Issa brothers suffer backlash over plans for UK's biggest Muslim cemetery
The billionaire Issa brothers have suffered a local backlash over plans to build Britain's biggest Muslim cemetery, with residents claiming the proposals will ruin the landscape.
More than 1,000 residents have lodged objections to the brothers' proposed graveyard, a local Tory councillor has claimed, with many concerned over the impact on local green belt land.
Mohsin and Zuber Issa are seeking to install 13,500 burial plots across 18.5 hectares in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire – a town that has a population of just 10,815.
New documents submitted by campaigners claim the cemetery, which will contain a funeral parlour and prayer halls, is 'unacceptable' because it will ruin the landscape and increase the risk of flooding.
They are urging the local council to reject the plan, which is being bankrolled by the brothers' charity, the Issa Foundation.
Zak Khan, a Conservative councillor working with the Say No To The Cemetery campaign group, accused the Issa brothers of trying to 'build their empire at the expense of ordinary people'.
He said: 'More than 1,000 objections have gone in from residents and they are still coming in thick and fast.
'The cemetery is not suitable and is creating community division. They are burning their legacy by trying to build over local communities that want to retain their identity.'
Concerns have also been raised over the 400-space car park that will accompany the site, which campaigners claim would increase road traffic and have a 'severe negative impact on the visual character of the green belt'.
The proposed cemetery marks the brothers' latest attempt to increase their influence in Lancashire, where they are also building a mosque with 95ft-high minarets and a £3m dental surgery.
It also marks a revival of the project after the brothers previously withdrew an application to build an 85-acre cemetery on the same site.
Mr Khan added: 'It's one of the last bits of green space, and the Issa brothers have already built massive units nearby. Why do they keep battering this community? There are plenty of other opportunities to build this thing elsewhere.
'They are not listening. They are making out it if it's as if it's what people want and that's wrong. Why build something in an area that's generating such opposition?
'They are trying to build their empire at the expense of ordinary people.'
Originally from Blackburn, the brothers have amassed a multibillion-pound fortune over the past two decades.
Much of this stems from a petrol forecourts empire they launched from a site in Bury in 2001, subsequently relying on cheap debt to snap up thousands of sites around the world.
The brothers went on to lead the £6.8bn debt-fuelled takeover of Asda alongside private equity firm TDR Capital in 2021.
However, ownership of the supermarket sparked problems for the brothers, who have repeatedly been forced to deny rumours of a rift.
Criticism of Asda's performance led to Zuber Issa selling his stake in Asda last year. He has since launched a new petrol forecourts business without his brother.
Meanwhile, Mohsin Issa remains a minority shareholder in Asda, although he stepped down from running the company's day-to-day operations last year.
Irfan Ali, at the Issa Foundation, said: 'Our charity, the Issa Foundation, is committed to supporting the communities we serve, and we are proud to be part of the development of a cemetery in Accrington – a vital community asset that meets an essential need and significantly enhances the current space.'We continue to listen, and respect and value the feedback received from all stakeholders throughout this process. In line with our commitment to transparency and thoroughness, professional advisers have carefully undertaken the necessary development considerations.
'Also, based on our public consultation early this year, we have significantly reduced the scheme to reflect the concerns of residents. The proposed cemetery design and development, along with the necessary reports, have been incorporated into a revised planning application and submitted for council review and approval.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ban on travel shows what he's learned
When President Donald Trump abruptly unleashed his ban on people coming from Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos erupted at U.S. airports. Protests broke out in major cities across the country. Legal challenges stymied the administration, which ultimately had to slim down its order to pass constitutional muster. This time, as Trump leveled new restrictions against 19 nations, the reaction was mostly muted and the legal justification appears more deliberate. It's the nature of the do-over presidency, which has provided Trump with a unique opportunity to build on his first term. And no policy better captures the way in which Trump is demonstrating he's learned from past mistakes or benefitting from a Democratic party less inclined to fight over border security quite like his travel ban 2.0. 'The first version of those travel restrictions were not upheld because the court wanted to see 'what's your methodology, what's the criteria in which you're making these national security decisions?' said Chad Wolf, acting DHS secretary during the president's first term. 'And then once we went back and further validated it and showed the court, they affirmed it. So I definitely think that they built on that, and then probably expanded it as well.' Trump has used his first five months in office to propose a host of immigration-related ideas that he batted around during his first term but ultimately did not pursue, including an attempt to end birthright citizenship and a plan to revoke Chinese student visas. His team has also taken on an aggressive legal strategy, an effort designed to expand the president's power over the immigration system and implement policy changes more difficult for future presidents to unravel. And Trump released dozens of immigration executive orders in his first week in office, many that directed his agencies to begin exploring the sweeping restrictions he promised on the campaign trail — a torrent of action that wouldn't have been possible without the coordination across the president's team, MAGA allies and conservative think tanks that spent the last four years planning a robust policy agenda. To be sure, lawsuits over the new travel ban are in the works. Immigration advocates and some legal experts say the new ban, while perhaps better planned than the original version, is nonetheless unconstitutional. 