Quantcast
Channel: WEMBLEY MATTERS
Viewing all 7148 articles
Browse latest View live

Planning Inspector turns down Pocket Living's appeal against Brent Council for refusing development on Sudbury Town Station car park

$
0
0

 

 

Cllr Tom Stephens posted this on the Next Door website earlier today

As one of Sudbury’s local Councillors, I’m pleased to confirm that the planning inspector has today *REJECTED* Pocket Living’s proposal to build 1-bedroom flats in Sudbury Town station car park. Residents will recall that Brent Council’s own Planning Committee refused the development on 11 June 2020. Alongside Sudbury residents, myself and fellow Councillor Mary Daly spoke against the development and sent strong written objections. Like you, we were concerned about the impact the would have on parking in the area - especially disabled parking - and the lack of any genuinely affordable, family housing. The developer then appealed to the Planning Inspector and the inspector has been considering the case for several months. 

 We argued the Planning Inspector should reject Pocket Living’s appeal and refuse the development, as did Brent Council. We attended the hearings and the site visits and spoke against the developments then. We are delighted to inform you that on 19th January, the Planning Inspector dismissed Pocket Living’s appeal and rejected the development. They argued that the development won’t provide the appropriate level of affordable housing or mix of housing unit types - a clear breach of a Brent Council’s local plan. We hope this will come as good news. We are pleased to have opposed this development from day 1 and to have worked alongside residents to send in objections. We will continue to oppose it. 

There is quite a history to this development proposal see LINK and confusion over deferral LINK.

Paul Lorber raised an official complaint about how the application was handled LINK

Following the deferral the developer came back to Brent Planning Committee with a revised proposal and Wembley Matters reported:

After a lengthy discussion Brent Planning Committee again rejected the TfL application for a development of 'pocket homes' on the car park at Sudbury Town Station. Despite a £600k offer by the developer towards the build costs of 6 three bedroomed homes outside the area, the committee stuck to their original objection on grounds of lack of family homes for the site itself,  the loss of the car park and its impact on acessiblity for people with protected characteristics; and the applications lack of compliance with Local and London plans. Three members of the public and two councillors made very persuasive presentations opposing the application.

 TfL are intent on developing other station car parks so the result of this appeal and the grounds for refusal will be widely studied.


Stonebridge Community Trust considering its position over Supreme Court legal clarification in Bridge Park case

$
0
0

Huge community meeting at the start of the campaign to save Bridge Park for the  the African and Caribbean community

 

 Following the Appeal Court Judgment on the Bridge Park case LINK and Muhammed Butt's reaction LINK, Stonebridge Community Trust (SCT) has made the following statement:

 

The three judges complemented Peter Crampin QC on the forcefulness of SCT's legal argument on behalf of the African and Caribbean community, but unfortunately they have judged in favour of Brent Council.

Jay Mastin (SCT) said:

 
We have studied the Judgment and whilst we have lost this Appeal hearing, SCT feels the argument remains in Law that by the actions of how the Land was purchased in that it took several different entities to contribute and raise the purchase funds to buy the disused Bus Garage. Those monies were given for the stated purpose of the social and beneficial needs of the African and Caribbean Community. A Charitable Trust existed by act of Law regardless of whether Brent intended this or not.

The three Justices appears to avoided making a clear ruling in relation to whether;

 
i) A Charitable Trust existed in Law

 
ii) Given the legal facts that the same Bridge Park complex is still in existence today; the needs of the community remain. It was argued that in Law a Charitable Trust must still exist and continue today even after the GLC's interest and the covenant was removed by Brent. No legal decision on whether a Charitable Trust still continues after one of the contributors/ settler is removed.

iii) The Judgement appears to say even though there was a covenant and separate agreement on the stated purpose for the Land for the African and Caribbean community, once the land was purchased as intended Brent could then immediately do whatever they wanted with the Land eg. Use it as a Council Staff Admin building. They had no further obligation to carry their stated commitments to the Community for the land.

The above leads SCT to believe that the Appeal Courts judges appear to have remained politically safe and avoided making the tough Legal Judgement that would give clarity in Law on these matters.

The judges appear to have left this to the Supreme Court to make the final decision on these points of Law.

SCT are considering its position in relation to the Supreme Court clarifying the legal position, on behalf of the African and Caribbean Community of Brent.

 

FULL JUDGMENT


For further background to the case search for 'Bridge Park' in the search box on right of this post which willbring up many articles and also see the video.

LETTER: Richard Evans and Copland payments - the true story

$
0
0

 Dear Editor,

 

This is the true account of Richard Evans’ involvement in what was at the time the biggest misappropriation of state school funds at Copland Community school in Wembley (£2.7 million) in the UK history.

 

I was the whistleblower who investigated massive misappropriation of school funds from a school.  For this I was suspended, alongside two other school union reps, Shane Johnschwager, NASUWT Rep and Dave Kubenk, NUT Rep. We all faced disciplinary charges and dismissal. 

 

During our suspension we continued to collect evidence.  The DfE was slow to react.  However the evidence eventually was so overwhelmingly they were suspended – i.e. the Head, the deputy (Evans who was head of finance), the chair and vice chair of governors, the head’s PA and the school bursar.

 

We were reinstated and the disciplinary charges overturned.  A wide-ranging police investigation took place.  They were charged with conspiracy to defraud, money laundering, conspiracy to commit false accounting and fraud by abuse of position. A criminal trial took place.  

 

The crown prosecution service, headed by Keir Starmer, brokered a plea bargain.  If the head Sir Alan Davies (knighted for ‘services to education’ - more like self-service!) pleaded guilty to the six charges of false accounting the other charges would be dropped.  Davies received a 12-month prison sentence suspended for two years.  He was ultimately stripped of his knighthood.  

 

Remember, the others were not found ‘innocent’ of the charges, just as Davies was not found ‘innocent’of the more serious charges. Charges were dropped as part of the Davies plea bargain.  I was informed that the police were gutted that the case regarding the serious charges which they had spent months meticulously collecting evidence was for, were dropped. 

 

I, staff, union members, ratepayers and parents at the school were furious that not only had they escaped from the most serious charges, but they had also kept their ill-gotten gains.  We petitioned/ lobbied the Council to seek to get the money back.  To their eternal credit the Council decided to take them to the financial High Court to seek to get them to have to pay the money back.  The High Court Judge found they were all complicit in the overpayments and other financial irregularities.  

