Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Poppy from the Royal British Legion annual appeal.
If you have relatives who died in the First World War, particularly if
they went to Dudden Hill School in Willesden and are named on the memorial
pictured below, you will be very welcome to attend a short ceremony at
Willesden Green Library on Tuesday 10 November. Please pass on this information to any friends
who may be interested, so that they also have the opportunity to take part.
The restored memorial, on the first floor landing at Willesden Green
Library.
Many of you will know that 11 November (Remembrance Day) this year marks
the 109th anniversary of the Armistice which ended the awful “Great
War”, now known as the First World War because of the second global conflict of
the 20th century between 1939 and 1945. Willesden’s School Board had
opened Dudden Hill as an elementary school in 1897, and more than five hundred
of its former pupils answered the call to go and fight “For King and Country”
between 1914 and 1918. Eighty-six of them, and one teacher, died in that
conflict.
Dudden Hill School’s headmaster, John Kelly (who had such a
well-respected educational career in Willesden that Boys’ and Girls’ secondary
schools were later named after him), kept a record of all the former pupils who
had died. At a meeting of the school’s Old Boys’ Association in 1921, it was
decided to create a memorial to their fellow students whose lives had been lost
in the war, and the money for it was promptly raised. The memorial to “Our
Glorious Dead” was unveiled in the school hall a year later, on 4 October 1922.
Programme for the unveiling of the Memorial in 1922,
by Sir James Yoxall, General Secretary of the National Union of Teachers.
The memorial was central to the school’s Remembrance Day commemorations
each November, until its infants/primary department was transferred to the
newly built Northview Primary School in 1960, and the remaining secondary
school closed in 1964. The building was then used by Willesden Technical
College for a few years, before being sold off to a developer and converted
into flats.
The former Dudden Hill School building in Dudden Hill Lane. (Photo by Irina Porter)
Sadly, no respect for the former school’s memorial was shown by those
carrying out work on the building. The wooden surround around the WW1 plaque,
on which the names of former pupils who’d died during the Second World War had
been added, and a casket beneath it, with a complete record by headmaster John
Kelly of the actions during which the former pupils had been killed, were lost
or destroyed. Luckily, the copper plaque itself, with the names engraved on it,
was rescued from a builders skip by Bill Martindale, a lecturer at Willesden
Tech.
Mr Martindale realised the historic importance of the memorial, and took
it home for safekeeping. Years later, Paul Mitchell, who’d known the memorial
when he was a pupil at Dudden Hill School, was trying to find out what happened
to it, and came across photographs of the battered plaque on the War Memorials
Trust website. Its location then was shown to be Wembley, but it had actually moved
to Cumbria, when Bill Martindale retired there. Paul’s further efforts put him
in touch with the Cumbria Western Front Association (“CWFA”), and in September
2022 one of Bill’s CWFA colleagues, Richard Preston, brought the plaque back to
Willesden.
Paul Mitchell (left) and Richard Preston handing over the memorial
plaque at Brent Archives on 23 September 2022. (Photo by John Bunn)
Brent Museum and Archives agreed that the memorial deserved to be put
back on public display, once it had been cleaned and restored. With the help of
a grant from the War Memorials Trust in 2025, that has now happened. The copper
plaque with a new wooden frame, and its 87 names of the fallen picked out in
black, now has a permanent pride of place in Willesden Green Library.
The ceremony at the library, on Tuesday 10 November from 10.40am, will
be a Civic rededication and official unveiling of the war memorial by the
Deputy Mayor of Brent, Councillor Kanta Mistry. A bugler and standard bearer
from the Royal British Legion will be there as well, for an act of remembrance,
and residents who wish to attend, in memory of those who have died in war at
any time, are welcome to do so. You can reserve your free place at this event HERE.
Philip Grant.
I gratefully acknowledge Paul Mitchell’s article “Quest for Remembrance:
A Personal Story of Dudden Hill School” (Willesden Local History Society
Journal No. 56, Winter 2022/23) as the source for much of the information used
in this article.
St Luke's Church, Fernhead Road, W9 3 EH ( Near Queens Park Station)
Our Right to Protest. Do we still have it?
From Kensal to Kilburn Better 2026
It's now
common for peaceful protestors to be jailed. Is protest becoming criminalised?
How worried should we be?
With a stellar panel, this event will
consider what is happening in relation to the State and protests, what the
future may hold, and what it all means for justice and democracy.
