepped up for the final there was an absence of risk assessment for the occasion that Euro Sunday represented. This amounted to a collective failure by partners involved.

Summary of key findings (extracted from the Review) Highlighting mine.

The key findings of the Review are as follows:

• ●  The behaviour of a large minority of England supporters was not just disgraceful, it recklessly endangered lives
• ●  There were a series of crowd ‘near misses’ which could have led to significant injuries or even death
• ●  Planning and preparation for Euro Sunday was hampered by a set of unique conditions, including the ongoing need to manage the Covid-19 pandemic, which combined to create a ‘perfect storm’
• ●  Many of the events that unfolded were foreseeable, and, while there were many mitigating factors, there was a collective failure to plan for the worst case scenario
• ●  A loss of experienced stewards as a result of the pandemic left Wembley’s stewarding operation vulnerable when confronted with the most aggressive and disorderly crowd Wembley had ever seen
• ●  The absence of a fan zone or fan zones denied the police and other agencies a key crowd management tool and was potentially a very significant factor
• ●  There was insufficient enforcement of the ban on consuming alcohol on public transport in London
• ●  The policing of the final did not sufficiently mitigate the risk of ticketless fans with officers deployed too late in the day
• ●  There are a lack of enforcement mechanisms available to respond to and deter the kind of behaviour witnessed at Euro Sunday
• ●  Planning of the final did not match the ‘occasion’ that was Euro Sunday 
  

 Recommendations 

This Review makes 5 recommendations for national consideration and 3 specifically for the FA and Wembley and its partners. This Review has been conducted on behalf of the FA to look at their own responsibilities with regard to Euro Sunday.

We have considered the wider partnerships and the national context within which the event took place and taken the liberty of making some recommendations with that in mind. It should also be noted that while this Review is concerned with football there are many lessons that could be applied to the wider stadium and event industry. 

1. I recommend that the Government considers a new category for football matches of national significance 

The majority of partners treated the Euro final as another match albeit a significant one, rather than an event of national significance. As a result, the security arrangements surrounding the final were underpowered and public safety was not given the prominence it deserved. 

In the future, there should be a new category for football matches of national significance, with the SGSA, police, and other key partners setting out what steps should be taken for such matches. This could include:

• ●  A maximalist police (and other agencies with enforcement powers) resourcing and deployment plan
• ●  The establishment of a sterile area within Zone Ex which is restricted to ticket- holders
• ●  More robust governance arrangements including an independent checkpoint as part of the process
• ●  Enhanced enforcement of bans on alcohol consumption on public transport and in other designated public spaces 
  

The prospect of new legislation is welcome and timely as it gives the Government the opportunity to update the legal framework that governs spectator safety which has not been significantly reviewed since the Hillsborough tragedy. 

2. I recommend that the Government consider tasking the SGSA to work with the FA and the event industry to undertake a review of stewarding 

SGSA should undertake a review and research the current challenges faced by live sporting events in securing sufficient numbers of trained stewards and provide guidance to the sector on how public safety can be assured. 

A range of wider factors, including the pandemic (which prompted many experienced stewards to find new vocations) and global supply chain challenges, have created significant workforce challenges for the stewarding sector. It is important that the implications of these shortages are understood for the wider events sector. 

The SGSA should work with key partners (including the FA and United Kingdom Crowd Management Association (UKCMA)) to understand the particular factors in play here and their implications for the longer-term sustainability of the stewarding role at major sports events. That, in turn, should inform wider considerations within the Government and the sector itself. 

3. The SGSA, the events industry, the police and local government agree on a way forward on who is accountable for Zone Ex 

There should be clear accountability for public safety in Zone Ex. The question of who was responsible for public safety on Olympic Way was a contributing factor to the inability to deal with the disorder seen in the build-up to kick-off. The police and stadium operators have for many years contested the issue of who is responsible for safety and security in Zone Ex (the area of public space outside the stadium used by supporters) and the financing of it remains a contested issue. This should be resolved. 