'The new ban is being promulgated in a context in which President Trump has shown a defiance of due process and disregard for judicial decisions that exceeds anything in his first term,' said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor at Seton Hall. 'This will also likely factor in how courts evaluate the new travel ban, and could make them more skeptical of the administration's claims but also more wary of directly confronting the administration.' And more broadly, the president's immigration agenda has faced several setbacks, adverse legal rulings and a haphazard approach that has often undermined the administration's case in court. Judges have said immigrants have been wrongly deported — without due process — and have blocked Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that the White House relied upon for authority to deport more than 100 accused of gang membership to an El Salvadoran prison. And his hurried deportations tactics have resulted in at least four men being improperly deported in violation of court orders. The administration was forced to bring one of them back to the U.S. in recent days. The White House has also faced steep hurdles in other aspects of its immigration agenda. Judges ruled that his executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship was flagrantly unconstitutional, and the policy faced skepticism from the Supreme Court last month. But when it comes to his new travel ban, legal experts on both sides of the aisle say the president is likely on stronger footing should he face challenges. "Under Trump 2.0 there's been an aspect of doing that legwork in advance, so that it would fall under those parameters,' said Morgan Bailey, a partner at Mayer Brown and a former senior official at DHS under the Biden and Trump administrations. 'There may be some challenges. At the same time, having the Supreme Court decision from Trump 1.0 could put this administration in a really strong position.' Trump's team has been refining his latest travel ban for months, marking a departure from his slapdash approach in 2017. The president on Wednesday said the State Department considered factors such as terrorist activity, visa security cooperation, a country's ability to verify travelers' identities, record keeping of nationals' criminal histories, as well as the rate of illegal visa overstays. The proclamation also broke down the government's reasoning for each country's selection, as well as their visa overstay rates. 'Campaigning is a lot about policy and planning, and governing is about the now and reacting, so this has been a true mix' said Matthew Bartlett, a GOP strategist and former Trump administration appointee. 'Granted, Trump take two has been arguably the largest runway any president has ever had in terms of preparing for their second term. So I think you're seeing more of the granular and nuanced implementation around some of these policies.' Trump's 2017 restrictions shocked the nation, and legal setbacks forced the administration to alter the policy twice before the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a version the following year, affirming the president's powers over matters of national security. The final policy implemented a range of travel restrictions for nationals of eight countries — Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea, Chad and Venezuela. Chad was later removed from the list. And almost immediately after that first order was announced, thousands of protesters marched in cities across the country, while attorneys from major law firms, nonprofits and immigrant rights groups ran to airports to help those detained. There was widespread Democratic outcry in Washington and beyond, and the so-called 'Muslim ban' emerged as a major issue in the 2020 Democratic Primary — with then-President Joe Biden reversing the policy on his first day in the White House. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats have abandoned claims that Trump's first-term policy was a 'Muslim ban' and 'their performative protests,' adding that the president is 'keeping his promises to put America first.' This executive order has also been met with far less outrage, in part, because of the administration's effort to flood the zone and keep their opponents off balance. 'There's just so many attacks coming from the Trump administration on all fronts,' said Kerri Talbot, co-director of the Immigration Hub, predicting that when the new order takes effect on Monday, there will be coordinated demonstrations. But the more methodical way in which this ban on travel was issued may give it greater staying power. The 2017 ban applied to U.S. citizens traveling from the nations on Trump's original list and because it went into effect immediately, it affected people on planes flying back into the country. The ban issued late Wednesday does not apply to those with legal status in the U.S., and includes exemptions for existing visa holders, lawful permanent residents and some others. While the political pushback may be scarce, Trump wasn't the only one who had extra time to prepare for his second term. Immigration groups and legal organizations have analyzed Trump's proposals, drafted legal briefs, coordinated messaging and organized aid for immigrants and asylum seekers — preparation that has set up a series of contentious court battles. Trump allies are prepared for the possibility that travel ban 2.0 could face challenges in the courts, though they're much more confident given the 2018 SCOTUS ruling. 'I have no doubt that they believe that you can get some lower court judge to issue an injunction where they claim that somehow this order is different from the prior order,' said Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal and judicial studies fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. 'But they will lose.' Brakkton Booker and Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Reform UK struggles to find friends to share council power