 

Evans claim that he didn’t know he was being overpaid is risible.  Truth and justice are not cheap, but they are precious, indeed priceless.

 

Hank Roberts,

Previous teacher at Copland Community school, recently retired NEU Executive member

 

Please note the following conclusions reached by Judge Zacaroli in his judgement on 16.08.18 [Numbers refer to the paragraphs in the judgement]:

 

1.    Dr Evans received over £600,000 in overpayments (13)

2.   The vast majority of those payments were unlawful (125)

3.   The Judge found that Dr Evans’ evidence was ‘not credible’ (237) in regards to how those payments were made and ‘did not stand up to scrutiny’ (421)

4.   The Judge notes that many of the payments to Dr Evans were double payments (383)

5.    The Judge goes on to note ‘the payments to Mr Davies and Dr Evans represent obvious double counting’ (430) and there were ‘simply not enough hours in the week’ to have undertaken claimed additional duties (425)

6.   He also notes ‘a lack of any possible justification’ for payments (506)

7.    Crucially, Justice Zacaroli found there was knowing receipt of funds by Dr Evans paid in breach of fiduciary duty (565)

8.   Other findings by the Judge regarding payments to Dr Evans are that they were ‘unconscionable’ (592) and that Dr Evans must have been aware of the risk that payments ‘could not be justified’ (593). He goes on to say Dr Evans ‘must have appreciated that there was no proper justification’ for another payment and ‘the retention of this sum was unconscionable’ (594).

9.   Justice Zacaroli ordered that Dr Evans pay back all unlawful payments that are not outside the limitation period.

Tokyngton residents receive no response from their neighbours, Muhammed Butt and Dawn Butler, over littering, street drinking & women's safety in their ward

$
0
0

 


Residents of Tokyngton concerned about littering and other issues are to present a 320 petition at the next Brent Cabinet meeting on February 7th.

They have received no response to a November petition letter to Dawn Butler MP and Cllr Muhammed Butt despite them both being resident in the ward. Zack Polanski, Green Party All London Assembly Member and chair of the Assembly's Environment Committee who did respond sympathetically but has limited power on the issue as it is a borough matter.

 The residents' petition calls for more rubbish bins, improved lighting, anti-littering enforcement and loitering and public drinking restrictions.

The area affected stretches from the Kingdon Hall at Wembley Triangle,  Neeld Parade down Oakington Manor Drive, Vivian Avenue and Vivian Gardens.  The greens at the junctions of  these roads are particular hotspots.

The petitioners write:

Sadly many Tokyngton residents feel badly let down by our council representatives. We see our streets contantly strewn with empty alcohol cans, bottles and litter of every kind. Places feel unsafe especially for women and girls, with now darker nights.  In the listed areas (above) we have constant male loitering and drinking. Here we ask for more neighbourhood/community police officers and the installation of CCTV cameras.

We did not vote for unsightly blue bags stuck on trees. They blow upside down in strong wind, and are difficult and unhygenic to open. We did not vote for an unworkable no-bin policy.  Cllr Butt is placing public bins in 'flag ship areas' and ignoring us and our environment. We ask for proper public bins to be properly collected, especially on our 'hot zones'. Also better lighting in these zones.

Our area of Tokyngton is NOT cared about. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO?

The petition is addressed to Dawn Butler MP, Muhammed Butt, Michael Gove (Secretary of State) and Zack Polanski.


Queens Park Community School 3G pitch at Planning Committee on Janary 26th - chief planner recommends approval

$
0
0

 BRENT COUNCIL NOTICE

Re: Queens Park Community School, Aylestone Avenue, London, NW6 7BQ 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Construction of an artificial turf pitch, ball stop fencing with access gates, acoustic all weather timber fence, flood lighting units 2 x double floodlights on the half way masts and single floodlights at each of the 4 corner masts (mounted onto 6 steel columns) and a dry pond detention basin and earth bund in a designated area within the school grounds 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26 January, 2022 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website: 

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

Brent Scrutiny request key information on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

$
0
0

 

 Cllr Roxanne Mashari's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did a pretty thorough job on the Healthy Neighbourhoods (Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets) issue considering it came up under Topical Issues at their recent meeting without a report from officers.

The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods issue which has aroused controversy was inevitably the main focus and there was close questionning of Cllr Shama Tatler with minimal contributions from Cllr Krupa Sheth. Cllr Tatler admitted to problems with implementation and blamed these on government/TfL requirements and a rushed timeline. Left to itself Brent Council would not have approached it in this way, it was claimed.

Cllr Mashari quoted the detailed critique submitted by thye Brent Cycling Campaign.

You can hear the full meeting above and make up your own minds.  The main outcome was that Scrutiny requested a full breakdown of money spent on the schemes and the amount left to spend. In addition Scrutiny wanted a full account of the lessons learnt.The aim was that the objective, supported by the majority of residents for clean air and a healtheir neighbourhood, would be fulfilled by better planning, engagement and consultation.

Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white

$
0
0

Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity):-

 

Extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

It looks bad. It looks wrong. That’s why I will persist in shining a light on the Brent Cabinet decision to allow a developer to profit from the sale of 152 new Council homes, to be built on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, until either the Council provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the right thing to do, or agrees it is wrong and that all 250 homes in that development should be for Brent people in housing need.

 

In an article last month, I shared the information I’d received from a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise, in April 2021, which was supposedly to find out whether developers would be interested in being part of the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. But some of the information I’d asked for was withheld by Brent’s Head of Regeneration, who claimed that it was excluded from disclosure because:

 

·      It contained information obtained from and related to the financial and business affairs of 5 private developers (Confidentiality - Section 41 of FOIA);

·      It would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it (Commercially Sensitive – S.43(2) FOIA); and,

·      That in applying the public interest test required by S.43(2), ‘it is considered that the balance of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

On 12 December 2021, I sent an Internal Review request, setting out (with detailed reasons) why information prepared for Cabinet by Council Officers as a result of the exercise was not exempt information under FOIA, and why it was in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I agreed that if a report included confidential information received from developers, that could be redacted (blacked out) in the copy of the report sent to me.

