Harrow Conservatives push through symbolic motion on “Illegal Migrants” amid pressure to track right

Harrow Council’s Conservative leadership forced through a motion at the council meeting on 18 September 2025 to block the use of local hotels for so-called “illegal migrant” accommodation – despite there being no hotels in the borough earmarked or suitable for this purpose.
The motion, carried by the group’s majority, was tabled by the council leader and deputy leader. It cites a recent legal battle in Epping Forest, where the district council (held by Conservatives at the time) sought to block the Bell Hotel’s use for asylum seekers. That injunction was later overturned, but the case was used as justification for Harrow administration’s meaningless move.
What has raised eyebrows is the language. The motion repeatedly refers to “illegal migrants,” a phrase campaigners and legal experts reject as inaccurate and inflammatory. Under international law, people have the right to claim asylum regardless of how they arrive in the UK, provided they present themselves to authorities. Critics say the council is stoking public hostility with misleading terminology.
Observers also question the political motives. Harrow’s Conservative leadership has no history of pandering to far-right rhetoric, yet to move a motion that has no practical local impact suggests pressure on the leadership to align with national Conservative hard-line and divisive messaging. Some see it as a defensive move to appease nationalist sentiment and guard against defections to Reform UK.
Harrow is one of the UK’s most diverse boroughs, with a long track record of strong community relations. By importing a divisive debate with no local basis, critics argue, the Conservatives risk cheapening that record and fuelling tensions where none exist. It also rings hollow to play to right-wing talking points while still turning up at cultural and seasonal events that thrive precisely because of the borough’s diversity.
The motion instructs officers to consider legal steps such as injunctions or planning enforcement should the Home Office ever attempt to use a Harrow hotel. But without any such proposals on the table, the measure amounts to political theatre – more about posturing than policy.

Redevelopment of Travellers Rest refused – urban design in a suburban setting

Planning application PL/0378/25, for the redevelopment of the Travellers Rest, 134 Kenton Road, Harrow, into 109 residential units, 103 co-living units, and 62 Build-to-Rent units, was refused by the Planning Committee on 25 September 2025, despite a professional recommendation for approval.
The refusal, carefully drafted and formally proposed by the Chairman of Planning, Cllr Marilyn Ashton, was centred on the conclusion that the proposed development was overbearing and incongruous within a locality that is predominantly suburban in character. The Committee judged that the scheme’s design was far more urban in form, lacking conventional or contextually sympathetic features, and thereby appearing alien in the street scene.
The refusal reflected the Chairman’s advanced planning ability, and therefore, a more robust application of policy, recognising conflict with CS1 of the Harrow Core Strategy (2012), DM1 of the Development Management Policies (2013), GR1 of the emerging Local Plan (2021–2041), and D3 of the London Plan (2021).
In contrast, the officer’s report was considered insufficiently site-specific, overly strategic in emphasis, and deficient in its interpretation of policy. The recommendation to approve ultimately failed to withstand scrutiny because it did not grapple with the fundamental character conflict at the heart of the proposal.
The case illustrates how an officer-led recommendation can become imbalanced and strategically driven, placing disproportionate weight on housing delivery while being insensitive to local character and amenity.
The Committee’s decision underscores the importance of applying contextual design policies rigorously, ensuring that housing targets are delivered in ways that respect and enhance suburban identity rather than erode it.

Keeping Rayners Lane moving – trial of red route restrictions

The Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel meeting on 29 September 2025, will consider recommending an Experimental Traffic Order to the Leader of the Council to introduce red route restrictions in Rayners Lane Town Centre. The emergency order positively responds to the long-standing problem of double-parking along the high street.
The report presents strong evidence of persistent parking issues, recording more than 1,700 incidents across just three days, with parking stress levels reaching up to 118%. These figures highlight the inadequacy of existing enforcement and the urgent need for intervention.
Importantly, the proposal is framed within wider strategies, including the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy, the West London Transport Strategy, and the council’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP). This positioning makes clear that the red route trial is not merely a reactive measure but part of a consistent, long-term policy agenda under the leadership of Councillor David Ashton, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Highways.
The choice to use an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) is also significant. This mechanism enables real-world testing while allowing ongoing community engagement, balancing the need for swift action with democratic accountability.
A decision on whether to make a permanent order will go to Cabinet for approval.
However, several weaknesses remain. Ward councillors were not consulted before the report went to the panel, undermining political legitimacy and creating the risk of backlash if residents view the scheme as imposed rather than co-designed.
The proposed introduction of loading bays and 3-hour limits acknowledges business needs but gives insufficient attention to potential downsides for quick-stop parking, such as takeaway collections or services requiring flexible kerbside access. A more detailed economic impact assessment would help address these concerns.
Similarly, while the report references Blue Badge users and taxis, it lacks clarity on how disabled drivers, carers, or vulnerable groups will be supported. The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) is described as “evolving,” yet the absence of a more comprehensive upfront analysis could leave the scheme open to challenge.
Finally, enforcement remains a critical question. Although CCTV monitoring is mentioned, the report does not explain how consistently this will be resourced or funded. Without robust and visible enforcement, the red route risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a practical solution.