The SGSA should review the provisions of the 1975 Safety of Sports Grounds Act, together with its oversight powers and any associated guidance for local authorities, to determine if they are still fit for purpose, particularly in relation to the control and management of Zone Ex. 

4. I ask that The FA - as the governing body that oversees football - lead a national campaign to bring about a sea-change in attitudes towards supporter behaviours 

The appalling behaviour of supporters on Euro Sunday should be a wake-up call for us all. For too long, the actions of a minority of England fans have been tolerated as a part of our national culture (albeit an embarrassing one), rather than confronted head-on. 

The FA and Wembley, working with others, should step up action on eradicating such behaviours from football, including:

• ●  refusing to allow entry to fans who arrive chanting foul abuse and/ or are clearly under the influence of alcohol and/ or drugs
• ●  stricter enforcement (with police support) against those behaving badly inside the stadium, with consideration being given to ejections also leading to an automatic exclusion and ban from all football grounds (not just Wembley)
• ●  more proactive engagement with the Football Safety Officers Association around intelligence-sharing, particularly with regards to fan behaviours
• ●  a considerable step-up action again to stamp out racism by the FA, Premier League and English Football League
• ● Appoint the Football Supporters Association (supported by the FA) to a leading role in working with fans and others to eradicate these behaviours 
  

5. I recommend that the Government consider strengthening the penalties for football-related disorder, particularly behaviours which recklessly endanger lives and these penalties should be well understood and robustly enforced 

The existing enforcement mechanisms available to the police and other enforcement officers do not offer enough deterrent against those determined to use the cover of football matches to commit criminal offences. Tailgating, for example, should become a criminal offence. Sanctions for those breaking into football stadiums and/ or recklessly endangering lives is weak. 

It is welcomed by the Review that the Prime Minister has committed to making it possible to obtain a football banning order against a person convicted of online racist offences. 

In light of expert advice provided to this Review by Daniel Greenberg CB, we recommend that the Home Office considers options for strengthening the legal framework surrounding football-related disorder, with a particular focus on addressing the weaknesses and gaps identified in this Review. Specifically, the Home Office should consider:

• ●  ensuring that the FBO regime to ensure drugs-related disorderly behaviour is treated in the same way as alcohol-related disorder
• ●  identifying a suitable legislative mechanism for deterring the practice of tailgating, such as through an expanded FBO regime or through the application of PNDs
• ●  identifying a suitable legislative mechanism for a new offence of endangering public safety in a stadium through reckless behaviour, such as interfering with emergency doors, triggering fire alarms or damaging barriers and other safety infrastructure, with penalties comparable to those for endangering the safety of an aircraft
• ●  Greater urgency to introduce the Online Safety Bill should be given as it is a real opportunity to stiffen penalties for racism and hate speech online

6. Recommendations specifically for the FA/Wembley and key partners

6.a The FA and Wembley should strengthen plans for safety both physical and human, ahead of any matches or events of significant risk. This should include but not be limited to:

• ●  The physical fences and means of separating and filtering unticketed fans from those with legitimate access.
• ●  Particular attention should be made to ensuring those entering through gates provided for wheelchair users and other more vulnerable members of society are not endangered by the reckless actions of others.
• ●  A staff survey of all those involved with security, stewarding and safety on Euro Sunday so the FA can be doubly sure their views are taken into any future changes
• ●  Security plans should be regularly peer reviewed by experienced safety and security professionals to ensure rigour
• ●  The incoming Chair of the FA should take steps to be sure that she and the FA Board have suitable oversight of safety and security at Wembley Stadium 
  

6.b. A more joined up approach between Wembley and the MPS is required to managing public safety on match-days, including joint tasking and debriefing of operational teams 

6.c The key partners represented on the Wembley SAG, most notably the MPS, the FA and Brent Council, need to make a concerted effort to proactively solicit and listen to each other’s concerns and avoid any single agency from becoming too dominant.