 

I received the Council’s response on 15 January from Alice Lester, Operational Director (Regeneration, Growth and Employment). On a careful reading of her letter, I can’t see that she actually admitted any error in the initial refusal of my request. But her letter concluded: ‘However, I agree that a redacted copy of the report could be provided and this is attached.’ It is always worth sticking up for what you believe, if you think the Council has got it wrong!

 

In the interests of fairness to all five developers, and to show that I am keeping what they told Brent Council confidential, here is the second page of the report I was sent:-

 

Second extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

I was expecting those sections of the report to be blacked out, but I was surprised to see that part of the last sentence of the “Market Commentary”, written by Officers, was also redacted:

 

The opening section of the report to Cabinet in August 2021.
[Don’t worry! The pipelines developers were talking about are forward plans to ensure they get as much work lined-up for future years as possible.]

 

The first version of the document sent to me was followed by an urgent request not to open it, as ‘it appears that the attachment wasn’t properly redacted.’ I didn’t open it, but waited for the corrected version (above). As that concealed words I believed should probably be disclosed, I did then look at the original, and although those words had also been blacked out, they weren’t securely redacted.  

 

I wrote to Ms Lester on Monday 17th, to explain why I should be able to make the last seven words public, and on 19 January I received another ‘revised redacted document’.  The explanation was: ‘After further consultation with legal colleagues, the words to which you refer have been unredacted.’ After two challenges, I had finally been given information that I was entitled to request in the first place.

 

I can see why Brent’s senior Regeneration Officers might have wanted to keep these seven words about the developers from the public: ‘… and all stated interest in this opportunity.’ 

 

Of course all the developers were interested!The market opportunity they were offered was so “soft” that I don’t think any contractor / property developer would be likely to turn it down. Which begs the question, was that the answer that Regeneration Officers (and the Lead Member?) wanted from the “market testing”, so that they could put the idea of involving a developer as the ‘preferred delivery option’ for this scheme?

 

Normally a developer would have to find a site to build homes on, buy it (very expensive in London), get an architect’s team to design the proposed scheme for them, go through the planning process, then build the homes before it could get any return on its development, for which it would have borrowed £millions, over several years, in order to finance.

 

The key page from Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

 

The opportunity Brent was offering, in its “market testing exercise”, was to pay whichever developer won the “procurement and contract structure” bid outlined above for building the Council’s housing scheme. Once built, the Council would agree to sell the developer 152 homes, for a fixed price agreed in advance. That price would have been included in the developer’s ‘bid submission’ for the contract, and none of the developers bidding would have offered ‘a guaranteed monetary consideration’ that would not give them a profit!

 

The report which included this “Confidential Appendix” went to Brent’s Cabinet in August 2021, and you can see from the minutes how enthusiastic they were about the proposals:-

 


Did none of the Cabinet members stop to think, and ask: ‘why are we handing half of the homes on this Council housing development to a private developer?’ Perhaps they were taken in by the statement in the Officer’s Report: ‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated [this] preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site ….’? 

 

As I set out in my earlier article about the “soft market testing”, that consultation appears to have been “off record” and may have involved as few as two Cabinet members (the Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration). Didn’t other Cabinet members reading that think: ‘I don’t remember being consulted’, and if they did, why didn’t they question it?

 

Cabinet members apparently enthused about ‘the inclusion of London Affordable Rents as part of the offer’. Most of these would actually be the 54 homes on the Ujima House site, only 8 of which would be 3-bedroom “family homes” (with a 5sqm balcony as private outdoor space!). I had emailed the Cabinet members several days before, to highlight the problems with this Wembley Housing Zone scheme, and the need for more homes to be for genuine social rents.

 

Perhaps the Cabinet members didn’t have time to read my email before the meeting, but apart from a couple of automatic acknowledgements, none of them responded. I had to ask a public question for the Full Council meeting in November, and a follow-up question, but I still didn’t get any proper explanation for the Cabinet’s decision from Cllr. Shama Tatler.

 

Cllr. Tatler claimed that making all the Wembley Housing Zone homes affordable ‘is not financially viable’. How could it NOT be financially viable? The Council already owns the site. The Council could borrow the money to build the homes at some of the lowest ever interest rates. 

 

In answer to my straight question: ‘why is Brent Council not proposing to build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue as affordable rented Council housing?’ Cllr. Tatler’s reply was: ‘the Wembley Housing Zone programme together proposes 50% affordable housing.’ 50% affordable housing is Brent, and London’s, target for all large privatehousing developments, even though that is rarely, if ever, achieved in the planning process.

 

Cecil Avenue is a Brent Council development, on Council owned land. The Council has paid (with public money from the GLA) to design the scheme and get it through planning consent. The Council will borrow the money to build the 250 homes. Why shouldn’t all of those homes be Council homes?

 

I make no apology for sharing again this parody of a Brent Council publicity photograph for its New Council Homes campaign. It shows exactly what Brent’s Cabinet has agreed should happen Cecil Avenue. 

 


If you want to deliver 1,000 new Council homes in Brent, why “give away” 152 of the new Council homes you are building at Cecil Avenue to a private developer? One way the Council seems to have compensated for this is to agree to buy a tower block with 155 leasehold flats from the developer of the Alperton Bus Garage site, at a cost of £48m. That guaranteed sale of one third of the homes will help the developer, Telford Homes, to obtain the finance to actually build this high-rise scheme, which was strongly opposed by local residents.

 

Why are a small number of Cabinet Members and Senior Council Officers seemingly favouring private developers like this? Why are their fellow Cabinet members not questioning why? Why are Brent’s Scrutiny Committees not asking for explanations? Why are the rest of Brent’s elected councillors not asking the Leader or Lead Member for Regeneration “Why”?

 

IT LOOKS BAD. IT LOOKS WRONG. 

 

Why is it left to an ordinary member of the public to ask WHY?


Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

 



Planning Inspector 'unable to recommend Kilburn Square's allocation as a tall building zone'

$
0
0

 

Kilburn High Road is top right

 

 The campaign against tall buildings in Kilburn Square by local activists LINK seems to have borne fruit.

