Stand up for the Palestinians tomorrow. Join the march. 12 noon Russell Square to Whitehall

 

Palestine and Gaza may be out of the headlines but Palestinians continue to suffer, and die or are wounded, despite the so-called ceasefire. Some from continued Israeli aggression and others from cold or malnutrition with no homes or shelter apart from flimsy tents or ruined houses. Food and medical supplies shortages continue.

Against that background President Trump, in an old-fashioned imperialist project, is set to annex Gaza and expel its population aided by ex-UK premier Tony Blair.

 

Keep up the pressure and join the march tomorrow. Look out for the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign banner at the meeting point on the corner of Bedford Way and Russell Square.

We will not be silenced. 

Poetry In Wembley: 'Roots' - Jane Clarke, Jessican Mookherjee and perhaps YOU! Thursday March 5th at Wembley Library, Brent Civic Centre, Wembley Park

 

I am sharing this early to give our poets in Brent a chance to write a poem, ot choose a favourite poem, to share alongside published poets at an Open Mic on Thursday 5th March.        

From Poetry in Wembley: Roots

 

Join us for a festival of Poetry at Wembley Library with poets, Jane Clarke and Jessica Mookherjee followed by Open Mic.

 

Local poets bring and read your own poems or poems you love to share.

 

Irish poet Jane Clarke reads from her latest collection A Change in the Air which was shortlisted for both the T S Eliot Prize and the Forward Prize for Best Collection in 2023. Her moving poetry of people and place explores our kinship with each other and the natural world.

 

“Her verse attends so closely to the land and the people of her rural homeland that it makes us attend more closely to our own”. Ron Charles, Book Critic at the Washington Post.

 

Jessica Mookherjee is a British poet of Bengali heritage and grew up in Wales and London, now lives in Kent. She has been published in many print and online journals and anthologies and was twice highly commended for best single poem in the Forward Prize 2017 and 2021.

 

Author of 3 full collections from Nine Arches Press, her second collection , Tigress, was shortlisted for the Ledbury Prize in 202.

 

This event is funded by “Love Where You Live” Project and Star Books

Free: Tickets  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/poetry-in-wembley-roots-tickets-1979854864195

 Booking recommended.

 

As an encouragement here is a video of poetry written by Brent children as part of the 2020 Borough of Culture. Covid put paid to plans for a huge poetry slam so some of the poems were shared on YouTube instead:

  

Petition to Halt the Proposed Hotel Development at Samovar Space and Wembley Park Market Square (Plot NW04)

 

A Wembley Matters reader  in Wembley Park writes:

Quintain's 'pro-active' 'consultation' with the Wembley Park (and wider Wembley) community still seems limited to the couple of A5 posters they've put-up at random points around the development (they're really "blink and you'd miss them", it's almost like they're hoping no-one notices them!). No attempts what-so-ever at truly engaging directly with the community they profess to care so much about.

Now a petition has been launched against the hotel development on what is currently a lively open space - a break from the surrounding high rise where people can meet and childen play.

Yoga in the threatened Samovar Open Space  (Picture from wembleypark.com)

 

The Petition (SIGN HERE)

We grew up surrounded by the vibrant energy of Wembley Park Market Square, a place where families gather, children play, communities connect, and traditions flourish. This is not merely a physical space, it is the heartbeat of our local culture. People from all walks of life come together here, united by a rich tapestry of diverse stalls, warm interactions, and a deep sense of belonging. Sadly, this cherished community space is now under threat.

A proposal has been put forward and discussed with the council to construct a hotel on Olympic Way, directly opposite the Civic Centre, on the site of Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space without any meaningful consultation with local residents or their elected representatives. Residents should have been informed by email and a proper consultation should have been held for all neighbouring residents, rather than limiting consultation to only those living at Landsby East.

If approved, this development would have far reaching consequences for both residents and the environment, while permanently eliminating a valued open space that is central to our community life.