Deficient Harrow Planning Report: Travellers Rest Redevelopment

The officer report presented to Harrow’s Planning Committee on 25 September 2025 recommending approval of application PL/0378/25 – redevelopment of the Travellers Rest, 134 Kenton Road, into 109 residential units, 103 co-living units and 62 Build-to-Rent units – is marked by two striking ambiguities.
Silence on Sociocultural Implications of Co-living
The report records compliance with the London Plan’s technical requirements for large-scale co-living, noting minimum space standards, kitchen ratios, laundry facilities, and common areas such as gyms, lounges, and co-working spaces.
Yet it fails to consider how shared facilities might function in Harrow’s highly diverse sociocultural context, where communal living intersects with differing norms on food preparation, gendered space, intergenerational living, and religious practices.
Demographic realities ignored: Harrow’s 2021 Census shows 63.5% of residents are non-White, including 45.2% of Asian heritage, while 92% of pupils in Harrow schools are non-White as of 2023. The borough’s housing list reflects these patterns.
Planning blind spot: Co-living assumes a Westernised model of flexible, individualised living with shared kitchens and lounges. In Harrow, where extended families, culturally distinct diets, and privacy expectations dominate, such arrangements risk conflict, underuse of shared areas, or over-reliance on inadequate private space.
Policy vacuum: The report provides no framework for how management will mitigate cultural frictions, ensure fair service provision, or adapt communal spaces to diverse lifestyles. Nor does it address the absence of clear national or local policy guidance on how co-living interacts with multicultural housing needs.
By reducing “community impact” to tick-box compliance with space standards, the report abdicates its responsibility to assess whether the scheme fosters genuine inclusivity in Harrow’s context.
Dubious and Possibly Unenforceable Car Ownership Ban
The Section 106 obligations demand that tenancy agreements prohibit vehicle ownership and registration by residents. Tenants “shall not register any motor vehicle in their name or under their address within the jurisdiction of the development,” with violations leading to fines or towing.
This raises significant legal and practical concerns:
Beyond landlord powers: A landlord may restrict on-site parking, but an outright ban on owning a car – even if parked off-site – is unusual, arguably unreasonable, and potentially unenforceable.
Conflict with statutory requirements: The DVLA requires vehicle registration at the keeper’s actual residence, not an address selectively approved by a landlord. The planning condition therefore sets up a direct conflict between tenancy terms and statutory obligations.
Equity and exclusion: While exemptions exist for Blue Badge holders, the blanket prohibition risks disproportionately affecting workers reliant on vehicles, particularly in service economy where shift work and cross-borough travel are common.
The report attempts to justify the ban by framing it as part of a “car-free” development supported by Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) restrictions. Yet it neglects to grapple with enforceability issues, tenant rights, or likely displacement of parking into neighbouring streets – concerns already raised by local residents.
Conclusion: A Planning Report Detached from Reality
Harrow officers recommend approval of a scheme that ticks London Plan boxes but ignores Harrow’s specific conditions. On co-living, the report reduces cultural complexity to technical compliance; on parking, it proposes an unenforceable restriction that may invite legal challenge.
Planning cannot be divorced from social context or practical enforceability. By failing to engage with either, this report represents not due diligence, but a deficient exercise in planning bureaucracy, leaving the borough vulnerable to housing disharmony and legal disputes.

Harrow complaint over Mandelson–Epstein links dismissed by Lords watchdog, fuelling scrutiny of political self-policing