The Planning Inspector's Report on the Brent Local Plan states:

The Council also put forward a new tall building zone to be allocated at Kilburn Square which would include the existing tower and land adjacent around Kilburn Square. We have noted the Council’s evidence in relation to this new zone, primarily focusing on the height of the existing tower on the estate well as the sites PTAL rating at 6a. We have also considered the detailed representations made during the main modification’s consultation in relation to this new tall buildings zone, particularly regarding the proposed size of the zone and its location adjacent to the Brondesbury Road Conservation Area. We are mindful of the fact that in light of the London Plan policy, the Council are no longer afforded the degree of flexibility previously envisaged in terms of the application of Policy BD2. Nevertheless, the creation of a new tall buildings zone at Kilburn Square would be contrary to the evidence base presented to this local plan examination, namely the Tall Buildings Strategy. It is not a location identified or considered as part of this evidence and accordingly we are unable to recommend its allocation as a tall buildings zone.

 


"How 'Urgent' is 'Urgent' when there's a major fire risk fault?" No repair of fire door at William Dunbar House yet

$
0
0

 

 Picture taken yesterday

It will be 2 weeks on Monday from when Pensioner John Healy wrote a letter to Wembley Matters desperately seeking help in getting Brent Council to deal with faulty fire doors at his South Kilburn block, William Dunbar House. LINK

Shortly after publication I was able to update the article with news that a councillor was taking up the case.

In a further article on January 18th we revealed that another door, on the 5th floor was also faulty and this time Brent Council replied on Twitter:


 Escalation as a matter of 'Urgency' was welcome but another week has gone by and the 3rd floor door has still not been fixed. (Photo above).  John Healy discovered that some flats in the same block did not have self-closing doors.

John said:

Could you question the Council as to what they mean by 'urgent'.  The council told me they carried out an inspection on the doors after your first story in WM without the pictures, which is 2 weeks ago.  Tthought the Council said 'this issue is urgent" but I have to spend another weekend at least, worrying about a possible Fire in my block.
Could you also ask them about all these flats that do not have self closing fire doors?  I assume they belong to leaseholders.



Brent Council to invest £3.24m to slash carbon emissions from some of its public sector buildings

$
0
0

 Brent Council Press Release


Sports centres and libraries in Kilburn, Willesden and Harlesden are among the buildings benefiting from a £3.24 million investment to slash carbon emissions from public sector buildings in Brent.

Improvements kick off in Northwick Park, where an energy saving Ground Source Heat Pump is being installed in the Pavilion. You would need to plant a whopping 1,571 trees every year to match the carbon savings.

The pump works by transferring the heat that is already in the ground outside into a building or home, to heat radiators, give underfloor heating or to heatwater.

Councillor Krupa Sheth, Cabinet Member for Environment said: 

Homes and buildings have a huge carbon footprint, yet it can be challenging and expensive to tackle this within existing and older public sector buildings. We’re thrilled that we’re able to use innovative technology and ideas to improve energy efficiency and help us in our journey to zero carbon emissions by 2030.

In Brent, the funding will be used across council buildings including:

Brent Civic Centre
Barham Park Complex
Granville Centre
Gordon Brown Outdoor Centre
Northwick Park Pavilion
Preston Park Sports Pavilion
Harlesden Library
Kilburn Library
New Millenium Day Centre
Ealing Road Library
The Library at Willesden Green
The Ade Adepitan Short Break Centre
Tudor Gardens 27-31
John Billam Resource Centre
Willow Children's Centre

The government-led, Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS) is offering funding worth over £1bn in the first phase, giving the public sector a helping hand to increase energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation within council-owned community buildings, sports centres, libraries and other public, non-domestic buildings.

Additional information

The work at Northwick Park Pavilion will also include cavity wall insulation and LED lighting, and along with other improvements this will lead to a 26% reduction in overall energy use.  This translates to the savings of:

  • 747,445kWh/yr energy savings

  • £44,104 £/yr total cost savings

  • 134.3 CO2 te/yr carbon savings which is the equivalent of 1,571 trees planted/yr

The PSDS is being delivered by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and in partnership with Salix. Brent Council has appointed Ameresco Ltd. to carry out the works.

Brent Connects 6pm tomorrow. Council Draft Budget and Let's Talk Climate conversation

$
0
0

 From Brent Council


Brent Connects takes place tomorrow on Tuesday 25 January 2021, 6-8pm and will focus on the Council's draft budget and the Let's Talk Climate conversation.

Voices of the community and generating new ideas are key to making Brent a better place to live, work and visit, so book your place today by visiting: Brent Connects Tickets, Tue 25 Jan 2022 at 18:00 | Eventbrite.

The meeting will be held virtually via Zoom, but do not worry if you’ve never used Zoom before as we’ll be sending detailed instructions to all attendees beforehand.

If you have any questions, please email brent.connects@brent.gov.uk

Brent Connects - Agenda - 25 Jan 2022.docx.pdf

Draft budget

Join us to share your views on the proposals for the 2022/23 budget. We want to know what services are the most important to local people so we can make the best decisions about where to make savings.

The new proposals for 2022/23 are designed to limit, as far as possible, service reductions and the impact on front line services, particularly during these challenging times.

Let's Talk Climate

The second part of the session will focus on how we can work together to make local neighbourhoods greener and more sustainable.

Your feedback will influence the contracts for three important council services that are up for renewal next year and could change how your waste and recycling is managed, how we keep streets clean and how green spaces are maintained.

We want to hear your ideas for how we can deliver these services in ways that meet your and your neighbourhood’s needs while encouraging people to take more responsibility for keeping their areas clean.

Trident Point tenants, ready to take collective action over MTVH building failings, call for support

$
0
0

 

Trident Point

 

 Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) manages the Chalkhill estate in Wembley and many other properties. They have offices at the Chalkhill Community Centre/Welford Centre. 

Tenants  at Trident Point in Harrow, managed by MTVH, have reached the end of their tether over building problems and are calling for support for their cause.

This is their statement:

Since Trident Point, Harrow, was built ten years ago, residents have experienced disrepair, mismanagement and poor customer service on a daily basis.

 

Trident Point is divided into two blocks managed by different organisations. Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH) manages our block and we are their tenants.