 CAROLYN DOWNS, BRENT COUNCIL CEO, RAISED CONCERNS AFTER THE GERMANY MATCH WITH THE MET POLICE MATCH COMMANDER AND CABINET COVID-19 TASK FORCE

EXTRACT:

A written submission from Brent Council to the Review indicates that as England progressed through the tournament, antisocial behaviour increased around the stadium. When England played Scotland, the council noticed ticketless fans gathering for the first time in the plaza at the end of Olympic Way. On the day of the following match, against the Czech Republic, the council issued 17 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for public urination, street drinking and littering near the stadium. 

The council’s concerns about fan behaviour inside and outside the stadium escalated significantly after England played Germany in the ‘round of 16’ with stadium capacity increased to 40,000. Some fans arrived in the morning without tickets and began drinking on Olympic Way outside the Co-op supermarket and Butlers convenience store. By the afternoon they were climbing on street furniture such as bins, benches and lamp posts, and throwing glass bottles in the air. The council subsequently issued 22 FPNs for public urination. 

“People were buying crates of beer. That’s something that I hadn't seen before at Wembley (football games).” - Sports Ground Safety Authority official 

Other ticketless fans gathered outside the White Horse pub and moved to the foot of the Spanish Steps during this match, prompting a Euro 2020 Fans Embassy representative to warn police there could be trouble unless this crowd was moved on. 

Brent officials were now concerned about off-licence sales to supporters who could not get into pubs and bars to watch matches due to Covid-19 restrictions. 

“We were concerned after the Scotland game but it was the Germany game that really worried us. People were openly saying they had no tickets. They were partying until 6pm. None of this is normal for Wembley.” - Brent Council official 

Brent Council chief executive Carolyn Downs was sufficiently concerned about the gathering of crowds around the White Horse and on Olympic Way to speak to the MPS Match Commander after the match and request they ensure officers move them on. In addition, Downs asked her staff to explore options to stop shops selling alcohol completely if England progressed in the tournament. Her team believed that they did not have that power and that it would be for the police to apply to a magistrates court. 

Downs was sufficiently concerned about the disorder surrounding the Germany game on 29 June to raise it not only with her own staff but with the Cabinet Office and MPS. 

On 30 June, a meeting of senior government officials was convened by the Cabinet Office’s Covid-19 Taskforce. The meeting’s purpose was solely Covid-19 related, and was not due to consider any other issues regarding the tournament. Downs, however, used the meeting to raise her concerns about fan behaviour outside Wembley when England had played Germany. Downs told the meeting that the atmosphere had been “toxic” and the council was unhappy about ticketless fans gathering by the stadium. The chief executive of the Sports Ground Safety Authority also expressed his concerns about fan behaviour, having witnessed “trampolining” on empty seats covered with UEFA branded tarpaulins. 

Though the MPS were not invited to this meeting, Downs repeated her views about the toxic atmosphere to a senior MPS officer later that day. 

The following day (1 July) the Wembley Safety Advisory Group (WSAG) met at the request of Downs to discuss Brent and the SGSA’s concerns ahead of the semi-final matches. Safety Advisory Groups (SAG) meet in order to consider events at a stadium or sports ground which present a significant public safety risk. Though advisory by nature, a SAG is typically chaired by the local council which issues a stadium with the safety certificate it needs in order to operate. Prior to the tournament, the Wembley SAG met on 18 March and 4 June to discuss tournament preparations. 

At this meeting it was clear that the MPS were angry not to have been invited to the Cabinet Office ‘challenge session’ on 30 June as a delivery partner. They had feedback from the Home Office which they believed questioned their operational independence. This was unfortunate as it set the tone for the WSAG on 1 July. 

A video recording of the 1 July WSAG, chaired by Brent Council’s Director of Community Safety and attended by officials from the FA, Wembley, the SGSA, the MPS and Brent, makes it clear there was shared concern that the levels of intoxication within the stadium had become unprecedented. 

An SGSA official present at England's game against Germany told the meeting they “had never seen behaviour like it...They were all drunk on the concourse, you know, there was beer going everywhere.” The official described persistent standing around the stadium as “dreadful”, and concluded that the prospect of similar behaviour if England reached the semi-finals, with a larger number of fans inside the stadium, was “really, really frightening”. 

