Agenda item

For Members to consider any petitions with more than 200 signatures for which a request has been received for their presentation, in accordance with the Council’s petition rules and Standing Order 68.

Members are asked to note that the following petitions are due to be presented at the meeting:

(a)       No to Twinning with Nablus

(b)       Save East Lane Theatre

(c)        Support Barham Park

Members are asked to note that the supporting details on each petition have been attached, for reference.

The Mayor advised that he had accepted requests for the presentation of three separate petitions at the meeting, which had all met the threshold for consideration at Full Council based on them containing more than 200 signatures.

The petitions to be presented, were as follows, with the Mayor advising that unless otherwise indicated by members, he intended to allow up to five minutes for the presentation of each petition by the lead petitioner before then providing the relevant Cabinet Members up to two minutes to respond on each matter:

·            1^st petition - No to Twining with Nablus

·            2^nd petition – Save East Lane Theatre; and

·            3^rd petition – Save Barham Park

(1)       No to Twinning with Nablus

As no objections were raised on the approach outlined, the Mayor then moved on to welcome Ian Collier to the meeting to present the first petition.  Prior to the petition being presented the Mayor felt it important to remind everyone, given the matter related to the Council’s proposed twinning arrangement with Nablus (and as he had done when the issue had been considered at the Annual Council meeting) of his focus in seeking to celebrate the diverse nature of the borough and recognise the peaceful relationships that existed between the many different communities residing in Brent, reflecting the strong level of community cohesion across the borough.  As such he hoped all those present would be able to remember those principles during consideration of the petition, for which he thanked everyone in advance for their support.

Ian Collier was then invited to present the petition, who began by thanking the Mayor for the opportunity to represent a significant group of residents in Brent who he advised were completely opposed to, as well as upset by, the Council’s recent decision to twin the borough with the town of Nablus.  In referring to comments made by the sponsor of the twinning initiative about “twinning affirming the commitment of the borough to solidarity and shared values” he highlighted concerns regarding Nablus being a focus of militancy, hatred, terror and racism which he felt need to be taken into account in order to reflect that Brent as a borough did not share these values or stand in solidarity with them and with the normal reasons for twinning (including tourism, education and cultural influences) it was felt also not being met.

As a result, he advised the petitioners in opposition to the arrangement had been forced to conclude that the process was nothing more than political symbolism reflecting religious sectarianism in a way that was unrepresentative of the majority of Brent’s residents.  In referring to the most recent example of sectarian politics in the UK, he outlined the impact of the troubles in Northern Ireland and called on the Council to avoid a return to religious sectarian politics feeling that the recent decision to twin with Nablus had created division across the borough and driven a wedge between different communities.

Highlighting that the names of those who had signed the petition represented a diverse array of faiths and communities from different ethnic backgrounds across the borough he highlighted what he felt had been the underrepresentation of those from the Muslim community, which he felt also served as a reminder of the division which the twinning decision had appeared to create within the local community.  It was, however, felt this should not be a surprise given the report presented at the time the decision had been approved had suggested that the twinning process ran the risk of causing disharmony amongst Brent’s rich mix of ethnic communities.  It was therefore with regret, given the potential risk identified, that the Council had decided to proceed with the twinning arrangement, which he felt was also potentially open to challenge under the Council’s duties under the Equalities Act.

The assertion that objecting to the twinning arrangement may be regarded as Islamophobic was also challenged, with it pointed out that those who had signed the petition would have had no objection to a similar arrangement being pursed with other more peaceful Muslim regions or cities across the world.  Concern was also expressed regarding the status of the governance arrangements in Nablus and alleged links to a Proscribed Organisation alongside the establishment of a Community Interest Company (CIC) to facilitate the twinning arrangement given the less regulated nature of this as a mechanism and associated difficulty in ensuring the necessary governance, with the example provided of the “Save one Life” charity which he advised was currently under investigation by the Charities Commission and Counter Terrorism police.