 

As individuals, we have complained to MTVH countless times. MTVH staff are well aware of the long-standing issues in our block and the considerable impact they have on our lives. But despite MTVH’s vast resources and its stated mission to ‘listen to customers and work alongside them’, it seems that the will is simply not there to make Trident Point a safe and pleasant place to live. 

 

After ten years, we still face constant lift outages, heating problems and inadequate security. The communal areas are poorly maintained and in need of redecoration. Recurring damp issues have caused damage to flooring in many of our flats. Mice and pigeons pose serious health hazards. And our intercom systems fail regularly, resulting in missed deliveries and care appointments.

 

At the time of writing, both lifts in our block have been out of order for over a week.


Disabled and elderly tenants are prisoners in their homes. Others struggle up eight flights of stairs with shopping and buggies. Many of us have been stuck in the lifts and have had to be rescued by London Fire Brigade. Despite the constant problems in Trident Point, MTVH seem to have no emergency processes in place. After the lift breakdown on 29 December, we went several days without any help or communication at all from MTVH. We cannot go on like this. 

 

We are aware that major works are being carried out on the larger of the two lifts. However, the smaller lift designed for use by the social tenants remains out of order and in need of full replacement. We deserve two reliable, functioning lifts.

 

We have exhausted the official procedures and have been left no choice but to organise to demand justice. We are ready to take collective action, including a rent and service charge strike, to get the housing we deserve.

 

 

We demand that MTVH:

 

1)      Replace the lift system with one that is fit for purpose (as has previously been promised in writing by senior MTVH staff).

2)      Redecorate the communal areas and replace the carpets.

3)      Identify the cause of the recurring heating problems in tenants’ flats and fix the problem.

4)      Replace all damaged flooring in tenants’ flats and resolve the root problem of damp.

5)      Restore the concierge service that was removed without resident consultation.

6)      Acknowledge the problem of vermin and take urgent action to tackle mice and pigeon infestations.

7)      Repair the intercom system.

 

We welcome the support of any groups and individuals who wish to join us in this fight for dignity and peace of mind.

 

Should MTVH wish to reach out and begin making genuine progress on these demands, they can contact us at tridentpointaction@gmail.com.

 

Trident Point Action Group

 


MTVH have been asked for a comment 

 

Harrow Law Centre said on Twitter:

 Far too often social housing means second rate housing and second rate services. Everyone deserves a decent home and every tenant deserves a decent landlord. Metropolitan has been made aware the serious issues facing tenants for many years yet has failed to act.

Can you help with a fascinating Brent local history project to uncover mixed-race family histories?

$
0
0

 Guest post by Philip Grant

 


One of the projects as part of the Brent Museum and Archives “Being Brent” programme is gathering information on the long-neglected subject the mixed-race families in our diverse community. Although it was once widely regarded as a taboo, what is more natural than two human beings who love each other wanting to spend their lives together and have children? The fact that they may have different skin colours, or come from different cultural or religious backgrounds, should not be a barrier to that love.

 

The “By the Cut of Their Cloth” (BTCOCT) project has been engaging with local people and carrying out archival research for several months, and has uncovered some amazing leads that it needs to follow up. That is why it is asking for help now, and you might be the person who can give it! This is what they are saying:

 

Family history researchers! We would love to hear from anyone interested in volunteering their time to help us uncover Brent's mixed race family histories.

 

We have a few fascinating leads from newspapers and archives that we’re keen to learn more about in time for our exhibition in March. If you have experience of and access to online genealogical sites and would be able to spare a few hours, we would be very grateful if you could track down any additional information on some of the accounts we’ve uncovered.

 

·      A Chinese acrobat in Edwardian Britain charged with deserting his Willesden-based Welsh wife, who he said had become ‘too stout’ to perform one of his stage acts.

·      A white waitress who met her wealthy Indian Muslim husband at the 1924 Wembley exhibition and moved to Bhopal with him after their three-month engagement.

 

One of the earliest examples they’ve found comes from a photograph in the Brent Archives collection, taken in the grounds of Neasden Stud Farm in the 1890s. This is an extract from it:

 


From census records, the man in the bowler hat is thought to be John Lambert, born around 1850 in Suffolk, with his wife Emily (originally from Edgware) standing beside him, and a girl thought to be their daughter. John was the farm bailiff, or manager of the farm. BTCOTC would love to know more about his story, and his family!

 

If you would like to learn more about the project, or you think you might be able to help, please go to this website, and scroll down to the "Volunteers" section:
https://mixedmuseum.org.uk/btcotcproject/ . Thank you.

 

Roundwood Gardening Club starts tomorrow at 10am

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY SPECIAL: To Hell and Back – My Mother’s Holocaust Journey

$
0
0

 A special personal Guest Post by Paul Lorber published on Holocaust and Genocide Memorial Day

 

My mother was a holocaust survivor. The full story of her experience was so awful that she only mentioned a few bits when pestered by me and my brother. I knew about Auschwitz and her work on an aircraft wing, but not much more. Then, about three years ago, a book was donated to Barham Community Library which set me off on a search, and helped me fill in the missing pieces. Now I can tell her story.

 

1.Auschwitz Concentration Camp, now a Holocaust Memorial site in Poland. (Image from the internet)

 

Berta Lowinger was born in March 1919 to (not very religious) Jewish parents, who had a shoe making business. She was the youngest of three children, with a brother and a sister. They lived in Czechoslovakia, newly created after the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of the First World War.

2.The Lowinger family in the mid-1920s, with Berta second from right.

 

Despite being born with arthritis in one leg, which meant that she walked with a slight limp, Berta had a happy childhood. In 1940, she married Adolf Lorber, a 27-year-old architect from a small village from the east of the country. They started married life in Bratislava, a city of 120,000 people where around 15% were Jews.

 

3.Berta and Adolf Lorber, on their wedding day in 1940.

 

The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany led to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia by its British, French and Italian allies. The Sudetenland territories were handed over to Germany in 1938, and it took over the rest of the country in March 1939. The Czech lands were annexed, while a puppet regime controlled an “independent” Slovakia. 