Reform UK's success in the recent local elections has propelled many councillors with limited or no political experience into council chambers across England. While Reform UK's rise was the big story of those elections, almost half of the councils up for grabs were not won outright by any single party. That means many of those newbie councillors are now navigating so-called hung councils, where parties with little in common often work together to get the business of local government done. But so far, it hasn't panned out that way for Reform UK, which isn't involved in any formal coalitions, pacts or deals in areas where there were local elections this year. This was despite rampant speculation about Reform-Conservative coalitions ahead of the polls, with party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage not ruling out council deals. So, what's going on? In some places - Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire - Reform UK has enough councillors to form minority administrations and is attempting to govern alone. In other areas where coalitions were possible, Reform UK has either shunned co-operation or vice versa. Where Reform UK has explored potential partnerships locally, its policies have been viewed with suspicion by the established parties. In Cornwall, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives refused to work with Reform UK, even though it was the biggest party and had won the most seats. Instead, the Lib Dems teamed up with independent councillors to run Cornwall Council as a minority administration. That infuriated Reform UK's group leader in Cornwall, Rob Parsonage, who branded the coalition deal "undemocratic" and "a total stitch-up". Did other parties contrive to exclude Reform UK? The newly minted Lib Dem council leader, Leigh Frost, does not think so. "The reality is our core values at heart of it just stand for two very different things and it makes working together incompatible," Frost told the BBC. "And then Reform was given two weeks to try to form an administration and chose not to." Frost said Reform UK's Cornwall candidates mainly campaigned on immigration. This was echoed in conversations with other local party leaders across the country. The BBC was told Reform's candidates had little local policy to offer and mostly focused on national issues, such as stopping small boats crossing the English Channel. Slashing "wasteful spending" by councils, like Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in the US, was also a common campaign theme. In Worcestershire, where Reform won the most seats but fell short of a majority, the party's supposed lack of local policy was a major sticking point for the Conservatives. "They haven't got a local prospectus and that was part of the problem," said Adam Kent, Tory group leader on Worcestershire County Council. "They didn't stand on any local issues. It was on national politics. How can you go into coalition with somebody if you don't even know what they stand for?" Joanne Monk, the Reform UK council leader in the county, said she only had "a brief couple of chats" with other party leaders but was uncompromising on coalitions. "I'm damned sure we're not on the same wavelength," she said. She followed the lead of Farage, who ruled out formal coalitions at council level but said "in the interests of local people we'll do deals", in comments ahead of the local elections. In Worcestershire, Reform UK's minority administration may need to do deals to pass key decisions and avoid other parties banding together to veto their plans. Recognising this, she acknowledged other parties were "going to have to work with us at some point". In Northumberland, the Conservatives retained their position as the largest party and gave the impression they were willing to entertain coalition talks with Reform UK, which gained 23 seats. "I said I would work with anyone and my door is open," said Conservative council leader Glen Sanderson. "But Reform the next day put out a press release saying the price for working with the Conservatives would be extremely high. So on that basis, I assumed that was the door closed on me." No talks were held and the Conservatives formed a minority administration. Weeks had passed after the local elections before Mark Peart was voted in as Reform UK's local group leader in the county. As a result, he wasn't in a position to talk to anybody. "Everything had already been agreed," Peart said. "It was too late." Reform UK sources admitted the party was caught a bit flat-footed here and elsewhere as many of its new councillors got the grips with their new jobs in the weeks following the local elections. A support network for those councillors, in the form of training sessions and a local branch system, is being developed by the party. But this week Zia Yusuf, one of the key architects behind that professionalisation drive and the Doge cost-cutting initiative, resigned as party chairman, leaving a gap in the party's leadership. Reform UK's deputy leader, Richard Tice, said the party's success at the local elections "was partly because of the significant efforts and improvements to the infrastructure of the party" spearheaded by Yusuf. Though Yusuf is gone, the party has considerably strengthened its foundations at local level, after gaining 677 new councillors and two mayors. A Reform UK source said party bosses will be keeping an eye out for stand-out councillors who could go on to become parliamentary candidates before the general election. They said in areas where Reform UK runs councils as a minority administration, it's going to take some compromise with other parties and independents to pass budgets and key policies. In the messy world of town halls and council chambers, that could be a tough apprenticeship. Reform UK prepares for real power on a council it now dominates Sir John Curtice: The map that shows Reform's triumph was much more than a protest vote Reform UK makes big gains in English local elections