A Brent Council official recounted intervening personally to prevent a drunken fan falling from the parapet of level 5 while celebrating an England goal. They concluded: “As for the drunkenness and spillage...I've been in the stadium for a number of years, and I haven't seen that kind of mess or behaviour.” 

Stadium records seen by the Review show that 56 people required medical treatment during the match against Germany, with people taken to hospital for drunkenness, injuries suffered when falling down steps, and heart problems. 

The Wembley officials agreed that fan behaviour had changed from before the pandemic, but described it as “jubilant”. One told the meeting: “I do think we do have to take into account we've never, ever faced anything on the back of a pandemic. And I definitely feel that there is a release that happened on that day.” 

The stadium promised to increase stewarding on level 5 in the semi-finals again by redeploying staff from outside the stadium following kick-off. Drinks per person were further reduced, from four pints to two.

However, the SGSA official expressed a preference for a total alcohol ban if England reached the semi-finals, to prevent fans injuring themselves seriously. They told the meeting: “I have never seen that behaviour at Wembley before. And, you know, there is no way you can deal with that behaviour.” 

When the meeting discussed fan behaviours outside the stadium, the MPS Silver Commander for Euro 2020 did not agree with the view that the atmosphere was toxic when England played Germany. Their information was that the England fans were “exuberant and happy'' and that the atmosphere was no different from other high stakes football matches at Wembley, such as a play off final. He concluded that the police were preparing for “more of the same” behaviour should England progress to the semi-finals. 

Nobody at the WSAG challenged the MPS’ position, despite the council and the SGSA having different opinions. 

Nor did anybody at the meeting attempt to reconcile the police view that there was nothing unusual about what was happening outside the stadium with the concerns strongly expressed about the unprecedented fan behaviour inside the stadium. 

The meeting concluded with an agreement to support the MPS Silver Commander in asking for a larger number of police officers for future matches. The MPS subsequently added in an extra TSG unit of 33 officers inside Wembley on top of the two TSG units. The MPS told the Review that this decision reflected concerns about the adequacy of stewarding within the stadium. 

The MPS told the Review that it debriefed after each match at Wembley, fed back to the WSAG and increased officer numbers there steadily through the tournament and tasked them to be more assertive in moving on fans who gathered outside the stadium.

This Guest Post by Philip Grant reveals an interesting moment in Brent history and perhaps our national history.

This article results from a local history enquiry received in October 2021. What did we know about a British Indian Union Garden Party, held at 43 Chalkhill Road Wembley in July 1934, or Mr & Mrs R.S. Nehra who hosted it? The initial answer was “nothing”, but further research online by several Wembley History Society members began to uncover a story which deserved to be shared with a wider audience. That’s what I hope to do here.

The British Indian Union Garden Party invitation card. (Image from the internet)

Ram Singh Nehra was not the first Indian to live in Wembley. A former farmhouse at the eastern end of what is now Wembley High Road was renamed “Rhampore” in 1882, when it became the residence of His Highness Rajah Rampal Singh. He was one of the founder members of the Indian National Congress Party, and started “The Hindusthan” monthly newspaper while living here, before returning to India as ruler of Kalakankar in 1885. After his first (Indian) wife died in 1871, he had married an English woman, Princess Alice.

Mr Nehra, we discovered, was a solicitor. He was also Joint Honorary Secretary, along with an Englishman, of the British Indian Union, an organisation aimed at fostering good relations between people in this country and the Indian “Dominion” that it ruled. It’s interesting to note that the VIPs who guests were invited to meet included an Afghan, a Nepalese and a Saudi Arabian. As well as the invitation, we also have photographs of the garden party, and the Nepalese Ambassador who attended it.

A magazine photograph and caption about the garden party in July 1934.

General Bahadur Rana, the Nepalese Ambassador, in full uniform. (Images from the internet)

As well as his involvement with the British Indian Union, Ram Singh Nehra was also the President of the Central Hindu Society of Great Britain. In that capacity, he had welcomed General Bahadur Rana at Victoria Station, when he arrived to be his country’s first Ambassador to the United Kingdom in May 1934, greeting him with a garland of pink and blue sweet peas.