Laura O'Brien is Head of
Protest and Public Law Team at Hodge Jones & Allen and one of the most
respected lawyers in the field of protest law.
Paul Stephens was thirty years
in the Met before he retired and joined Extinction Rebellion. He has worked as
protest liaison on many occasions between protestors and the police.
Paddy Friend is a spokesperson
for Defend our Juries and co-wrote Britain's Political Prisoners' Report. He is
writing his PhD on the British criminal courtroom as a site of resistance
Peaceful protest is
a fundamental pillar of a healthy society and a functioning democracy. But in 2026, following successive
Tory and Labour legislation aimed at curbing protests, thousands have been
arrested and scores of protestors are serving lengthy prison sentences. In the
future, perhaps under a Reform government, the tactics used now against
pro-Palestinian and climate protest could be applied more widely. The issue may
affect us all.
Coincidentally it was at the beginning of what promises to be a very wet week that ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency) made a presentation on flooding to Brent Scrutiny Committee:
In what one councillor described as a powerful contribution, Kaushik Bhattacharya, speaking for ACE, said:
There is much to comment on across all the climate
documents presented tonight, but with the potential of extreme storms this
winter as a result of a growing El Nino, and overall climate change, we are
forced to focus on flooding . We understand that representatives from Thames
Water, Environment Agency, and Affinity Water have been invited to attend this
meeting but it is a shame that there won’t be a real chance for them to answer
questions from our councillors, as we originally requested, due to the very
limited time tonight.
Our initial request for a thorough scrutiny of
flood risk arose from concern about inadequate progress on the Brent Local
Flood Risk Management Strategies Action Plan and this remains a serious
concern. The RAG rating in the Action Plan grades 4 Amber and 26 Red out of 30
actions listed, including some basic short-term actions such as ‘Collaborate
with other partner RMAs to improve understanding of flood risk interactions and
identify areas where flood risks could combine to exacerbate risk.’ None of the
actions are rated Green.
Click on bottom right corner of the table for a full view of the table.
The Action Plan is a click away from the main documents submitted
tonight and should have been tabled separately because it is so important. Many
members of this Committee will not have read it.
The photos shared tonight document flooding that has occurred during
flash storms over the last decade on College Road, in the Preston Ward of
Brent. The latest occurred overnight earlier this summer, just before the
second heatwave, and resulted in a Tesla being written off – a vehicle used by
a resident for his work as a private hire car driver, resulting in a loss of
his income and increased insurance premiums.
We were shocked to discover that Brent has only a single Principal Flood
and Drainage Engineer with many responsibilities that according to Appendix C:
Whilst statutory duties continue to be met, creates
limited resilience within the service and can restrict the pace at which
strategic projects, investigations and improvement programmes are progressed.
Periods of annual leave or staff absence can further increase these pressures
and create temporary backlogs in service delivery.
Is a single postholder sufficient in a climate
emergency?
The Report designates the Head of Highways as
responsible for Appendix C – Flood Risk Management Strategy – that’s a huge
area covering many areas of expertise other than highways. Is that fair or
adequate?
Meanwhile the Council continues to build, build,
build; gardens are paved over; more concrete covers the borough; and our green
spaces are lost without the necessary alleviation increasing the flood risk.
You’ve declared a climate emergency so we urge this
committee to table another full scrutiny meeting specifically on the Flood
Emergency Strategy and Action Plan including contributions from our Flood Risk
Strategy partners.
Joy Rickman addresses the Committee
Kaushik was followed by Joy Rickman, a resident in her area for some 40 years, speaking for the Friends of Woodcock Park, She described how her community were trying to deal with the flooding and pollution of the Wealdstone Brook in a very practical way:
My
name is Joy Rickman and I am the Chair of Friends of Woodcock Park
The
Wealdstone Brook bisects Woodcock Park and flows through the borough eventually
meeting the River Brent. It is known as a flashy river. This is because in
ordinary weather it is a gentle little stream, but in rain it becomes a raging
torrent. There is a massive amount of water coming down because we are on the
Brent/Harrow borders - coming down from Harrow . Often the river is running at
over capacity.
We
have witnessed many flooding events in Woodcock Park as in high storm the river
flows are over capacity, and further downstream we have film footage of the
river coming out of bank.
We
have also been subjected to many sewage events and blockages containing raw
sewage, wipes, fat and soap as well as diesel and other chemicals being thrown
into the river along with many lime bikes. 3 years ago we had polio in the
river, as a result all the children aged 9 and under had to be re-vaccinated
for polio.