The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards has dismissed a complaint against Lord Mandelson over an alleged 2009 stay at Jeffrey Epstein’s home.
The complaint was lodged by Pamela Fitzpatrick, a long-time social justice campaigner, former Harrow councillor, and parliamentary candidate. She argued that Mandelson breached the Lords’ Code of Conduct by failing to declare hospitality he received.
At first, the Commissioner rejected her complaint on procedural grounds, saying the Code required such matters to be raised within six years. But Ms Fitzpatrick challenged the decision.
“The Commissioner was incorrect. I therefore challenged the refusal… The Commissioner for Standards subsequently accepted my interpretation of the code,” she said.
Even so, the Commissioner ruled the case did not meet the threshold for investigation. “The Conduct Committee must be satisfied that there is a strong public interest in the matter being investigated,” he said. “I did not pursue this course as I did not feel it met the relevant threshold under the Code.” He added that no evidence suggested the alleged hospitality related to Mandelson’s work as a peer.
Ms Fitzpatrick condemned the outcome as proof of a “broken system.” “Surely the Commissioner should be doing the investigating, not expecting members of the public to do their job,” she said, calling for a “complete overhaul” of the standards regime.
Her frustration echoes broader concerns over political self-policing. Critics argue that while codes of conduct exist for Lords and MPs, enforcement is narrow, opaque, and largely internal – giving the appearance of accountability while shielding officeholders from scrutiny. Available data supports this argument:
House of Lords (2020–25): 402 complaints received; 54 investigated; 22 referred to the Conduct Committee – just 5.5% of cases.
House of Commons (2020–25): 14,022 allegations and enquiries; 110 upheld; 26 referred to the Standards Committee – only 0.2% of cases.
Campaigners warn that without independent oversight, serious concerns about integrity risk being quietly buried, further eroding public trust in politics.

Mayor’s conduct sparks fresh concerns over council standards in Harrow

The role of Harrow’s mayoralty, traditionally seen as a position of dignity, impartiality, and unity, is again under scrutiny following scenes at the full council meeting on 18 September 2025.
Mayor Councillor Anjana Patel (Con), presiding over the meeting, clashed repeatedly with opposition leader Councillor David Perry (Lab), prompting growing unease over her handling of chamber proceedings.
In one heated exchange, Cllr Perry raised a point of order, only to be cut off by the Mayor.
“Point of order, Madam Mayor, point of order,” he began; “One minute, which point of order?” replied Mayor Patel.
As Cllr Perry sought to clarify, the Mayor raised her voice: “No, no, no, which point of order?”
Defending his conduct, Cllr Perry said that he has always behaved calmly in this chamber, and her earlier suggestion otherwise was wrong.
“I will never stop standing up for the procedures of this council. Whoever presides over council – whether it’s you or anybody else – I will continue to ask procedural motions whenever I see fit” he said.
Tensions escalated further during public questions, when Cllr Perry interjected: “I think we’ve heard a lot from you, and we’re really keen to hear more from the residents.”
Other councillors also expressed frustration. Cllr Graham Henson (Lab) tried to invoke standing order 17.1 over “a sarcastic comment” by the Conservative council leader about a fellow Labour councillor, but the Mayor appeared unreceptive.
The meeting also descended into confusion when a motion regarding an urgent motion, duly proposed and seconded, required a vote. The Mayor, seemingly unsure of procedure, had to be prompted to call it. She then snapped at Cllr Perry saying ‘you don’t even ask me. You just stood up and you spoke.’
These are not isolated incidents. At a previous meeting on 23 October 2024, Cllr Perry reported being interrupted and heckled during his speech. More damningly, he said three past Mayors of Harrow had privately complained to him about the “disrespectful and inappropriate” behaviour of the then Deputy Mayor, who allegedly heckled members and banged the Mayor’s gavel during proceedings, without any mandate to do so.
With Cllr Patel now Mayor, critics argue the behaviour has not improved – but “worsened”.
What is meant to be a role of neutrality and respect is fast becoming a flashpoint of conflict – leaving many to ask whether Harrow’s mayoralty is losing the trust of the chamber, and the public.

Video recording of the council meetings are available at the Harrow Council website.

Harrow MP loses ministerial role in Starmer reshuffle


Gareth Thomas, MP for Harrow West, has lost his post as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Business and Trade following the early September 2025 reshuffle triggered by Angela Rayner’s resignation.
While reshuffles are routine in government, this one has drawn criticism from the Labour left, who argue it reflects Sir Keir Starmer’s determination to promote figures closer to the party’s centre ground. Groups such as Momentum say the shake-up reduces ideological diversity in government and sidelines MPs with more left-leaning perspectives.
At the same time, political analysts view the changes as part of a broader strategic shift. Starmer is seeking to move beyond Labour’s first year in office into a delivery phase, with a stronger emphasis on growth, productivity and reassuring business. Peter Kyle, the new Business Secretary, has been tasked with spearheading this pro-growth agenda, focusing on start-ups, scale-ups and attracting investment.
Within that framework, the small business brief has been rebranded as “small business and economic transformation.” Blair McDougall, a close ally of the leadership, replaces Thomas in the role—a change seen as signalling both a tightening of political control and a reweighting of priorities towards transformation and growth.