At this stage in proceedings the Mayor advised Ian Collier than the time available to complete presentation of the petition had expired.  Using the discretion available to him as Chair he advised that he would, however, allow a brief final statement to be provided by Ian Collier in summing up.

In thanking the Mayor for the opportunity to conclude, Ian Collier advised that on balance the petitioners felt the twinning application was controversial, damaging to community cohesion, divisive, destabilising, disruptive, inflammatory as well as sectarian in nature.  As such, he felt its approval had brought the borough into disrepute with those who had signed the petition urging the Council to immediately overturn their original decision to approve the twinning arrangement with Nablus in order to avoid any more harm and damage to community relations and the Council’s reputation being caused.

The Mayor thanked Ian Coillier for presenting the petition and then invited Councillor Muhammed Butt, as Leader of the Council to respond.

In response, the Leader began by acknowledging the strength of feeling identified within the petition on the issue and took the opportunity to thank all also those in attendance at the meeting for consideration of the item, whether seeking to support the petition or twinning arrangement.  Referring to the comment regarding the limited number of signatures from members of the Muslim community contained within the petition, he expressed concern given it appeared, at one stage, that the names of most Brent councillors from a Muslim background had been added without their consent but was pleased to note that this issue and any misunderstanding had subsequently been resolved.

In terms of the petition, the Leader felt that irrespective of the views represented it was important that everyone had the opportunity to express their voice with an assurance provided that the petitioners were recognised as caring deeply about the borough, its values and shared future and the opportunity taken to welcome the diversity and plurality of views that existed across the borough.  Given the concerns expressed within the petition he felt it important to acknowledge and value the deep rooted and vibrant Jewish community within the borough which could be traced back many generations and he was also keen to see continue to grow and flourish.

In recognising Brent as a place of many cultures and faiths, the Leader highlighted what he regarded as the duty on the Council to therefore make sure that all residents felt safe, respected and heard emphasising that the forthcoming twinning of Brent with Nablus (or under any other future arrangement) was not about endorsing any religious belief or political ideology and was instead based on the principles of peace, cultural exchange, and mutual understanding.  Assuring the petitioners that the promotion of these principles had been the basis on which the borough’s international relationships had, and would continue, to be based the Leader also felt it important to recognise Brent’s long standing humanitarian tradition and role in seeking to advocate for and enhance a spirt of community cohesion and togetherness.

At the same time, the Leader advised he was aware of the anxieties which had been highlighted and assured the petitioners that these were not being ignored with him shortly due to meet representatives of Jewish community groups and the opportunity also extended to meet with representatives of the petition group.

In terms of the actual twinning arrangements, it was confirmed that the Council had been in dialogue with those responsible for the governance of Nablus, following receipt of the petition, in order to address and seek a response on the concerns identified, with the twinning arrangement also subject (as had been detailed in the original report) to a live and continuous equalities impact assessment.  Petitioners were reminded that the arrangements would also be subject to the new International Partnering Protocol introduced in order to set clear expectations for any twinning process and included safeguards to ensure that no link would undermine cohesion or Brent’s values as a borough.  It was pointed out that the Protocol would also allow for any arrangement to be reviewed (and where necessary annulled) if it was assessed as failing to promote peace, understanding, and constructive exchange.

The petitioners were also reminded that other cities across the UK, such as Dundee and Sheffield, had already been able to establish successful ties with Nablus, in the same spirit of cultural bridge-building and mutual learning as proposed within Brent’s arrangement with the ultimate aim being to build relationships that would support and not divide and that process being led by the Brent-Nablus Twinning Association.

In highlighting the need to recognise the development of each twinning arrangement as an ongoing process, the arrangements involving Nablus were acknowledged as representing the start of the conversation with Leader once again recognising the level of diversity as one of the borough’s greatest strengths.  In ending he also felt it important to reflect on Brent’s proud tradition as a place where different communities were able to live and thrive side-by-side in peace, which he advised he was committed to ensure continued as part of the wider role in promoting peace and community wellbeing on an increasingly complex world stage.