 

4.Central Europe in 1939, after the German takeover of Austria and the Czech Republic.
(Image from the internet)

 

The new Slovakian leader was Josef Tiso. A fanatical Catholic priest, he was determined to get rid of all the Slovak Jews, referring to them as ‘parasites’ and ‘the eternal enemy’. His government passed a series of anti-Jewish laws, restricting what they could do, and confiscating Jewish-owned land and property, in a policy known as “Aryanization”.

 

5.Adolf Hitler greeting Slovakian President Josef Tiso. (Image from the internet)

 

In 1941, Slovakia became the first Axis partner to consent to the deportation of its Jewish residents. Under an agreement with the German government, 58,000 Jews were deported to the Auschwitz camp, in Nazi-occupied Poland, between March and October 1942. Only a few hundred of them survived. The Slovak authorities paid Germany 500 Reichsmark per Jew deported. In exchange, the Germans permitted Slovakia to retain all confiscated property. 

 

6.Extract from the Central Shoah database for Berta Lorber.

 

My parents were on the “deportation list” for 19 August 1942, and are recorded on the Shoah (holocaust) database as having been killed. But Tiso had introduced a “Presidential Exemption”, which allowed certain Jews to be recognised as “essential workers”, on payment of a substantial fee. According to my older brother, our parents were protected from deportation then, because my father managed to obtain one of these exemptions.

 

7.Jewish prisoners being loaded onto a deportation train. (Image from the internet)

 

The deportations were halted when the Vatican intervened, after reports that the “transports” were taking people straight to mass extermination camps, not to work. My mother said that two thirds of the family perished at that time. She and my father managed to carry on living, under very tight restrictions, but in August 1944 things changed for the worse. Germany invaded Slovakia to crush the anti-fascist Slovak National Uprising, and took control of the country. Deportation of the remaining 13,500 Jews began almost immediately.

 

My parents did talk about the way they were rounded up. It was the only thing my father ever mentioned about his experiences. During the chaos as the Jews were being lined up in the street, he had the good sense to cover up his Star of David, move aside onto the pavement and walk away. My mother was taken, forced into the waiting trucks and ended up on a transport to Auschwitz. My father was temporarily free, and was lucky, as none of the men on my mother’s transport survived.

 

8.Jewish prisoners arriving at Auschwitz. (Image from the internet)

 

Auschwitz-Birkenau was the largest of the Nazi death camps. Around one million Jews, and tens of thousands of Polish, Russian, Romany and other people were killed there. It was designed to carry out Hitler’s order ‘to solve the “Jewish Question” for good’. Extermination was carried out using Zyklon B gas, which had previously been tested on Russian prisoners of war, with the bodies of victims then cremated in large ovens.

 

9.Cremation ovens at a German concentration camp. (Image from the internet)

 

10.Jewish women being unloaded from a cattle truck at a concentration camp. (Image from the internet)

 

Holocaust records, and my mother’s release papers, confirm that she was taken to Auschwitz in October 1944. She told my brother once about her arrival and the selection. They were forced from the train, then marched off to stand in front of an SS Officer. My mother, 25 years old, was asked: “Kannst du arbeiten?”. Fortunately, despite her fear and confusion, she could speak German, so answered: “Ja” to the question “Can you work?”. She was pointed to a line for workers, rather than that for the gas chambers. 

 

For many years Auschwitz was the only place I knew of where my mother had been in German hands. But that camp was liberated by the Russians on 27 January 1945 (the anniversary chosen for Holocaust Memorial Day). My mother always talked of being freed by an American soldier. I put the pieces of my mother’s experience together while reading the amazing book by Wendy Holden, “Born Survivors”. 

 

11.Book cover of “Born Survivors” by Wendy Holden. (Image from the internet)

 

The book tells the stories of three young women, who like my mother were taken to Auschwitz in October 1944, and survived the holocaust.  After a bit more research, I’m confident that the experiences described in Wendy’s book are exactly what my mother went through, from the day she entered Auschwitz until she was liberated in May 1945.

 

The women considered fit to work were marched to the ‘Sauna’ building. Ordered to undress, or be shot if they disobeyed, any jewellery was torn away from them. Then they sat naked while male and female prisoners roughly shaved off their hair, before being pushed outside into the cold and rain for their first “Appell” (roll call) and another inspection. After another cold shower, they were disinfected with white powder, then thrown some left-over garments and clogs. 

 

The women’s accommodation was in enormous huts, with no windows and 3-tiered bunks which had to be shared by up to 12 women, with just one thin blanket per bunk. The food, a thin soup made from rotting vegetables and a small chunk of stale bread, was so disgusting that some new arrivals refused it. They soon learned that there was nothing else to be had. 

 

There were regular roll calls and inspections, again standing naked in the muddy open ground. Anyone looking unwell or unfit for work was pulled out of the ranks and marched to the gas chambers. “Lucky” ones were chosen to be sent as slave-labourers for the German war effort.

 

The three women in the book were sent to the Arado aircraft factory in Freiberg. Arado paid the SS 4 Reichmarks a day for each worker supplied – less 20 pfenning for their “catering needs”. They were part of a transport of 501 women workers sent there from Auschwitz, and allocated a range of prisoner numbers ending with 56803. According to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, number 56803 was Berta Lorber.

 

On 10 October 1944, this group of women were ordered to have a shower, then given more old clothing and some bread and salami. They were taken to the railway and forced into goods wagons. This is one of the few episodes that my mother told me about. As she was being loaded into a wagon, one of the guards noticed that she had a limp, and called her back as unfit to work. Fortunately, another prisoner had the good sense to pull her in quickly, and she was lost in the crowd. That fraction of second made the difference between life and death. 

 

The journey took three days and two nights. The women travelled in closed wagons, with little food or water and no clue where they were going. Freiberg was a “satellite” of Flossenburg concentration camp, but as the new camp for Jewish workers wasn’t ready, they were first housed in part of the factory. Sleeping and washing facilities were a bit better than in Auschwitz.

 

The women were put to work straight away, making parts for aircraft. They worked in two 12-hour shifts, with the early shift woken up at 3am. They had to stand all day and no talking was allowed. The prisoners were supervised by trained German workers who never spoke to them. It was hard and tedious work, and the women were always exhausted, very cold and very hungry. It was rare for anyone to show them any kindness – but occasionally a German secretary or a supervisor hid some extra food for them to find. 