The construction of a hotel in this location would not only overshadow and diminish this much loved public space, but would also likely result in increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, environmental damage, and additional strain on already pressured local infrastructure. The character and charm of the neighbourhood could be irreversibly altered, depriving future generations of the cultural, social, and communal experiences that have long defined Wembley Park.

Beyond the environmental and infrastructural concerns, such a large scale development would significantly impact residents’ quality of life. Increased footfall from hotel guests could lead to overcrowding, parking difficulties, and the erosion of the peaceful atmosphere that the community currently enjoys.

We firmly believe that alternative locations exist which are far more suitable for a development of this nature, locations that do not require the sacrifice of an invaluable community space. We therefore urge Brent Council, Quintain, and all relevant stakeholders to reconsider this proposal and take meaningful action to ensure that Wembley Park retains its unique cultural identity and heritage.

Please stand with us in preserving the vibrancy and spirit of Wembley by opposing the proposed hotel development at Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space. Sign this petition to protect the heart of our community and help secure a future in which local culture and shared spaces are safeguarded for the benefit of all.

 

 

The Farmers' Market in Market Square - the hotel will overshadow the Civic Centre Library and replace much of the Square (picture from Wembley Park Com) 

 

Comments on the Petition site:

To Brent Council and Quintain, Wembley Park is being shaped by decisions that prioritise profit over people. Both Brent Council and Quintain should seriously consider the principles outlined in Thomas Heatherwick’s Humanise, which argues that buildings and neighbourhoods must be designed around human health and wellbeing — not maximum financial return. More buildings may generate revenue for developers, but the long-term impact on residents will be far greater. Increased strain on the NHS, social services, and housing support is inevitable when overcrowding and poor living conditions are normalised. These costs will be paid by the public, not by the developers who benefit today. What drives this approach is simple: greed. And it is telling that no one making these decisions would realistically choose to live at Wembley Park under the conditions being created for others. Development should serve the people who live there — not just the financial interests of a few. The right thing to do is to stop, reassess, and place human lives, health, and dignity ahead of profit. 

This square is one of the few genuinely shared community spaces we have - it’s where local markets run, kids play, and people actually spend time together. Building a hotel here would permanently take that away. On a practical level, the area already struggles with infrastructure: the local Sainsbury’s regularly has long queues and stock shortages, and transport and foot traffic are already stretched, especially when concerts or events finish. Adding a hotel would significantly increase congestion, confusion for visitors, delivery traffic, waste, noise, and pressure on services that clearly aren’t equipped to handle it. With limited open space, crowd flow would become a real safety concern during busy periods. This development doesn’t improve the area - it removes a vital community space and creates ongoing problems for residents, families, and local businesses. The construction period alone would last years, bringing constant noise, dust, visual blight, and disruption that would make events difficult or impossible to run and harm local traders. Environmentally, losing open space will worsen air quality, increase noise and light pollution, and contribute to urban overheating and drainage issues. The area already lacks the infrastructure to support additional pressure, and increased traffic, deliveries, and visitor congestion would create ongoing safety and accessibility problems. This proposal prioritises developer profit over long-term community wellbeing and the character of the area.

I previously challenged the relationship between the construction and hotel industries whilst working in the Far East. Now, back in my own country, I see the same murky processes taking place. The apparent lack of consultation in this case with the local community is truly disturbing and it is essential that we challenge this at an early stage in the proceedings by demanding the necessary and promised levels of transparency before any decision is made. Please sign the petition at your earliest convenience

Note: I understand that the well-used Children's Playground opposite the entrance to the London Designer Outlet from the Boulevard is also subject to development in the future.

 

 

Open Day: Plans for Willesden Trades Hall - help shape the building's future - food, music (includings Lovers Rock soundtrack) and kids' activities

 

On behalf of the trustees of the Willesden Trades Hall Charity, we would like to invite you to an open day and consultation event at the Willesden Trades Hall and Apollo Club at 375 High Road, Willesden NW10 2JR, on Saturday 14th February 2026 from 12pm till 4pm. Flyer attached!

We are keen to hear your views on the emerging plans for the building’s future repair and re-use, designed by architects Adjaye Associates. There will be food, music, tours of the building, children’s activities and people to talk to. You can drop in at any time during the event. 

TOGETHER against the far right. Wednesday 28th January 7pm, Chalkhill Community Centre

 

Perspectives on London's housing emergency - affordable homes supply and threshold, CIL relief for developers, reduced powers of councils

 Below are three different perspectives that feed into the debate about how to address London's current housing emergency.

From the London Assembly

Rising costs, funding constraints and a lack of strategic focus are slowing the delivery of the affordable homes Londoners need most, particularly family-sized and accessible homes.

A new report from the London Assembly Housing Committee – Assessing delivery, needs and challenges of the Mayor’s Affordable Homes – warns that London’s affordable housing system is failing to keep pace with need, despite public investment through the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme. Delivery under the current programme has been slow, with 64 per cent of homes still to be started as of September 2025, less than a year before the programme is due to end in March 2026.

The Committee found that certain types of homes are in particularly short supply. Family-sized social rent homes and accessible homes for Deaf and Disabled Londoners are not being delivered at the scale required, leaving many families trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. The report also raises concerns about the lack of progress in delivering sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and the growing pressure on supported housing providers.

To address this, the Committee calls for a more targeted approach to funding affordable housing. Key recommendations include increasing grant rates and setting clear targets for family-sized and accessible homes under the 2026–36 Affordable Homes Programme, so that public investment better reflects London’s most urgent housing needs.

Other recommendations in the report include:

·          improving support for councils to acquire existing homes for social rent, as a faster way to increase supply

·           requiring better monitoring and reporting on homes delivered for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, to ensure commitments translate into delivery

·          securing sustainable funding for supported housing, including revenue funding alongside capital investment

Chair of the London Assembly Housing Committee, Zoë Garbett AM (Green Party), said:

London’s housing crisis is hitting families and disabled Londoners hardest, yet the homes they need most are the ones least likely to be built. The report highlights that delivery has slowed sharply since 2023, at the same time as demand for genuinely affordable housing continues to rise.

Evidence to the Committee showed that rising construction costs, high land prices, increased borrowing costs and new building safety requirements have all reduced the capacity of councils and housing associations to bring forward new homes. Without changes to how funding is allocated, the report warns that delivery under the next Affordable Homes Programme risks falling further behind.

Menwhile Brent Council reacted to Government and London Mayor proposals on the Housing Emergency that included reducing the affordable housing threshold and temporary relief on the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy required from developers.

Councillor Teo Benea, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property published a statement on the Council's position:

While we support urgent action to unblock housing delivery, the current proposals risk doing the opposite in places like Brent, reducing the number of affordable homes delivered while significantly cutting the funding that pays for the infrastructure that our borough relies on.

Brent currently has 2,054 households living in temporary accommodation, and tens of thousands of residents on our housing register who will face waiting decades for an affordable home; unless grant funding for building new council homes is increased.

Lowering the effective affordable housing threshold and introducing substantial reductions in borough level Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would remove vital investment in schools, future transport schemes like the West London Orbital, public realm improvements, as well as community and medical facilities, without addressing the real barriers to delivery.

Our submission is clear that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) makes up only a small proportion of overall development costs, and that cutting it would have a disproportionate impact on Brent, particularly in areas that are already growing.

We want to work with Government to help realise their ambition of 1.5 million new homes, getting more families into secure and genuinely affordable housing, and supporting first time buyers onto the housing ladder.

That means introducing policies that increase delivery without undermining affordable housing, or stripping out the funding needed to support growing communities. We have submitted our formal response to both consultations, urging a rethink so we can deliver homes, infrastructure and opportunity together.