In a short speech, Nehra welcomed the General to London, as the only representative of an independent Hindu State. He went on to say: ‘The independent kingdom of Nepal is the ancient Raj that has preserved its integrity and independence, and has withstood all foreign attacks and attempts at conquest.’ The “Daily Mirror” reported this, with a photograph.

Ram Singh Nehra welcoming General Bahadur Rana in May 1934. (“Daily Mirror” image)

Another organisation that Nehra was a member, and early Treasurer, of was the League of Coloured Peoples. This had been founded in London in 1931 by the Jamaican-born doctor, Harold Moody, with the aim of fighting discrimination against coloured people, especially in employment and housing, and to improve relations between the races. 

It’s magazine “The Keys”, in July 1933, reported a speech given by Nehra to a conference the League had organised. His subject was “The East African”, and he spoke from personal experience. He described East Africa as ‘the land of the future’, but said that racial relations there were very bad, and that ‘the African did not have a very happy time’. ‘The lot of the Indian’, he said, ‘was a bit better than that of the African, but they were beginning to realise that co-operation between them was essential if any progress was to be made.’

To explain how Ram Singh Nehra came to be in East Africa, it is probably best to start at the beginning. He was born in the Punjab city of Ludhiana, to a well-off family, in 1896. After matriculating from the local Arya High School, he went to the Government College in Lahore, gaining a B.A. Honours degree in 1917. Because of the First World War, he had to wait until 1919 before he could come to England, to study law at London University. 

Nehra qualified as a barrister of the Middle Temple in 1921. There was little chance for an Indian to exercise his profession successfully in this country, so he started his practice at the High Court in the British controlled Uganda Protectorate. After finding that Uganda was ‘too small’, he moved Britain’s Kenya Colony and the seaport of Mombasa. Here he soon became Secretary of the Mombasa Indian Association, and involved in local social and political life. 

A 1920s postcard view of the Old Harbour, Mombasa. (Image from the internet)

It was in Mombasa that Ram Singh met the future Mrs Nehra. Eileen Myfanwy Brazel was born in Swansea in 1897, and shipping lists record that Miss E.M. Brazel, a short-hand typist, boarded a ship bound for Mombasa in June 1923. I would assume that she had been recruited in the UK for a job in Kenya, either by the colonial government or a large trading company. How ever she came to be in Mombasa, she met Nehra, and married him.

Eileen must have returned to Britain when expecting their first child, as their son, Grenville Brazel Nehra, was born at her parents’ home in Swansea in December 1925. Nehra himself remained in Mombasa, carrying on his profession in the courts there, and becoming a pillar of the Indian community. 

There had been trading links between India and East Africa for centuries, before indentured labourers were brought from India in the 1890s to build the Uganda Railway. Some of these men settled in what became the Kenya Colony, and their families and other Indians came to join them, particularly from the Punjab and Gujerat. 

By the 1920s, the Indian and Arab communities were allowed a small number of seats on the Colony’s Legislative Council. At first, they refused to nominate candidates for these elections, demanding as many seats as the British (although there were none for the native Africans!). Their demands were ignored, but the Colonial Government appointed local Indians to fill those seats, and Ram Singh Nehra became a member of Kenya’s Legislative Council.

I don’t know exactly when Nehra left Kenya, and finally moved to Wembley. The birth of Mr & Mrs Nehra’s second child, Sheila, in July 1930 was registered in the Hendon District, which included Wembley, so they may have been living at 43 Chalkhill Road by then. Their home, “The Shalimar”, was part of the Metropolitan Railway’s Chalkhill Estate, laid out on land the company had bought in the 1880s to build their tracks across, and developed as part of “Metroland” after the First World War.

The Chalkhill Estate on the 1935 O.S. map, with “The Shalimar”, 43 Chalkhill Road, arrowed.

Nehra was certainly practicing as a solicitor, from an office in High Holborn, by 1930. As well as directory entries for him, a case in Willesden County Court, where he was acting for the claimant, was reported in the “Daily Herald” in March 1931, under the headline “House for Veiled Woman and Retinue”!