 

My mother told us that she worked on a wing for weeks on end. They had to use machinery, but as they’d had no training, the quality of the work is doubtful. An SS Officer was in charge of each section, who often punished prisoners for minor matters. My mother said she was once slapped by a male SS Officer when she took her drinking cup into the washroom by mistake. 

 

In January 1945, new barracks were completed for the Jewish workers – some 2km from the factory. The prisoners were marched through the town, to and from their long day’s work. Local residents ignored or despised them, because they’d been told these women were whores or criminals. More of the women were falling ill, and we can only imagine the constant hunger and fear of death that they, including my mother, must have felt.

By now, they frequently heard allied aircraft, and saw the sky lit up when the city of Dresden, 20 miles away, was bombed in February. By the end of March, the bombing had cut off the supply of electricity and materials to the Freiberg factories, which stopped working. The women were confined to their barracks, and rations were cut even further.

 

On 14 April 1945 their camp was evacuated. Around 1,000 women were marched to the station and loaded into open wagons – up to 80 in each. The weather was awful, cold and wet, and there was hardly any food. For days the train zig-zagged across the railway system, avoiding areas falling under allied control. The women were now skeletons, with many dying every day.

 

12.Railway wagons on a prisoner “transport” train. (Image from the internet)

 

By 21 April the train reached the small Czech town of Horni Briza. It was delayed there for two days. The station master, a devout Catholic, arranged for the prisoners to be given a cooked meal, from a nearby factory canteen (after bribing their guards with food and drink). Thirty-eight more prisoners died while at his station, but on his insistence their bodies were properly buried, rather than just dumped by the track. 

 

13.The memorial at the prisoners’ grave in Horni Briza. (Image from the internet)

 

The train was ordered to head for Dachau concentration camp, but that changed as the Americans were there. It was then directed into Austria, and the women’s 17-day nightmare journey finally reached Mauthausen. SS guards dragged the weak prisoners off the train and marched them to the concentration camp, beating them as they went through the town. It was 29 April 1945, and the camp’s last gas had been used to kill prisoners on the 28th.

 

14.The entrance to Mauthausen Concentration Camp. (Image from the internet)

 

The following day, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in his bunker, and there was chaos in Mauthausen as the SS decided what to do with the remaining prisoners. Typhoid and other diseases had taken hold and hundreds were dying every day. On 3 May the SS guards ran away, and on 5 May 1945 my mother remembered looking up into the face of a very tall American soldier (she was 5 foot nothing), and knowing she’d been liberated.

 

15.An American soldier with prisoners at Mauthausen Camp, May 1945. (Image from the internet)

 

Of around a thousand women selected at Auschwitz and transported to Freiberg, less than 250 survived. Fewer than 50% of prisoners survived the train journey from Freiberg to Mauthausen. After weeks of recuperation, and sorting out essential identity paperwork, they were finally able to go home. My mother went back to Bratislava, uncertain of what the future would hold. 

 

Amazingly she found her husband, Adolf. He’d been captured, but survived his time in the Sachenhausen concentration camp. They decided to stay in Bratislava, and the reformed Czechoslovak Republic. My father resumed his work as an architect and the couple started to rebuild their lives. In August 1946 their first son Juraj (George) was born, followed by Pavel (Paul) nine years later. 

 

16.Berta with Juraj and baby Pavel, c.1955.

 

In 1948, the Communists took over, and Czechoslovakia fell under the influence of Stalin’s USSR. Twenty years later, Warsaw pact countries invaded, following a failed attempt to create “communism with a human face” (The Prague Spring). My parents decided to leave, and using documents falsified by my father we set off in September 1968, with the aim of going to the USA. Following a call from my mother’s sister (who’d emigrated to Argentina with her husband in 1938 to avoid growing Czech anti-semitism), we arrived at Brighton railway station instead.

 

My brother, who was 22 by this time, saw no prospects for him in the UK, and left for Canada within 4 weeks. The splitting of our small family was a major blow to my parents. After a year in Brighton, the Refugee Housing Association found us a 1-bedroom flat in Churchill Road, Willesden Green. Like many others from around the world, Brent became our home.

 

17.My parents, Berta and Adolf, outside our new home in Churchill Road, c.1970.

 

A few years later we moved to a slightly bigger flat in Harlesden Road, close to Willesden Hospital, and my parents loved Roundwood Park. Despite all the horrors and abuse she’d suffered, my mother was a very gentle and kind person. She brought us up to hate prejudice and show respect to others. Food was never wasted in our home – you will understand why. 

 

18.Berta and Adolf Lorber in Roundwood Park, 1988.

 

My mother died in June 1996. With permission from Brent’s Parks Manager, her ashes were buried in a shrub garden in Roundwood Park, with a laurel bush planted over them. Berta had a dignified end, unlike more than a million other victims of the holocaust, whose ashes were spread randomly over fields near Auschwitz.


Paul Lorber,
January 2022.

 

[With thanks to Francis Henry for his help in compiling my mother’s story, and Philip Grant for his help in editing it for this article.]

Anyone who would like a PDF document version of Paul’s article can request it by emailing him at barhamlibrary@hotmail.co.uk


The amazing Rumi's Cave send a 'Love Letter' farewell to Kilburn as they start packing for move to Harlesden

$
0
0

 

 

From Rumi's Facebook page:

We have been given a month to move into our new Harlesden premises. Seeing the Rumi’s area is quite a contrast to the little touches we added to make our Cave special.

 

Whilst we move and get our premises in Harlesden ready for Rumi’s Kitchen projects feeding the most vulnerable and looking after our elders. We are going to be moving some of our events to a temporary hall. Till we find our new Cave home.

 

To donate and support please go to rumis.org/donateyour donations will be used to help hire a space in the interim, look for a new home and start this new chapter God willing.

 


It is a sad day for Rumi's Cave as they pack up to leave their base in Carlton Vale, Kilburn after many years of work with and for the local community.  They are moving to a small site in Harlesden but are looking for a larger space to carry out their many activities.

The move comes despite valiant and well-supported efforts LINK to save their facility in Kilburn. They said farewell on Twitter:

 


I responded on Twitter:

Dear @RumisCave it is an honour to have had you here in Brent and see the positive impact you have made. You have given back so much and long may your work continue elsewhere in the borough. Thank you.



