Brent Planning Committee: Were opponents of the Thanet Lodge application 'nobbled'?

 

 

Brent Planning Committee on July 2nd was far from routine. The application for regeneration of the Wembley Hospital site was eventually deferred after an initial decision in favour was overturned when it was revealed that one councillor who had been in favour was found not to have attended throughout. The vote had passed on the Chair's casting vote. The disqualification meant that the vote was now against. When David Glover raised doubts about the validity of some of the councillors' reasons for opposing grant planning permission, the item was deferred to a future meeting.

The last application  heard was to build a house on land currently used for Thanet Lodge garages in Brondesbury Park. This was even more controversial with a resident alleging intimidation by the applicant of Thetford Lodge leaseholders who opposed the development. This had led to some of them fearing going public with their opposition on the Brent Council Planning Portal. In a presentation to the Committee the resident gave examples of intimidation and said that the application should not proceed as there had not been a fair and full consultation process.

The Chair, Saqib Butt, David Glover, Head of Planning and Development Services, and the Planning Legal Officer combined to say that this was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account.

The resident was supported  by Cllr Ryan Hack, ward councillor for Brondesbury Park who repeated the bullying claims and suggested it was similar to 'nobbling a jury'. Officers remained adamant and I had the feeling that even if an applicant had buried his opponents under a car park it would still have not been enough to stop a hearing. 

The resident said that he had reported the intimidation to the police who had expressed concern but did not have the resources to follow up.

The applicant's agent denied that intimidation had taken place and dismissed the representations as 'theatricals' and said councillors has been 'bamboozled'. He suggested that out of 60 letters sent out, there had been 20 responses which was a good response rate. All responses had been against the proposal.

Having expressed concern over a 'compromised' process. Cllr Suzanne Gallagher, explored the applicant's claim that this  was a self-build project and as such exempt from paying Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  and meeting Biological Net Gain targets.  She raised doubts about the validity of the self-build claim after looking up the definition and legislation..

With doubts piling up David Glover appeared to have been doing some internet searching of his own and intervened to say that there appeared to be problems with the ownership certificate for the site.

The Committee agreed to defer this application 'to allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build'.  

 

If you have time it is well worth watching the video above. The item was discussed for almost an hour.

 

 

 

'Stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in the South Kilburn high density building area' - Plea to save Granville Rec

 

South Kilburn residents stand up to to show their support for Granville Rec at the Council Meeting 

 

This is the speech Leslie Barson made about the Granville Rec, a rare mature greem space in South Kilburn:

   

I'd like to thank Pete Firmin, for presenting an overview of the structural problems  that we face in South Kilburn for more than twenty years. It's important to address this new council at the beginning of its term for you to know about the situation in South Kilburn. I'm here from Granville Community Kitchen and have worked at the Granville and South Kilburn for more than 30 years. I want to talk about saving a small pocket park on Granville Road, which residents named The Granville Recreation Ground, The Rec.

 

The history of this small space is that it was opened in 2009 when Granville New Homes were built on much of the open space that had been on Granville Road.  The Rec was built to replace open space lost at that time.  Unfortunately, there was no money to manage it.  It fell into disrepair and became a site for anti-social behaviour. With the eventual outcome that about 2011, it was locked permanently. 

 

It was then left abandoned, unused and unloved until 2023, when it was given to Granville Community Kitchen as a temporary place to grow food. GCK lost its garden space with the building of the new garden hall built in the garden at the front of Granville. 

 

After working hard for our first year uncovering the Rec, we have been able to fill it with flowers,  food.  Children, families, elderly people, the isolated, and learning projects for children, young people and adults.

 

We have shown that if it is managed well the Rec can be lovely, wanted, much used place and an asset to residents for their mental and physical health as well as an asset to environmental health and even supporting economic health giving residents vegetables and upskilling volunteers toward possible employment. 

 

In 3 years we have been managing the Rec we have brought it back to life

 

In 2025 alone:

 

407 visitors to education sessions

275 school learners

1102 educational sessions

2 open events with over 100 people attending 

And volunteers sessions twice a week

 

It is used by

Brent family services

Salisbury world refugee project

Local people birthday parties

Over 100 kg of veg distributed to volunteers , community meals and local residents 

 

The regeneration plans to build 14 new homes 4 stories high, completely covering the site with buildings.

 

In these plans a new space bigger than Rec and relocated on the edge of the estate near Kilburn Park tube is to be made as a ‘replacement’. It is called a ‘pedestrianised environment’ and is 10002m bigger than Rec but with trees planted in regimented rows with a road and parking going through this pedestrian area. 