Not content with his legal work, and the organisations he was active in, Ram Singh Nehra also founded and edited a magazine, “The Indian”. He said: ‘This journal is a link between Indians all over the world. The more they know of each other, the better for all concerned.’ Its aim was: ‘To protect, strengthen and further the political, social, economic and general welfare of Indians everywhere.’ The annual subscription in 1935 was 9 shillings, or 6 Rupees (post free). 

As well as articles by contributors on subjects such as Swaraj (self-rule) for India, and the caste system, challenging prejudice was one of the main subjects for Nehra’s own pieces. In a 1935 article, headed “Colour Hatred” he began with an incident at a London council meeting:

‘It is most regrettable that an increasing amount of evidence is available on the question of colour hatred in England, Germany, Italy, etc. Recently, Alderman Richards, a Conservative member of Finsbury Council, London, passed an unbecoming remark against Dr C.L. Katial, an Indian member of the Council, simply on the ground of colour.’

He reported that a motion had been tabled, expressing ‘profound abhorrence’ of the Alderman’s personal attack on a distinguished fellow member, and his ‘refusal to withdraw his unseemly remarks.’  When the motion, under which the Council ‘unhesitatingly dissociated itself’ from what Alderman Richards had said, because it ‘militated against the maintenance of harmonious relationships between persons of different races’, was put to a vote by the Mayor: ‘the local Council passed it by 13 votes to 11.’ 

Nehra’s article went on to give further examples of colour hatred, from elsewhere in London, in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. It concluded with these thought-provoking paragraphs:

‘We wonder where these hatreds by the white men would lead them to if the coloured people begin to retaliate, on the ground of the colourless skin of the semi-civilized Europeans who simply pride themselves on the absence of the sun-resisting pigment in their skin. 

[George] Bernard Shaw at the conclusion of his South African tour gave as his considered opinion that the best way to avoid world war and ensure peace was to encourage marriages between coloured and colourless races in large numbers.’

In reporting the Finsbury Council vote (above), Nehra had noted: ‘The eleven represented the Tory Party.’ His own views were more to the left, and there is clear evidence of that. The previously separate Urban Districts of Kingsbury and Wembley agreed to merge from April 1934. Elections were arranged for all of the seats on the new Wembley Council, to take place in March. When the candidates were announced, this was the entry in the “Wembley News” on 2 March 1934 for Kingsbury’s Fryent Ward:-

Ram Singh Nehra, ‘an Indian’, was standing as a Labour Party candidate for a seat on the new Wembley Council. You can see him pictured among the photos of those candidates, from the 16 March 1934 edition of the “Wembley News”:-

Some of the Labour candidates, pictured in the “Wembley News”. (Images courtesy of Brent Archives)

If elected, Nehra would not be the first foreign-born local councillor (see José Diaz – the Spanish Chairman), but would the people of Wembley in the 1930s vote for a man who wasn’t white?

 I hope you can join me next weekend, for Part 2, to find out.

Philip Grant,
December 2021.

Congratulations to the the amazing Rumi’s Cave who have just won the  Best Women's Services Award in the British Beacon Mosque Awards Dec 2021

Rumi's Cave  describes itself as an alternative community hub, arts and events venue in Brent (based in Carlton Vale, South Kilburn and Willesden Lane), presenting a diverse range of cultural and social programmes to connect hearts, minds and communities. It is a non-defined social space open to all to reflect and share, inspired by the legacy of poet Jalauddin Rumi.

 Introducing the video of the Award presentation on YouTube, Rumi's Cave said:

Thank you to everyone who voted and the panel from Beacon Mosque for this amazing award, alhamdulilah. All praise is due to God. Rumi's Cave is open to all, from all walks of life and religions. But we feel strongly about women at the forefront and being in positions of leadership following our blessed spiritual traditions of Islamic women of the past. Notably Khadijah (ra) & Aisha (ra) wife's of the Prophet Muhammad who were key business women, entrepreneurs and scholars. We would secondly like to thank Sheikh Babikir our chairman who has pushed the women to be at the forefront to stand alongside the men from Rumi's inception. Women being in the back has never had a basis in our Islamic tradition but following the Medinan example of women also supporting the wider community is a strong message Sheikh Babikir has promoted since the beginning. To all the amazing women who run / have run the cave Glaiza, Nazra, Rakaya, Sukina, Tayyibah, Nuria and Aminah to all the amazing volunteers who give selflessly without recognition we love you and we hope Rumi's always feels like your home and supports your voice inshallah.

Accepting the Award, Aminah Babikir, Director of Rumi's Projects said:

By educating and empowering women we are actually empowering and educating a whole generation.

She recalled her father Sheikk Babikir  telling her, 'Be brave, stand firm with the men, don't feel you can't be at the forefront,' - it had taken a decade to lead from the front and realise how important that is in developing and supporting the spiritual, intellectual and emotional needs of women.

 The current TfL funding settlement from Government expires in 6 days’ time on 11 December 2021.

 From the Metropolitan Police

Cllr Mili Patel

David Lammy MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

It would have been Cllr Mili Patel's last Brent Cabinet meeting this morning as it was announced to the Labour Group tonight that she is stepping down as Cabinet Member for Children's Safeguarding, Early Help and Social Care.  In fact she sent her apologies for absence.

With the local council election only 6 months away I understand her responsibilities have been mainly taken over by  Cllr Thomas Stephens already responsible as Cabinet member for Schools, Employment  and Skills.Some of  responsibilities have been transferred to Cllr Harbi Farah,  Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care.

There is speculation that the stepping down may be due to the promotion of David Lammy MP to Shadow Foreign Secretary - she is Lammy's Head of Office. Patel previously served as Senior Party Researcher (2015-2016) to Keir Starmer  MP after nearly 7 years in the same role for Frank Dobson MP.

The changes considerably strengthens the position of Cllr Stephens who is regarded by Labour colleagues as in no way lacking in ambition.

Mili Patel's partner, Cllr Matt Kelcher, continues as Chair of Brent Planning Committee.

 I received this response from Cllr Krupa Sheth  (Lead Member for Environment) today to my supplementary question asked at Full Council on November 22nd 2021 about  Brent Council overdue review of its Flood Management Strategy.

Response from Councillor Krupa Sheth to supplementary public question from Martin Francis asked at the Full Council meeting on 22 November 2021.

1.         My question on a review has not been directly answered, fortunately a council officer told Scrutiny on November 10^ththat a review of the 2015 Flood Risk Management Strategy is required and context should include real focus around climate change (for example the forecast 59% increase in winter rainfall) as well as the necessary local mitigation.

Response:  A review of the Flood Risk Management Strategy is now due and we informed the Scrutiny Committee it will be completed over the next 12 months. The review will include a focus on climate change.

2.         Can you give us the timetable for the review and the partnership members who will be involved?

Response:We are currently in discussion with consultants to scope the review and the timetable with an intention to commence the review early in the New Year.  We’d envisage a 9 month exercise from January. The Environment Agency will be consulted along with Thames Water to access modelling already undertaken on some of our open spaces such as Woodcock Park. Other main stakeholders are listed below:

·            Transport for London

·            Residents and Businesses

·            The Greater London Authority

·            Canal & River Trust

·            Network Rail

·            Neighbouring London Boroughs

3.         Will, as the West London Flood Risk Management Strategic Partnership has recommended, the accumulative impact of developments on flooding and drainage infrastructure systems, be assessed?

Response: Yes

Sadie Kempner as Amy Johnson in 'Flying from Brent' visit to 

Northview Primary School November 2021

Dear Editor,

Regular readers of your blog will know my interest in the local history of our area, from early to more modern times. The current “Being Brent” series of projects, organised by Brent Museum & Archives with funding from the National Lottery's Heritage Wellbeing Fund, has produced excellent opportunities for residents to discover more about our heritage, but these have not always been well publicised. That’s why I’m writing to share some now.

“Flying from Brent”, sharing the inspiring story of Amy Johnson with both schools and adults, was the work of Wembley-based author Amanda Epe. Her short video film, starring actress Sadie Kempner as Amy, is now available, and I’d encourage anyone to view it, perhaps with children or grandchildren over the coming holiday period:  https://youtu.be/96P0aPz2FgM

Amanda and Sadie have been to at least two local Primary Schools this autumn, to share Amy’s story with the children and use it as a basis for creative writing. Amanda also organised a walk for adults in September, visiting places in Kingsbury where Amy lived and worked before her famous solo flight to Australia in 1930. It’s been my privilege to work with Amanda, to create a permanent self-guided walk document, “In Amy Johnson’s Footsteps”, based on that walk. Anyone can now follow it, and discover more about Amy along the way, by downloading the walk from the Brent Archives website, at: https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16419753/in-amy-johnsons-footsteps.pdf

Another “Being Brent” project, which groups of local residents have already been able to enjoy, is “Brent Heritage Tours”. Their free guided walks, led by qualified local history enthusiasts, will continue next February and March, covering Queens Park, Willesden High Road and the Welsh Harp. There will also be free online talks about these areas in January. For details, go to: https://brent-heritage.co.uk/

If you have not already seen it, I would also recommend another recent video film from “Being Brent”, called “Being Alive”, which captures the diversity that makes our community so strong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYbeAoyBKbY

These are not the only gems on offer from “Being Brent”, and you can find out more from their website. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Paul Lorber  writes that his complaint to Brent Council alleging the waste of money and damaging environmental impact of their Wembley High Road pavement etc £3.5 million project has reached Stage 2. This is what he sent to Brent Council officers:

Anyone with the minimum of knowledge of Wembley High Road and its Paan Spitting problem would have realised that using pale grey stones is downright stupid.

 

I refer to my complaint about the decision to rip up perfectly good pavements in Wembley High Road - including areas of safe asphalt paving and new paving provided by the developer outside the Uncle building in Park Lane just 6 months ago.

The justification for this waste used by senior Council Officers was that the Council was following a design guide from 2016 and that High Road locations were treated differently to residential roads where use of asphalt was being imposed despite local opposition.

The photographs  show the new and expensive pavements completed outside the Uncle building less than a week ago.

Of course Brent Council Officers are very well aware that Wembley High Road has a serious Paan spitting problem which the Council has failed to contain despite painting warning signs on the pavements in this very area just a few weeks ago - signs of course only dug up shortly after!

If nothing else this highlights how foolish it is to use an out of date design guide which fails to take account of local circumstances - which officers should be or were perfectly aware of.

Using pale grey brick paving in this area was clearly not wise (and I am using measured language here). In contrast black/dark grey asphalt would hide this kind of mess much better and be probably easier to clean of.

The Design Guide is clearly useless and it would be highly irresponsible to continue to use it. I appreciate that Brent Council is like a juggernaut and Councillors and Officers never admit to making a mistake until it is too late. 

In this case I would urge a revision to the current work programme to both save money and not to continue to put down material which is unsuitable for this location.

There are large areas of the pavements in Wembley High Road do NOT require ripping up as they are perfectly safe. Many areas just require a proper and effective repair reusing existing materials.

Residents want safe pavements and most will not care if part of the High Road are paved with asphalt, existing car resistant slabs or new materials where required. 

They will however be angry about both the waste of large sums of money (especially when repeatedly told that “there is NO money to fix dangerous pavements in the streets”) or when they see the kind of mess shown in these photographs.

The money saved can then be used to repair and upgrade pavements in streets with unsafe pavements instead.

As a local Taxpayer I strongly object to the current Council approach of ripping up perfectly good pavements for the sake of a clearly useless Design Guide and the totally inefficient and environmentally damaging approach taken by Brent Council. The Council should re focus its approach and give greater emphasis to effective repairs and maintenance rather than the current ‘rip up’ approach.

I trust that you will listen rather than continuing to pursue your dogmatic ‘we know best’ approach.