The Just Space Alliance, the campaign against the dominance of developers and landowners in planning, have written a detailed response that you can read HERE 

Here is a key extract:

Part 1: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Relief
 

We note that;

 Local authorities already set CIL levels to ensure developments can be viable and can choose not to charge CIL.
 

 Local authorities can already give Exceptional Circumstances Relief (ECR), if a scheme is unviable. This proposal would effectively over-ride local authority discretion.
 

 CIL is not cited as one of the causes of ‘non-viability’ (causes are Covid, high interest rates, construction and labour costs, new regulations, fall in demand for unaffordable housing).
 

 There is a danger that CIL relief will not be time limited, once introduced it will become the norm for financing developments.

We strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons

 If the Government allows both a significant reduction in CIL payments alongside consents that provide only 20% affordable housing this simply benefits landowners and developers with no corresponding public benefits. Land values will rise, driving up house prices and rents.

 These proposals would reduce the money that local authorities have to spend on essential improvements to the local area and providing social infrastructure for new and existing residents. Councils do not have the money to make up this shortfall, so it would have a long term impact on communities across London.
 

 The measures give priority to the delivery of ‘units’ rather than the sustainable development of appropriate homes addressing identified need – which is for social housing, not more unaffordable housing.
 

 The consultation contains no evidence of its necessity or effectiveness. It is extraordinary that the government has not provided its own financial modelling to support these proposals. The developer’s lobby have done so. It is deeply concerning that the affordable housing requirement may be reduced based on untested evidence provided by developers.

 If the govt wants to encourage developers building the homes we need, they could propose a reduction in CIL for schemes that commit to providing at least 35% affordable housing and for this to be the primary approach.
 

 The proposed £500,000 threshold discriminates against small schemes and the potential contribution of SMEs, which the Government purports to encourage.
 

 There would be no cut to Mayoral CIL. It is not clear why the boroughs are bearing the burden.

 The proposal for applications for CIL reductions to provide sufficient and truthful evidence to support viability modelling is welcomed. Information provided should be put into the public domain and the approach extended to apply to viability assessments used to reduce affordable housing contribution in planning applications.

Part 2: increasing Mayor’s powers to approve applications

The proposal is firstly to extend the Mayor’s power to ‘call in’ much smaller schemes of over 50 homes, but only if the borough intend to refuse the application – and the Mayor could then approve. Secondly it is proposed that the Mayor would be given additional powers to‘call in’ applications to build on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) .

These powers are designed to over-ride potential refusals by local councils of inappropriate schemes – all too rare an occasion anyway (many boroughs haven’t refused any major
schemes for years).

Local decision-making by local planning authorities (and local planning committees) is essential for transparency, legitimacy, and local democracy. We do not consider it appropriate for the Mayor to be given the power to over-ride the local authority’s democratic decision making process for schemes smaller than 150 homes, which are essentially local matters. Similarly it is not appropriate to give the Mayor specific additional powers of approval over-riding boroughs in relation to sites which are within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. This would fundamentally upset the relationships set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

For these reasons we do not support a further extension of the Mayor’s call in powers.

In conclusion, we believe that the whoe package of measures - including those being concurrently consulted on by the Mayor - are fundamentally flawed, unevidenced, contradictory to the core principles and policies set out in the statutory London Plan, and therein fundamentally improper and open to legal challenge.

 

 

UPDATED: Number of pupils in Brent primary schools continues to fall - no closures at present

In common with many London boroughs the Brent primary school population has continued to fall due to a variety of factors including families having to move out of London to find affordable housing, the long-term impact of Brexit and a declining economy causing European workers to return home, and a falling birthrate.

New developments have not 'yielded' the expected number of children as the occupants are often single flat sharers or 'dinkys' (Double Income No Kids). The proposed Ark primary school next to Wembley Stadium station has been abandoned as there are spare spaces at nearby Elsley Primary.