Due
to the many issues, we have experienced in the river, one member of our Friends
Group instigated regular quarterly meetings with Thames Water to discuss the
previously mentioned issues, to seek solutions.
Work
with us is described in the report as an example of "successful
collaboration", but we do not feel fully supported by Brent Council. We
ourselves set up the meetings with Thames Water to examine pollution levels.
Levels
of flooding used to be overseen by the Brent and Harrow Flood Working group,
set up by Barry Gardiner. In the light of current flood risk this group needs
to be restored.
Our
community members have completed very significant river projects including
preventing the river flooding the area around a major roundabout. This project
was subject of the Environment Agency national conference.
Thames
Water has now asked our group to attenuate 20,000 cubic litres of water in the
park. We are not sure why this responsibility has fallen on us. The council did
come and help us work out where the pond should be and with volunteers we came
in to hand dig it. We didn't t get very far because the clay is very heavy and
difficult to manage. So we now need council approval, a digger to finish the
job and funding for planting.
With
a council grant, we have recently created a stumpery - which is a
self-sustaining eco system, and we worked with 4 local schools - with 50
children, who thoroughly enjoyed the project. This area should be planted but
there is no fresh water source in our park. We can pay for a pump but have
nowhere on the park to store it.
There
is huge expertise in the community but to be honest we feel on our own. Some
colleagues are giving up disillusioned, and the rest of us are tired.
We
did investigate introducing beavers to help do the necessary work - a shame the
river is too polluted. Sometimes I feel the beavers would have been
easier to deal with!!
Prevention
is cheaper than cure when it comes to flooding. We are volunteers and we are
asking for more respect for and partnership with us as the people who are
actively monitoring the river.
The presentations meant that the first part of the Committee meeting was dominated by the flooding issue which in a way was a victory for residents keen to have their voices heard on such a vital issue. The full debate, including contributions from representatives of Thames Water and the Environment Agency, can be seen in the video above.
I submitted the first part
of my comments to the Brent planning website for application 26/1351 in July,
but never expected it to take so long for me to finish the task! For various
personal reasons, and commitments that had to take priority, it was not until
16 October that I submitted the final part, and sent an illustrated document
copy of my full objections to Brent Planning Officers. The application has yet
to be referred to Brent’s Planning Committee (but could be at its next meeting
on 11 November), so hopefully my delay is a case of “better late than never”.
I will ask Martin to
attach my objection comments document below, so that anyone who is interested, including
any objectors who may wish to speak against the application when it does come
before councillors for a decision, can read the reasons I have set out as
to why the application should be refused, on proper planning grounds, in the
hope that this assists in the fight to keep this site as open space for the
local community and visitors to enjoy.
Philip Grant.
The petition to retain the Market Square and Samovar Space is still live and available to sign HERE
The application (16/1351) is on the Brent Council Planning Portal where comments in support, opposition or neutral can be made HERE. The expiry date is November 27th 2026 but comments can be made up to the eve of the Planning Committee meeting hearing which may be sooner. It has not yet been fixed.
As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses.
Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.
Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.
Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.
Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.
He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'
Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.
Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace. It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development. He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.
Guardian August 2026
BBC London September 2026
Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.
The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.
In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:
We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration.
Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.
We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.
Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting;
I'm told that screaming at the
screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent
Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn.
Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.
As a South Kilburn resident for
the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the
earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with
the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.
South Kilburn regeneration
started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to
finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of
disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little
recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when
it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their
vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out
measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel
further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to
provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.
What about the new flats built
under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South
Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable,
spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing
needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more
expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by
damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire
watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency
heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be
completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there
have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for
the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell
you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.
This gets described as “In a small number of developments however
residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much
every new block.
What else has regeneration
brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When
long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They
may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no
longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could
socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks
have.
Regeneration has also brought
increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area,
leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied
prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and
other criminal activity.
Rarely., if ever, does the
Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration
News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to
problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we
promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they
hope we have forgotten.
Would all this be worth it if the
regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was
ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would
build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is
private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own
admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list
cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only
see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be
passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much
for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the
housing crisis.
An altogether laughable claim is
that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the
edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement.
Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored.
A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far
worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings
hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running,
unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.
Reading Council documents or
watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead,
we see gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either
deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.
When agreeing to give the £1
billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a
Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in
Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real
world intrude on Brent Council decisions.