Help decide how Brent's £500,000 Carbon Offset Fund is spent locally by participaing and voting on Saturday

$
0
0

 


This Saturday (29 January 2022) Brent will be undertaking its first Participatory Budgeting Decision Day for local residents...and it's climate change themed! For this Decision Day, we are encouraging all residents who wish to participate in the local decision making process to take part and help decide how Brent's £500,000 Carbon Offset Fund is spent locally. 

There is still time to register and take part in this exciting brand new initiative and to make your vote count. 

The You Decide programme put the community in the driving seat from the start - the funding criteria was designed by the resident-led Planning Group (CO2GO) - and now voting powers are being handed over to residents.

From 10am-1pm we will hear from residents who applied for Pot 1 of the fund and put forward exciting applications to reduce carbon through retrofitting domestic properties or local community buildings.

From 2pm-4.30pm, we will hear from residents and organisations who have applied for Pot 2 of the fund and put forward applications to deliver an inspiring educational initiative or project to reduce the carbon footprint or communities in Brent.

Please register to attend this event using the links below to participate in the decision making process. We would love for as many of you as possible to be involved! 

REGISTER HERE - Pot 1 Voting Session (29 January - 10am until 1pm)

REGISTER HERE - Pot 2 Voting Session (29 January - 2pm until 4.30pm)

Brent Council flights hit a brick wall

$
0
0

 

Jaws dropped when the SW Londoner published a story that Brent Council was top of the league in spending on air travel. An initial response that this was down to the diverse nature of Brent didn't wash as other London boroughs are similarly diverse. Universal opprobrium followed.

An FoI request by Paul Lorber eventually elicited the response that the story was wrong because the Council supplied wrong information.However, the Council was unable to provide the necessary proof because it did not have automated access to the data:

Can you please provide a justification for all this air travel and provide the date, the full cost, the purpose of the trip and the persons on the flight for each trip costing more than £100 over the period covered by the article attached.
www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/09122021-london-councils-land-bill-of-nearly-400000-for-air-travel-despite-climate-pledges/

Officers have written to the original FOI requester to apologise as unfortunately we provided the wrong information and this subsequently generated this news story, which is also inaccurate and which we will seek to correct. The information that was provided in error included costs for flights and other travel related expenses for both council officers and service users. The cost for flights alone would be considerably less. Brent flighrt

Council officers do not fly anywhere on council business unless absolutely necessary. None of these flights were taken by councillors or senior council officers.  All of these flights are directly related to social workers working with vulnerable children. Family court orders may require social workers to assess a vulnerable child’s extended family in their home, which could be abroad, or accompany a child to be reunited with extended family members who live overseas, or visit a child in care a very considerable distance from Brent. As Brent is one of the most diverse boroughs in the UK, with over 55% of residents born overseas, family members are often more likely to be abroad.

We have advised the original FOI requestor that upon reviewing our data, unfortunately it is not possible to separate the flights and other related travel costs in an automated way. In order to do so, we would need to review each of the 199 bookings individually, which would take at least 15 minutes per booking, which would equate to over 49 hours of officer’s time.

As such, the request exceeds the statutory limit of £450 set out in Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act and we have advised the requestor that we are unable to provide the breakdown of flight costs alone by council officers. We are also unable to respond with the detail you have requested for the same reason. 


Furthermore, you have requested details of the persons on the flights, and this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA). This is because the information constitutes personal data as defined by Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and disclosing it would breach the Data Protection Act principles. This is an absolute exemption and consequently consideration of the public interest test does not apply.

This constitutes a refusal notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Rumi's Cave say 'Stand by us' as they prepare to leave Carlton Vale premises

BRIEFING: New Brent Council wards for May 5th local elections. Check your ward and how many councillors you will have.

$
0
0

 


With the Brent Council election coming up on May 5th public knowledge of the new wards and the reduced number of councillors in some wards is fairly low, so this is an attempt to summarise the information. If you are unclear on which ward you are now in you can search by postcode HERE

Proposed polling districts/stations can be found HERE

There are now 3 wards with Wembley in their names as Wembley Park (Quintain?) ward is now separated from Tokyngton, Muhammed Butt's ward and Wembley Hill has been added. There will be some jostling for nominations in the 2 member wards by existing councillors at next month's selections, although I understand a number have decided not to stand in in May. It is likely Labour will seek a male and female candidate in 2 member wards such as Cricklewood and Mapesbury and Barnhill where presently 2 of the 3 councillors are male.

The present arrangement is 63 councillors of whom 58 are Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Liberal Democrat. There will be 57 councillors after the election.

The new wards have been drawn up based on population projections for 2024, maintaining existing communities as far as possible and having a fairly equal number of electors per councillor. Beneath each ward I have given the number of councillors, 2018 electorate/projected 2024 electorate/projected 2024 electors per councillor.

 

Alperton 3 councillors 9,692/13,187/4,396

 Barnhill 2 councillors 7,703/8,868 /4,434

Brondesbury Park 2 councillors 9,131/9,256/4,628

Cricklewood and Mapesbury 2 councillors 9,133/9,407/4,704

Dollis Hill 3 councillors 13,745/13,831/4,610

Harlesden and Kensal Green 3 councillors 13,397/13,384/4,461

Kenton 3 councillors 13,165/13,815/4,605

Kilburn 3 councillors 11,986/12,581/4,194

Kingsbury 2 councillors 7,336/9,184/4,592

 Northwick Park 2 councillors 9,322/9,330/4,655

Preston 2 councillors 7,969/8,147/4,073

Queens Park 3 councillors 12,343/12,797/4,266

Queensbury 3 councillors11,891/11,869/3,956

Roundwood 3 councillors 10,306/11,901/3,967

Stonebridge 3 councillors 12,383/13,338/4,446

Sudbury 2 councillors 8,858/8,725/4,363

Tokyngton 2 councillors 7,149/8,085/4,042

Welsh Harp 3 councillors 11,979/11,970/3,990

Wembley Central 12,040/13,138/4,379

Wembley Hill 3 councillors 9,715/11,735/3,912

Wembley Park 2 councillors 4,477/8,674/4,337

 Willesden Green 3 councillors 12,411/12,509/4170


Viewing all 7148 articles
Browse latest View live