Having thanked Ian Collier for presenting the petition and all those in attendance for the item as well as Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) for his response the Mayor then moved on to deal with the next petition.

(2)       Save East Lane Theatre

The Mayor then welcomed Sue O’Connell to present the second petition, seeking support for the campaign to save the East Lane Theatre Club (ELTC).  In thanking the Mayor for the opportunity to present the petition, Sue O’Connell began by highlighting that the petition had been signed by over 1,700 residents from across Brent and the surrounding area recognising that ELTC had been operating in Wembley since 1936 and on its current site in Vale Farm since the 1960’s when the Club had entered into a lease to secure use of the original tennis pavilion.  Following plans to demolish the Elms Hall venue in 1988, the Club decided to build their own venue as a 75-seat theatre with associated dressing rooms and audience areas.

Referring to a document circulated in advance of the meeting, containing additional information in support of the petition, Sue O’Connell highlighted the plan detailing the current location of the theatre and nature of land occupied, which she advised included restricted access given the proximity to Vale Farm Sports Centre and Wembley Football Club.  Those in support of the petition were also keen to highlight that East Lane Theatre Club remained the only purpose-built amateur theatre in the Borough delivering a wide range of performances with the Club, now operating as a charity, run by volunteers and open to anyone offering the ability to develop a wide range of skills.

Highlighting the support for the Theatre from its loyal and increasingly diverse audience, the petitioners were also keen to remind members that the Club had never been in receipt of any subsidies from the Council, with all funding generated through ticket sales, membership fees and donations.  Concern was also expressed that whilst their lease had expired in 2022 the Club had not heard from the Council, prompting them to approach officers regarding renewal of the lease with initial negotiations having been based on a proposed rent of £2,300 pa.  The Club had therefore been surprised when (during these negotiations) they had received a Section 25 notice, including a proposed rent of £75,000 pa.  Sue O’Connell advised that this change in position had created significant concern amongst the ELTC membership, who had subsequently contacted the Leader of the Council and been urged to continue negotiations with officers.  Despite requests being submitted, the evidence used as the basis for the revised valuation had not been provided to the Club or their Chartered Surveyor.  Whilst acknowledging that the original demand had subsequently been reduced from £75,000 to £25,000 (following appointment of a second surveyor) and then reduced again in June to £5,000 it was highlighted this still reflected a significant increase from the current rent being paid, with the Council also having declined to extend the Section 25 notice period to enable further negotiation and consideration of the offer.  As a result, the Club had felt they had no option other than to instigate legal proceedings in an effort to protect their position and require the Council to justify the basis of the differing valuations provided.

Concern was also expressed by the petitioners that the latest offer had included the condition for an additional use of the site as a nursery, which it was felt the current building would be unsuitable to provide given the additional safeguarding requirements that would need to be fulfilled meaning the Theatre, in its current form, would cease to exist.

Whilst understanding that the Council needed to ensure maximum gain from its property portfolio, the petitioners expressed concern that the new Property Strategy appeared to work against small community groups such as the Theatre given the difficulty they faced in being able to achieve commercial returns despite being recognised as providing useful community or cultural services. Given the focus on Brent as a borough of culture, it was felt the Strategy needed to consider each property on the basis of the individual benefits provided, with it highlighted, as an example, that other Council’s (such as Barnet) were actively supporting amateur theatre groups through Community Benefit Schemes rather than seeking to price them out, as the petitions felt the current position adopted by Brent appeared to be doing.

In concluding presentation of the petition, Sue O’Connell therefore advised that the petitioners were asking the Council to seek a proper negotiated settlement through a process of dialogue, rather than legal proceedings, taking account of the Theatre’s community cultural value and on the basis of realistic terms and a rental value that could be afforded by the Club.

The Mayor thanked Sue O’Connell for presenting the petition and then invited Councillor Benea (as Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Property) to respond.

In response, Councillor Benea began by thanking the petitioners for their defence of East Lane Theatre, recognising the depth of feeling and support which had been highlighted and also the long standing contribution made by the Theatre in terms of the community offer available to all those who used it.

Whilst keen to highlight the value placed on the cultural sector by the Council and commitment towards growing the borough’s cultural offer, the need to recognise and balance this against the financial challenges and pressures faced not only by Brent but many other Council’s was also highlighted as a key consideration given the ongoing impact of the previous governments programme of austerity (including the loss by the Council of over £200m in funding).

As a result, Councillor Benea acknowledged this had led the Council to having to make a number of difficult choices involving a balance between keeping services running, housing families in need, and maintaining their assets.  Referring specifically to the building occupied by East Lane Theatre, it was recognised that this has been leased for over 30 years at a rate of just £1,500 per annum or less but that the original legally binding lease had now expired.  Officers had therefore been required to review the property as part of the Council’s borough-wide Property Strategy (which it was pointed out applied to all community assets) with a view to discussing a new rent that reflected the current realities and Council’s legal duty to ensure best value for public property.

Whilst aware of the concern highlighted by the Theatre and appreciating the strength of feeling which had been expressed, Councillor Benea felt it important to make clear in response that the Council’s position was not aimed at pricing or pushing community groups out but instead reflected a desire to work with organisations in order to ensure their sustainability in a new financial reality.  As a result, the Theatre was encouraged to continue actively engaging with officers in order to explore available options and the different potential pathways available, including partnership, phased arrangements, or external fundraising support in as collaborative a way as possible.

In ending her response, Councillor Benea assured the petitioners that whilst no decision was taken lightly by the council there was also a need to protect the Council’s financial position and public money.  This approach had, however, also been designed to reflect the Council’s ongoing commitment to supporting grassroots arts, which it was pointed out had included East Lane Theatre benefitting from a lease over many years that had shielded it from the rising cost of property in London.  Despite the financial constraints faced, Councillor Benea advised the Council would continue to act in a way that was fair and sustainable for all with the petitioners and volunteers therefore urged to continue working and talking to the Council in order to address the issues highlighted.

Having thanked Sue O’Connell for presenting the petition as well as Councillor Benea for her response, the Mayor then moved on to deal with the third and final petition.

(3)       Save Barham Park

As the final petition, the Mayor then invited Councillor Paul Lorber (representing Friends of Barham Park) to present a petition containing 530 signatures opposing the proposed modification and discharge of the restrictive covenants on the site of 776-778 Harrow Road and seeking to prevent development and protect the future use of Barham Park.

In presenting the petition, Councillor Lorber began by expressing his support for the East Lane Theatre Club given his previous involvement as a volunteer and involvement of his ex-wife as a former secretary, for which he also took the opportunity to declare a personal interest.  Taking a moment to reflect on the issues raised during presentation of the previous petition he felt these were similar to those faced by other voluntary and community sector organisations across the borough including the Barham Park Community Library which he represented as a trustee and founding member.  Highlighting what he felt was the difference in approach between how other Community Libraries were treated, reference was made to what Councillor Lorber felt was the selective way market rental charges were being applied (using the example of Preston Community Library) despite introduction of the Property Strategy highlighting the need for a consistent approach across different organisations.

Moving on to address the issues within the petition relating to Barham Park, Councillor Lorber advised he was speaking as a representative of the Friends of Barham Park to highlight the disappointment expressed by a significant number of local residents and park users at the recent decision taken by the Barham Park Trust Committee to modify and discharge the restrictive covenants restricting development on the site at 776-778 Harrow Road.  Despite the site having been sold, he felt the meaning of the original covenant put in place by the Trust Committee when the site was disposed of in seeking to restrict future development of the site would have been clear and accepted by the owner at the time of purchase.  On this basis, he felt that the decision by the current Trustees to modify and discharge the restrictive covenant in exchange for funds went against the original aim in seeking to protect the whole Park for the benefit of local people.