This results in pressure on school budgets as the main finance is based on the number of pupils. Some schools have seen a steeper decline than others, with those that were expanded during the pupil 'bulge' particularly hit.  One solution has been reducing the Planned Admission Number (PAN) for such schools so they may have 2 forms for each age group rather than three - a planned reduction often involving staff restructuring.

Figures going before the Schools Forum tonight  shows a net decrease in the primary population of 448 pupils. Most badly hit is Harris Primary Academy South Kenton (formerly Byron Court Primary) with a reduction of 128 children, accelerating a trend that started before forced academisation. This is a 14% reduction and equals £564,547 At a similar percentage loss, but at the other end of school size, Carlton Vale Infants has only 38 children on roll with a loss of 10 equalling a fall of 13% and £67,319 loss.

In the secondary Catholic sector St Claudine's School for Girls (previously Convent of Jesus and Mary) has an 8% fall in pupils (78 pupils) and £583,943 loss in funding and Newman Catholic College a 7% fall (55 pupils)  and £359,141 funding loss.

Brent Council has taken action through its Primary Places Strategy and the document outlines the approach it takes to help schools in difficulty despite its own financial constraints:      

Contingencies

The proportion of schools relying heavily on reserves remains high with 43% of schools in deficit planning to use 50% or more of their reserves, compared to 42% in 2024/25. It is therefore proposed to continue to de-delegate funds to support schools in financial difficulty, however at a reduced amount of £0.150m, in line with the forecast spend in the current financial year. This would lead to a reduction in the per pupil de-delegated rate of £1.19 at £7.78 compared to £8.97 in 2025/26.

 

Schools Forum agreed in January 2024 that if in exceptional circumstances school redundancies are eligible to be funded centrally, where the funding criteria is met in line with the redundancy policy, then these will need to be found from within wider Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) funding. It was agreed that redundancies should be funded from the Schools Facing Financial Difficulties Fund (SFFDF). It is proposed to maintain this allocation at £0.3m. There is a £0.21 increase in the proposed rate for 2026/27 at £15.55 per pupil due to a fall in pupil numbers compared to the last financial year.

 FULL SCHOOL ALLOCATIONS SPREADSHEET 

At the meeting, Cllr Gwen Grahl, Lead Member,  answering Lucy Cox, representing the NEU, said that when she came into the post she was determined not to close any schools in the face of falling rolls. She could not rule out closing schools in the future but would use lots of strategies to avoid that. One of those was to locate Additional Resource Provision (ARP) for SEND pupils,  in schools with spare capacity.

John H repair saga not finished yet after 2 months

Although John H's heating is working after a very long wait for repairs, the South Kilburn pensioner is still waiting for the reconnection of his meter and damage  made good. There has again been a lot of passing the buck and failure to answer phone calls etc. The process has now been going on for 2 months.

Yesterday John wrote to me:

Abri Housing Association  (who took over  Octavia) emailed me this morning to inform me that they are working with their relevant parties to try and complete the repair to my wall mounted meter.

'However, we still cannot give you a date for when we will carry out the repair.'

This afternoon I rang Octavia and my responder said they rang their repairs team but there was no answer, so they sent an email to them but there was no reply.

So after 2 months I am still waiting for my repair to be completed and to see how much credit I have left, as my credit balance remains frozen since the 6th January, when the SureServe engineer disconnected my meter leaving a blank screen.

I am concerned that if my credit runs out, my heating will be shut down again.

I sent emails to everyone at Brent Housing this morning and also to Cllr. Donnelly-Jackson but she did not reply and neither did anyone else reply to my emails.

John  has had recent problems with credit payments elsewhere which may be the result of the frozen credit on his meter. He has heard no more from anyone concerned today.

He said tonight:

I tried to send my complaint to the Housing Ombudsman but it seems I must wait for Octavia to respond to my 2nd stage complaint.'

As it took Octavia 7 weeks to respond to my 1st stage complaint, I could be in for a long wait.