 

There are many reasons why we object to this plan and why this pedestrianised area is NOT a replacement for the loss of old biodiverse land.

 

1.Location and Accessibility

The existing park is centrally located within the South Kilburn estate, making it easily accessible to residents. The proposed replacement would be situated on the edge of the estate, reducing its integration with the community.

2.Size and Usability:  

 

While the new space is technically larger (2500 sqm vs. 1500 sqm), much of this area includes roads and parking. This results in:

· Reduced safe, usable space for recreation

· Only four small designated "safe spaces" within the park

· An overall decrease in pleasant, car-free areas for residents to enjoy

 

3.Conflicts with Brent Councils Policies and Goals

The current Granville Recreation Ground aligns with and supports several key Brent Council policies:

1. Climate Emergency Declaration (2019, updated 2021): Helps achieve the goal of becoming the greenest borough by 2030.
2. Clean Air Targets: Contributes to improved air quality in the area
3. Green Infrastructure Vision: Provides valuable green space within the urban environment.
4. Health Equity: Offers a natural space that promotes better health outcomes and reduces inequalities.

4.Biodiversity and Ecological Value

The existing park boasts significant biodiversity with its mature trees, diverse plant life, and undisturbed areas. The planned replacement, with its manicured design, would severely limit the potential for supporting a rich ecosystem.

5.Community Amenities

Replacing the Granville Recreation Ground with this proposed pedestrian area would result in a net loss of valuable community space and amenities, particularly in an area slated for high-density housing development.

6.Natural vs Designed Landscape

The Rec offers a more natural, wild environment with mature vegetation. In contrast, the proposed pedestrian area  is highly designed with:

·       Trees planted in regimented rows along roads

·       Less opportunity for biodiversity and natural growth

·       Reduced foraging opportunities for wildlife and residents

We have  been asking for the last year that the plans be changed for The Rec and it to be left as a park for residents. We have a Petition with nearly 1000 signatures,

 

I now, ask all  the supporters of the Rec  who made the long expensive and time consuming journey from SK to please stand up show their support to stop any building on the Rec

 

We implore the Councillors to  listen  to those who live and work in South Kilburn, rethink the plans for the Rec  and stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in such a high density building area. Please, you have the power to do this! Save the Granville Rec!

A group of Labour councillors start the fight back against the democratic restrictions of the National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions,

 

 

A group of Labour Councillors supported by Chris Hinchliff MP (LINK) are organising against the  National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions that reduces the role of planning committees and local residents in planning decisions. the Scheme comes into effect on October 31st.  SEE LINK

 

Given the lingering influence of ex-councillor Shama Tatler, now in Labour high places and the YIMBY (Yes in My Back Yard) movement, I rather doubt if any of our Labour councillors will sign the above but here is the link - just in case: GOOGLE DOC

Powers of local council planning committees to be further reduced - what are the implications for Brent?

Recently elected councillors to Brent Council's Planning Committee will likely find their powers severely reduced when the  National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Decisions comes into force on October 31st 2026. Councillors will finding themselves less able to represent local residents than even current restriction,  with more decisions made by Brent Council Officers. 

The is  current Labour Government legislation and part of their growth agenda, It  flies in the face of Andy Burham's 'communities first' and de-centralisation agenda.

Foot Anstey LINK explain;

Regulations due to come into force on 31 October will introduce a new framework governing how planning applications are determined by local planning authorities in England. The National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions is intended to standardise decision-making and reduce reliance on planning committees.

 

The latest figures show that 96% of planning applications in England are already determined under delegated powers, a figure that has remained stable since 2014[1]. These Regulations are expected to increase that proportion further.

 

How applications will be categorised

 

The Regulations divide applications into two broad categories.

 

Schedule 1 applications include:

 

• Householder applications
• Minor commercial development
• Minor residential development
• Applications for permission in principle

 

Schedule 2 applications comprise all other applications, together with related consents and applications, including:

 

• Major planning applications
• Applications for listed building consent and related variations
• Section 73 applications (where connected to a Schedule 2 application)
• Reserved matters approvals linked to large outline permissions
• Applications to modify or discharge planning obligations (where connected to a Schedule 2 application)

 

In practice, Schedule 2 applications generally cover more complex and strategically important development.

 

Most decisions will be made by officers

 

Schedule 1 applications must be determined by planning officers. For Schedule 2 applications, there is an “overriding presumption” in favour of determination by officers rather than by planning committee.