Harrow SEND school politics

Harrow Council meets today (18 September 2025) to debate a motion from the ruling Conservative group demanding that the Labour Government honours the funding commitment for a new SEND school in the borough. With the Conservatives holding a majority, the motion is expected to pass.
It is important to note that the Harrow project at 265 The Ridgeway has not been cancelled. Instead, ministers are reassessing commitments made by their predecessors against tighter budget forecasts and shifting priorities.
The previous Conservative government committed to funding the SEND school, but that was under different budget forecasts and assumptions. The incoming Labour government may be revisiting large capital or operational commitments made by its predecessor to ensure they are still viable and affordable under current budgets and policy frameworks.
They may be reassessing whether the scale of capacity (292 places, a completely new site) is the most efficient or effective way to meet needs, vs alternatives (such as expansions of existing specialist provision or investing more in mainstream with SEN units).
There may be priority shifts in the new government’s SEND white paper. For example, more focus might be put on earlier intervention, or mainstream inclusion, rather than building many new specialist schools.
Also, the review could be because of reprioritise existing SEND spending across the country or broader cost pressures: high inflation, construction costs, land costs, staffing shortages, or cost escalations might have made the original estimates look less certain or more expensive.
The motion appears aimed more at scoring political points than at exploring how best to use available resources to ensure Harrow children are not forced into disruptive and costly placements outside the borough.

Harrow council: leadership gaps, weak services

Harrow council’s performance is a story of contrasts. Where cabinet members provide strong and visible, vote-winning leadership – or push initiatives that resonate with Reform-leaning or nationalistic voters – progress is clear.
In services affecting the most vulnerable, weak and undemanding leadership has left Harrow lagging behind more progressive London boroughs, for example where inadequate reports are not being properly scrutinised or challenged.
Statistically, Harrow sits in the lower half of London boroughs for deprivation, housing stress, and homelessness. Despite this, the council has failed to keep pace with peers in critical frontline services.
  • Children’s services: Rated “Inadequate” by Ofsted, with poor support for care leavers. A government Improvement Notice is now in place – a sign of systemic failure compared with some other London boroughs that maintain consistently higher standards.
  • Adult social care: The Care Quality Commission (CQC) rated Harrow “Requires Improvement”. Many London councils achieve “Good” or “Outstanding.”
  • Complaints handling: Ombudsman data shows a high proportion of cases upheld against Harrow, signalling both weak delivery and poor handling of residents’ concerns.
These are not marginal issues. Children’s services, adult social care and support for vulnerable adults account for around two-thirds of Harrow’s core budget. Failures here are not just service gaps – they represent systemic risks to the council’s financial stability and reputation.
Other boroughs, such as Barnet and Bromley, have shown how quickly services can be improved with clear political commitment, making the failing service a priority and cross-departmental focus. Harrow’s administration is in place for over three years but delivered little comparable progress, despite a favourable organisational structure where the rigidly turned-over senior management team remains closely aligned with the political leadership.
A key barrier is accountability. Senior managers undergo annual performance appraisals. Cabinet members, despite receiving generous council-funded allowances, do not. This double standard weakens trust and makes improvement harder to deliver, widening the gap with its London peers.
Harrow is not collapsing. But it is failing its responsibilities to its most vulnerable residents. Leadership has had the time and the resources to act. Without real accountability for councillors as well as officers, Harrow risks continued decline and a widening gap with its London peers.

Harrow parking fines set to rise – but will it work?

Harrow Council is consulting residents on proposals to increase parking fines, raising the question whether higher penalties will actually deter rule-breaking.
Currently, Harrow is classed as a Band B authority (higher £140, lower £90), but now considering moving to Band A (higher £160, lower £110) which would bring higher penalty charge notices (PCNs) for parking offences. Discounted rates still applying for payments made within 14 days. The change would not affect moving traffic contraventions, such as banned turns or box junction offences. The consultation runs until 26 Oct 2025.
The council argues that stronger penalties will encourage drivers to “think twice” before breaking the rules and could help make Harrow’s streets safer. But critics say this reads more like a case in favour of the increase than a neutral debate. It does not set out alternative approaches either, such as hiring more enforcement officers, improving signage, or running public awareness campaigns.
The effectiveness of the change may depend less on the fine itself and more on whether there are enough wardens, cameras, and monitoring in place to ensure a real risk of being penalised.
Practical issues add another layer: are there enough legal parking spaces, permit zones, or reliable public transport alternatives to make compliance realistic? Without these, some residents may see the fines as punishment rather than a genuine incentive to park responsibly.
The draft consultation further claims that nuisance parking “is in fact rising,” but does not provide supporting data, such as the number of PCNs issued or the volume of complaints received. Clear figures would help residents judge whether a tougher approach is justified.
Accessibility has also been questioned. At present, responses are being collected through an online survey, but campaigners say paper copies, translations, or alternative formats should be made available to ensure all residents can participate.
Residents can take part in the consultation by completing the survey on the council’s website before the deadline. The key question remains: will bigger fines actually solve Harrow’s parking problems – or simply raise more revenue without addressing the underlying causes?