Concerns were also raised regarding what he felt to be the mismanagement of Barham Park as an asset by the current Trust Committee with reference made, as examples, to the recharging of funding incurred in relation to consultant fees in support of development of the Strategic Property Review to the Trust rather than Council alongside concerns raised about the effective use of other funding.

In outlining the support for the Park expressed by the petitioners and number of volunteers who were actively involved in maintaining the Park as a valued community asset, Councillor Lorber ended by highlighting the support being sought in seeking to protect Barham Park with the Council and Trust Committee urged to listen and take account of the views expressed.

At this stage in proceedings Councillor Kelcher in raising a Point of Order, sought clarification of the basis on which Councillor Lorber had presented the petition given, he felt, this had been designed as a process to allow members of the public rather than councillors (who already had an opportunity to participate during the meeting) to raise issues of local concern.

In response, Marsha Henry (Director of Law), whilst recognising Councillor Lorber’s role as a councillor, advised that he had been recognised as a representative of the Friends of Barham Park in presenting the petition.

Having addressed the Point of Order, the Mayor thanked Councillor Lorber for presenting the petition and then invited Councillor Muhammed Butt (in his role as Chair of the Barham Park Trust Committee) to respond.

In response, Councillor Muhammed Butt started by outlining the Council’s and Trust’s  pride in having Barham Park as an asset within the borough given its status as a much valued green space and as part of the borough’s heritage.  In terms of the petition, however, he felt its relevance in seeking to protect and secure the Park’s future needed to be queried based on the issues highlighted and way in which it was felt facts had been misrepresented in its presentation.  In terms of the current position, the opportunity was taken to clarify that at the time the site at 776 & 778 Harrow Road was sold (in 2011) the cottages located there were no longer in use for park staff with the properties identified as no longer providing any direct benefit to park users or providing a viable operational reason to retain them.  This was felt to provide an important context, with the restrictive covenant (which formed the basis of the concerns raised within the petition) having been introduced in 2011 at the point of sale, once the buildings had consciously been taken out of park use and disposed off to raise funds for the Park.

As a result, Councillor Muhammed Butt felt it was possible to question the basis of the petition in seeking to protect green space given that no part of the open space in Barham Park was under threat and with the cottage buildings at the point of sale in 2011 being in private ownership and no longer part of Barham Park Estate.  In highlighting that the current development proposals, which the modification and discharge of the restrictive covenants had been designed to enable, only impacted on the two residential properties contained within the site at the edge of the Park and outside of the boundary used by the public, the value in terms of generating vital funding for the Trust in support of maintaining the wider Park as an asset was also highlighted as a key consideration.  The decision which had been taken was also felt to reflect the difference in approach between the Administration and Liberal Democrats Group towards development, with the reference within the petition to honouring the original legacy left by Titus Barham in gifting the Park to the borough felt to be best represented through the generation of the additional income secured through the modification and discharge of the restrictive covenant in a way that would support the ongoing future of the Park rather than sticking with the status quo.

In highlighting that the decision taken by the Trust involved a legal and reasonable modification to a restriction no longer felt to serve the public interest he assured the petitioners that the decision made by the Trustees had been designed to ensure Barham Park was able to survive and continue thriving in serving the significant number of local residents who used and enjoyed the Park on a daily basis.

In ending his response, Councillor Muhammed Butt advised that whilst the Trustees remained committed to listening to views and concerns regarding future use of the Barham Park Estate and engaging with tenants and Park users, there was also a need to recognised the funding required to support its ongoing maintenance and use with the Trust therefore continuing to explore all avenues to support this process and the future of the Park.

The Mayor thanked Councillor Muhammed Butt for his response and having once again thanked everyone of their contributions advised that as this had been the final petition for presentation he would now move on to deal with the remainder of the agenda.