 

Referral to committee will only be justified if at least one of two statutory criteria is met:

 

• the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area; or
• the application raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and other material considerations

 

This introduces a restrictive statutory test. In practice, the threshold for committee involvement will be high.

 

What counts as “significant”?

 

The guidance recognises that “significance” will vary by context, but indicates how this is likely to be interpreted in practice.

 

Examples of applications that may meet the threshold include:

 

• A large, multi-phase residential development, even if allocated in the local plan
• The loss of a community facility, such as a rural shop
• Works affecting a notable listed building in a town centre 

 

By contrast, applications are unlikely to raise a significant planning matter where:

 

• They broadly comply with an up-to-date development plan and national policy; and
• Any initial technical objections from statutory consultees have been resolved

 

This points towards a more policy-led system in which compliant proposals are less likely to be subject to committee scrutiny.

 

Actions required before 31 October

 

Many local planning authorities currently operate “call-in” arrangements, allowing councillors to refer applications to committee, or provide for automatic referral where a certain number of objections are received.

 

These provisions will not be compatible with the new Regulations and will need to be revised. Authorities will therefore need to amend their constitutions before 31 October to align with the new framework.

 

The risks of non-compliance are material. Decisions taken by the wrong decision-maker may be vulnerable to judicial review and could be quashed, creating delay and cost.

 

A shift in decision-making?

 

The National Scheme of Delegation represents a clear shift towards a more streamlined, officer-led system of determining planning applications.

 

While this is likely to improve consistency and efficiency, it also raises questions about the role of elected members in the planning process. In particular, this may reduce opportunities for local political engagement in individual applications, particularly where proposals accord with the development plan. [Editor's emphasis]

 

Much will depend on how authorities interpret “significance” in practice and how sparingly committee referral is applied within the new statutory framework.

 

Key takeaways:

 

For local planning authorities:

 

• Constitutions should be updated before 31 October to remove non-compliant provisions
• Decision-making processes should align with the new statutory tests

 

For developers and promoters:

 

• A greater proportion of applications will be determined by officers
• The “significance” threshold will be critical in determining whether committee involvement is possible
• Decisions taken at the wrong level may be open to legal challenge
• The decision-making route and any assessment of significance should be clearly recorded by the authority

---

[1] Planning applications in England: January to March 2026 - statistical release - GOV.UK

 

Green councillor seeks specific assurances on potential defects and repairs in the South Kilburn regeneration, and sales to 'predatory, rent seeking, private equity firms'

 

 

The Brent Green Group of councillors are clearly intent on delivering their local election manifesto pledging that they will ensure scrutiny and accountability of Brent Council decisions.

Cllr Paul Ryan (Green, Kilburn) has followed up his supplementary question to Cllr Kelcher* (Cabinet lead for Regeneration) on South Kilburn (above) with the letter below which is awaiting a response. This follows Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Council of a resident's view of regeneration issues in South Kilburn.

The Council is due to appoint a single development partner for the remainder of the South Kilburn  Regeneration in September.

THE LETTER 

Dear Cllr Kelcher,

I am writing to you to follow up on some of the questions posed to you and the impassioned deputations made by South Kilburn residents at the latest Full Council meeting in relation to South Kilburn regeneration and the upcoming awarding of the single delivery contract.

I would firstly like to thank you for communicating your willingness to further engage with South Kilburn stakeholders to reach a decision and a contractual framework that is most beneficial for the residents of South Kilburn and I hope that this is something that can be demonstrated and borne out in the coming days, weeks and months.

Unfortunately due to the time constraints of full council meetings we were unable to fully engage with many of the issues raised, so I am writing to seek clarity and more detailed and extensive responses to some of the issues raised.

Contractor Accountability

I am sure you noticed that, in both the questions I posed to you and the deputation presented by local resident Pete Firmin, the issue of structural defects and a lack of stringent build quality are pervasive themes throughout South Kilburn regeneration. Unfortunately, I and may residents feel that your abridged answer did not sufficiently address the issues raised, so I would like to use this opportunity to get a more detailed and specific answer.

The points that you, and the broader Neighbourhoods and Regeneration team have raised regarding the need for the prospective single-delivery contractor to be a long-term collaborative partner is well taken but, considering the history of defects and negligence throughout South Kilburn regeneration, will you be seeking clear contractual guarantees that the cost of any potential repairs arising as a result of structural defects will explicitly and exclusively rest with the contractor responsible for those defects. Additionally, is the Council placing mechanisms in place to ensure these repairs are carried out in a swift manner.

Private Equity

During the full council meeting, I raised the decision authorised by Neighbourhoods and Regeneration that would allow Countryside Properties to sell 143 new build units in SK to US private equity firm Principal Asset Management. Unfortunately you did not respond to this during the Full Council Meeting, but can you now confirm if the Council will commit to ensuring that, in the midst of a housing crisis, it will not allow any more units in South Kilburn regeneration to be sold to predatory, rent seeking private equity firms. 

Granville Rec

In response, to Leslie Barron's deputation in relation to protecting Granville Rec, you did not provide assurances that this vital community space would be protected and intimated that the Save the Rec activists present should be cognisant that this land would be used for social family housing. This has been interpreted by some residents as a cynical attempt to override the wishes of local residents by portraying them as opponents to social housing.

Is there express guarantees that any construction on the Granville Rec will all be social housing? Additionally, considering the scale and scope of investment in South Kilburn regeneration, have efforts been made to move these units to an alternative location?

Can you also assure local residents, that if the Granville Rec is destroyed, that they will be provided with an alternative space that is similarly bio-diverse? Will this space provide a comparable amount of unobstructed, uninterrupted green space that can feasibly fulfil the existing functions of the Granville Rec; namely a community garden and social space. If these guarantees cannot be provided, can you assure residents that you will endeavour to do everything in your power to ensure that this vital community space is protected.

Community Engagement

I appreciate that as Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, you have quite an extensive portfolio. However, considering the enormity and impact of this project, would you be willing to attend a walking tour of South Kilburn arranged by the South Kilburn Residents Panel. This would give you an opportunity to understand the concerns and trepidation of residents and would be a show of good faith to demonstrate that they have a collaborator in the Council who is willing to listen and engage with them.

I look forward to receiving your detailed and thorough responses to the above and to continue working with you and delivering for South Kilburn residents at this critical juncture.

Kind regards,

Cllr Paul Ryan

Councillor for Kilburn Ward

Cllr.Paul.Ryan@brent.gov.uk

More problems for residents of troubled Forum House and Quadrant Court - unsafe balconies and a shattered glass balustrade

 

Forum House built 2009

 Quadrant Court built 2010

 

Residents of two of the earliest buildings constructed as part of the multi-million Wembley Park regeneration received a warning letter today from the latest of their managing agents MLM Property. LRM and First Port having been removed.

MLM asked for immediate access today to the Quadrant Court Winter Garden balconies to carry out inspections.  

They said:

We have recently become aware that some of the winter Gardens balconies glass fixings have deteriorated over time and the railings securing the glass have, in a limited number of balconies become unstable. This is clearly a serious issue, and is a priority to have resolved as soon as possible.

We have recently completed inspections of all 60 Winter Garden balconies in Form House (on elevations to Empire Way and corner of Lakeside Way) with 2 requiring requiring immediate intervention (with the glass already being removed as a safety measure), with a further 17 requiring temporary supports whilst a permanent solution is devised. 

The seriousness of the situation for the public as well as residents is clear from the warni:

In the meantime, the instruction not to use these balconies remains in places and the cordon of the footpath below will remain in place for the time being as an additional measure for everyone's continued safety.

Both buildings, post-Grenfell, were found to have cladding problems and other fire safety issues, fire patrols necessary  and residents faced significant increases in service charges.

MLM note a further worrying issue:

Additionally, you may be aware that a glass balustrade recently shattered during the very hot spell of weather. At  this time, we believe this incident is not connected to the issues identified in the Winter Garden balconies. We are arranging additional inspections of these balconies and whist priority is being given to the Winter Garden types, we expect to complete these inspections within the next month if possible.

Anticipating the first question that residents are likely to ask on reading the letter MLM say:

Whilst investigations are ongoing it would be inappropriate to speculate on what is causing these failures, however, we wish to assure you that these inspections are thorough and are being professionally documented so that we can advise you further on causes and remedial actions needed. 

Forum House and Quadrant Court were designed and built by Sisk for £43m and £45m respectively.

It seems that South Kilburn is not the only Brent regeneration area facing problems.

 

 

 

Swathes of South Kilburn left to decline in anticipation of regeneration that will barely increase the number of social rent homes

 

The commemorative plaque on a South Kilburn building that needed remediation work a decade after opening

 

South Kilburn resident and local activist Pete Firmin addressed Brent Council this week on the reality of living on this flagship regeneration project,         

 

Survivors of the Grenfell Tower tragedy talk of 2 main lessons – organisations must be accountable and residents must be at the heart of all decisions which affect them.

 

The minutes of the Council’s Community Wellbeing and Scrutiny Committee state “It is essential that tenants are placed at the centre of everything the Council does. Safe, secure and decent homes are a foundation for a fair and thriving borough and are not optional for any responsible housing authority.“

 

New buildings in South Kilburn have won awards from architects and planners. But residents know that pretty much every new block has major problems, such as scaffolding up for years to remove flammable cladding, or mould, heating and hot water issues. New flats are poor quality, often smaller and more expensive than the previous council flats. When a resident who has been living in a new flat for 10 years says she would move back into her old flat like a shot, you know there is a problem.

 

2 blocks have to be completely refurbished. Work has still not started on Granville New Homes, despite the report pointing out that refurbishment was necessary having been published in 2017. Instead, residents suffer repeated problems with utilities and there is a 24-hour fire watch around the buildings. Yet the company that did such a botch job with Granville New Homes has been awarded further contracts by Brent.

 

We have swathes of South Kilburn left to decline in anticipation of regeneration.

 

Time and again, Brent has not foreseen that decanting residents from blocks and not securing empty flats left them open to illegal anti-social behaviour, endangering other residents.

 

When shops in Stafford Road were flooded because of squatters after the Council had not secured the buildings the Council did nothing to assist those who had premises there and have lost their livelihoods.

 

Regeneration isn’t addressing bringing down Brent’s waiting list. At the end of regeneration - another 20 years - there will barely be more social rent homes - i.e. ones which people can actually afford - than before it started. Instead, expensive homes are bought up on a buy-to-let basis. The latest wheeze being to sell them en bloc to a U.S.-based private equity company, because the market for such homes in London is “challenging”. So why are we building homes no-one can afford?  Meanwhile, residents are priced out of the area. Research elsewhere in London shows that such gentrification contributes to falling school rolls and school closures.

 

What else were residents told we would get in addition to new flats? Among other things, 2 new `healthy living centres’ (we have 1 new GPs surgery, delivered years late), a new sports centre, a new community centre. No sign of them.

 

There is a systemic rubbish problem across South Kilburn, which the Council fails to tackle, There is the scandal of the ex job centre in Cambridge Avenue where residents have been asking the Council to take action against the owners over the accumulation of rubbish. For 8 years residents were told this was too difficult,  before the Council finally instigated court action, but still the rubbish accumulates.

 

From the start of regeneration residents urged that there be proper coordination with the many Housing Associations brought into the area, because of potential conflicts over who is responsible for the upkeep of different areas. Those conflicts continue.

 

Then there are the lesser issues - a chairlift broken for years, fire extinguishers not checked for years, broken panes of glass in entry doors which take a year to replace.

 

In my block, contractors told the Council last year that our flat doors are not fire-safety compliant, yet, despite asking, we have no idea whether the Council intends to do anything about this.

 

Having persuaded HS2 to build its vent shaft in South Kilburn, Brent doesn’t engage with residents affected by this. Residents in Alpha House got letters from HS2 earlier this year saying HS2 would monitor the block for movement now they are tunnelling further towards Euston. Attempts to get reassurance from Brent around this meet a brick wall.

 

Residents at the centre of things!? That would explain why residents associations are denied use of communal halls in their buildings for years, why no new blocks have such rooms, why Brent Council talks of residents associations as part of its “team” when it wants anything, but fails to deliver the services it should.

 

You may have heard of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan, endorsed by both Brent and Camden Council. But Brent insisted that South Kilburn could not be included in the plan. This excluded South Kilburn residents from having any say - or vote - in what the plan said about the Kilburn High Road and other areas of Kilburn which concern them as much as those who did have a vote.

 

The South Kilburn residents panel, consisting entirely of South Kilburn residents, has been established and is hoping to move to a fully elected body addressing the concerns of South Kilburn residents. It has been given a small say in the next phase of regeneration. Yet Brent Council refuses to assist with its running costs, at the same time as announcing it will pay £5,000 compensation to the chair of a body it appoints in Harlesden.

 

Time and again senior council officers and councillors have visited and told us how concerned they are at the problems of South Kilburn and nothing gets done. Time and again we are told of reorganisation of Council departments and nothing changes.

 

Residents themselves fill the space with no support from Council at all, such as the Carnivale last weekend, attended by 600 people with zero assistance from Council.

 

On Friday a Council officer organised contractors to deal with several issues around our part of South Kilburn which have been outstanding for years. The catch? The officer said they had been taken off dealing with estates but was dealing with these issues off their own bat because they were so embarrassed at repeatedly putting in work orders and nothing happening.