Kim Wright, Brent Chief Executive's, statement ahead of the constitution debate
The Extraordinary Council Meeting on Monday certainly lived up to its billing! The meeting followed the united opposition of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives to changes in the constitution tabled at the last Full Council. The constitutional changes were necessary as a result of the Labour Government's changes to Planning Regulations that reduces the role of councillors and residents in planning decisions. The changes are part of the government's efforts to speed up the planning process in response to the housing crisis but there are misgivings among some Labour MPs.
The council is required to make the necessary changes by Halloween so an extraordinary meeting was necessary to resolve the issue.
Perhaps extraordinarily before the debate got underway Brent Council's CEO, Kim Wright, made an intervention in a statement outlining all the dire consequence for the authority if councillors failed to adopt the required changes. (See video above)
Addressing the concerns of councillors that they could no longer call-in applications she drew attention to a change in the original proposal LINK (in bold):
5.12 Under the national
scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority
constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be
called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to
committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible.
Local authorities are
required to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of
delegation.
However, it is recognised that at the Full Council
meeting on 14 September 2026 and the All Member Briefing on 1 October 2026
Members expressed concerns about these changes. In response, paragraph 2 of the
terms of reference of the Planning Committee has, so far as possible, been
reinstated but with necessary modifications (see Appendices). In outline, this
will allow three or more Brent councillors (irrespective of political group
membership) to request that certain applications be considered for referral to
the Planning Committee
An indication that the unity at Full Council was broken was quickly evidenced when the Tories abstained on a Liberal Democrat amendment allowing Labour to have a narrow majority over the Lib Dems and Greens.
For the record this is the proposal from the Liberal Democrats that was not debated as result of this vote.
NEW PLANNING
REGULATIONS
We note that
the new Regulations imposed by the Labour Government undermine the role of
locally elected Representatives and remove our abilityto
effectively represent the interests of local people and our community.
In response
to the new Regulations and the reduction of the role and powers of local
Councillors we confirm the need to amend the Council constitution and resolve
to include the following additions/changes:
1. To reduce the size of the Planning Committee
to 5 members made up of Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Conservative and 1 Green.
2. To resolve that the Chair of the Planning
Committee will be a member of one of the opposition parties until May 2030 when
the position will be reviewed.
3. To
reflect the reduced role of the Planning Committee by reducing the SRA for the
Chair of the Planning Committee to £7,500.
Specifically
in relation of regulation 5(3) of the 2026 Regulations we resolve:
1. To set up
an Advisory Board made up of 3 members of the Planning Committee or their
alternates who will advise/inform the Nominated Member and
Nominated Officer on whether a ‘qualifying’ application should be referred to
the Planning Committee.
2. To ensure
that when information/publicity about a planning application is issued by
the Council it states
a. That the
specific application will be determined by Planning Officers under delegated
powers or
b. That the
application falls within the defined areas of Regulation 5(3) and where a
decision to refer it to the Planning Committee is possible
a clear
explanation is provided on how and who makes the decision to refer the application to Committee – and if
so referred explain the process the
Planning Committee has to follow.
c. In all cases publish the Planning Officer
Report relating to each Planning Application and the decision made and any
conditions imposed.
The debate on whether to accept the changes to the constitution contained many defences of local democracy and allegations that central government was undermining the role of local councillors in representing the views of residents through planning committees. The Tories strongly condemned the Labour Government with stirring speeches that can be heard in the video below - but as you will see in the final minutes said, with something of a whimper, that they had no option but to comply and abstained - again giving Labour a majority over Liberal Democrats and Greens:
Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green Group Leader, said that the changes were borne out of the reality of the housing crisis, a crisis Greens recognised and believe requires radical solution, but the changes would further erode public trust in the planning system and strengthen the perception that the planning system is rigged in favour of those who have power and know best how to play the system. She advocated the plans of Green-led Lewisham Council to bring planning closer to local communities while also meeting housing need.
Cllr Muhammed Butt emphasised that this was not something of the council's doing: ''If there was any other way, we would have found the way.' He remained open to further discussion.
The constitutional changes were adopted by a small Labour majority over the Greens and Liberal Democrats when the Tories abstained.
Cllr Anton Georgiou, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he could see that some Labour councillors were uncomfortable and warned them that they would have to defend themselves when residents came to complain that they had no say in planning applications.
The planning system will now hand over most decision-making to council officers as illustrated in the Brent Council document below:
