Is there ANYONE in favour of a pedestrian bridge across the Welsh Harp reservoir? No information on primary provision at Environmental Study Centre

 

 

The Wesh Harp Joint Consultative Committee is usually a fairly mild affair but it livened up considerably last night when a resident suggested that Barnet Council were happy to let volunteers do the work  needed to maintain the Welsh Harp but brushed aside any criticism. The Brent Council chair of the Committee, Cllr Krupa Sheth, had refused to allow 'one issue' to dominate proceedings.

 

The bridge access is just visible on Barratt's publicity

 

The resident wanted to discuss the fact that current West Hendon residents had no knowledge of the proposed bridge across the Welsh Harp  at the Silk Stream first suggested in the original planning application in 2013 LINK.  Having found out about it they were furious, particularly as they would be expected to pay for its maintenance, in addition to that for the Cool Oak Pedestrian Bridge, through their service charges.

The planning approval had involved a different group of residents and needed to be revisited. The bridge had originally been proposed when a primary school was to be built  on the West Hendon site and would have given the pupils a short cut to extensive proposed sports facilities on the opposite bank.

The primary school proposal had been dropped and the facilities drastically reduced so it was claimed the bridge was not necessary and a 'bridge to nowhere'.

Ben Watt of the Cool Oak group.  had long opposed the bridge because of its detrimental impact on the SSSI  and disturbance to wild life, as well as doubts over its construction given the silty nature of the site. He was also concerned with the safety of anyone crossing the bridge. He sets out his case under Any Other Business in the above clip.

Barnet councillors were hard put to justify the bridge, claiming it had been secured under a Section 106 agreement with Barratt, and Barratts wanted to build it. It was a private bridge for public use. There were counter claims that Barratts had told residents that Barnet Council wanted to build it, although Labour who form the current administration, opposed it in 2013.  Has it become a Labour vanity project?

 

Proposals for 16+ provision at the previous Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre remained vague with any continuation of the primary environmental provision apparently not part of plans. I will ask for more information regarding the appointment mentioned in the last paragraph.

 

Welsh Harp Centre:

 

The Centre is expected to provide opportunities for young people aged 16+ with SEND during curriculum time, with provision for community use at other times. The provision for young people with SEND will focus on developing vocational skills, such as skills in horticulture, as well as offering opportunities to better prepare Brent’s young people with SEND for adulthood.

 

In respect of the building programme the stage 2 design has now been approved. The Council’s project team has a pre-planning application meeting scheduled in November with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to outline the current design and obtain feedback. The LPA feedback and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders will influence the next stage of spatial design.

 

In terms of provision, Brent Council’s, Children, Young People & Community Development team are currently recruiting a staff member who will have oversight of the Welsh Harp Centre including curriculum development and liaison with community groups. It is expected that the post holder will start in January 2026.

 

 

BRENT NEU members strike at Local Schools Trust they claim is intent on cutting staff pay while top executives maintain their own pay

 

The picket line outside Woodfield School  (Credit: Brent NEU)

From Brent branch of the National Education Union 

NEU members at Woodfield School- a special school catering for children and young people with complex needs and autism - are striking in a fight to retain their pay, resulting in the school being closed.

Hardworking learning support assistants at the school, which is run by Compass Learning Partnership face pay cuts resulting from a forced change in hours.  The local trust faced three days of strikes at their other school last term. The current changes were decided as part of a restructure which retained high levels of pay for top executives.

 

The NEU has reached out to the trust and to Brent council to try to resolve the pay and funding issues but there is no resolution at the time of writing.

  

Jenny Cooper, local branch secretary, has stated:

 

This school and trust cannot operate without our members- they are the frontline workforce behind a company that generates generous salaries for its top executives. We do not see why staff in the classroom should see cuts to their pay when it is already so low.

Brent warns of potentially noisy night roadworks and closure in Sudbury December 15th to 17th

 

From Brent Council

 

Carriageway Resurfacing – East Lane Wembley (Pasture Road-Oldborough Road) --- Night Work

I am writing to inform you of planned carriageway resurfacing works in East Lane Wembley between Pasture Road and Oldborough Road. This work has been programmed to commence on Monday 15th December 2025 and be completed by Wednesday 17th December 2025, between the hours of 8.00 pm and 5.00 am weather permitting.

Works will be carried out by our contractor O’Hara Bros Surfacing Ltd on behalf of the London Borough of Brent.

Please see above map showing the extent of work highlighted in red. The road will be closed during the period of this work. Traffic marshals will be on site to assist residents.

We ask that you please ensure no vehicle or other obstructions are left on the road during the period of the resurfacing. Any vehicles that have not been moved and are stopping the works from taking place will be carefully relocated to a street nearby by a tow truck.

If your vehicle has been removed and relocated to another street whilst the resurfacing works are in progress, please telephone 0208 8689997.

Due to the nature of the work, it is likely that there will be higher levels of noise, but we will do our best to keep the disruption to a minimum and complete the works as swiftly as possible.

If you have any questions, would like more information about the planned works, or you have a disability and require this information in another format, please email Public Liaison Officer N.purkiss@oharabros.co.uk or call 020 84242220

Thank you in advance for your patience and co-operation. We hope these changes will make a real difference to you and your street.

Meeting to support Willesden Green Access Group's bid for escalators/lift at the station TONIGHT Pakistani Community Centre 7-9pm

 

Improve Accessibility at Willesden Green Underground Station. Join the meeting tomorrow!

Willesden Green Access Group (WGAG) are holding a meeting with key stakeholders and the community to discuss plans to improve accessibility (by installing lifts/escalators) at Willesden Green station.

 

Transport for London (TfL) recently announced that Willesden Green has been shortlisted, amongst 17 other London Underground stations, to receive a feasibility study for accessibility installations. After this study just 2 stations will be selected to receive accessibility installations from TfL - such as lifts and escalators. 

 

WGAG volunteers have been working on this proposal since 2018, and they need your help at this next phase. Please join the meeting tomorrow to lend your support.

Register to join the meeting: 

 

When: Tomorrow Monday 24th November 2025,

At: 7:00-9:00pm

Where: Pakistani Community Centre, Marley Walk (off Station Parade), NW24PU

 

Please register via Eventbrite (below) and email to confirm your attendance: WGAG Chairperson Sajidah Kazmi at WillesdenGreenAccessGroup@outlook.com

Once registered , a Zoom Link can be sent to those who are unable to attend in person.

 

Eventbrite Link to register attendance:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/.../willesden-green-access...

Altamira and the Morland Gardens delay – Brent Council’s response.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From Brent Council’s adopted Local Plan Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Last week Martin published a guest post with the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Director of Property and Assets (Morland Gardens – (Happy?) Anniversary Brent! Why the delay?). I promised to let readers know what the Council said in reply, and here is the full text of the email I received on 18 November, with the names of Council Officers replaced by their job titles.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

RE: New Service Request: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - What are Council Officers' recommendations and when will they be published?  

 

Thank you for your open letter dated 10 November 2025, and note that [the Director of Property and Assets] has asked me to respond on the queries raised:

 

1. Please let me know the date by which Council Officers intend to make their detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens.

 

As you state in your open letter dated 10 November 2025, Cabinet approved the facility mix at Morland Gardens for affordable homes and youth facilities in June 2025. Please note that establishing the youth provisions/requirements is a crucial enabler to bringing forward a vision for the site that aligns with the Cabinet approved facility mix. The Council has therefore been liaising with a range of youth service providers to better understand what/how they would seek to use the building/site to meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough.

 

In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in with regards to increased borrowing costs, construction inflation, and compliance with new/enhanced building safety standards. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has recently issued its new Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 – 2036 and the Council will be reviewing this funding prospectus to see if it can provide the Council a viable route to bring forward affordable housing schemes on sites such as Morland Gardens. The SAHP funding window opens in February 2026 and closes in April 2026, so the Council will be able to confirm after this date if a grant bid for Morland Gardens has been included.

 

With the work currently being undertaken, the Council cannot confirm a date by which officers intend to make detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens until we are able to lock in the proposed youth service provisions for the site and the affordable homes funding opportunities through the SAHP.

 

2. Please also let me know (as some decision on this point must surely have been reached after two years of review) whether those recommendations will include retaining the heritage Victorian villa building, Altamira, as requested in the Willesden Local History Society petition which was presented to September's Full Council meeting, and supported then by councillors from across all three political parties.

 

As per the response to the petition from the Willesden Local History Society, no decision has been made on the retention or not of the Altamira building. Any decision will be based on the outcome of the above (youth provision identification, housing scheme requirements) for Cabinet to make a considered decision.

 

Thank you once again for your open letter, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

The response says why Brent is not currently building many new homes, and these words in the answer to point 1 are of more general interest: ‘In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in ….’ The reference to ‘social rent tenure’ is another example of the misrepresentation of “social housing” terms frequently coming from the Council’s Officers and members.

 

The only new genuine Social Rent level homes which Brent Council provides go to existing tenants who are moved to new homes because the Council wants to demolish their existing home. If you want to understand the different types of affordable housing, please read my November 2022 guest post Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply.

 

Illustration from Brent’s March 2025 Council Tax leaflet.

 

While I’m on the subject of the Council’s misleading information about affordable housing, you may remember my guest post from last April: How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26? It was in a leaflet sent to every Council Taxpayer in the borough, including a letter to residents from the Council Leader saying how well they had done. And the answer to the question of how many affordable homes Brent Council had actually delivered itself in 2024/25 was 26, not the 530 they wanted us to believe!

 

You will also notice from the response above that the proposed affordable housing at Morland Gardens may well depend on Brent getting financial help from the GLA’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-2036. But I can’t help wondering - what happened to the £107m of funding which Brent trumpeted that it had been promised from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026? 

 

From the GLA’s affordable homes website.

 

How much of that promised £107m was spent by Brent Council, and how many new affordable homes were built with that money? Wasn’t it meant to be helping to fund the regeneration of St Raphael’s Estate (see this June 2021 post: Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?)? How many new homes have been built so far as part of the long-promised St Raphael’s regeneration? (I don’t know – perhaps someone can give the answer in a comment below, please.)

 

Brent’s original 2020 Morland Gardens scheme was meant to use £6.5m in funding from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2021 (extended to 2023, because of Covid). That money was lost, but it could have been used instead for a Council redevelopment at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent before Morland Gardens in 2020, and would have provided 67 affordable homes. That project could not go ahead because of the flawed Cabinet decision to move Brent Start to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe on that site. You can read the details in my October 2021 guest post: 1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged.

 

It was hard not to get distracted by some of the contents of the Council’s response above, but I must get back to the main point of this guest post. Should I just accept what the Council Officer was saying, or should I reply? I chose the second option, and this is what I wrote:

 

‘Dear [Head of Capital Delivery},

 

Thank you for your email, in response to my open email of 10 November to [the Director of Property and Assets]. As the text of my open email was made public, both online and in the "Brent & Kilburn Times" (see below), I will seek to make the text of your reply, on behalf of Brent Council, publicly available.

 

The information given at point 1 is helpful in understanding the continuing delay, although this will mean another winter when the empty property can suffer further weather damage. That is not good stewardship of a valuable heritage building!

 

I am disappointed with the response to point 2, because it suggests that the only factors which will be taken into account in deciding whether Officers should recommend either retaining or demolishing the heritage building will be what is required for the proposed youth provision and housing scheme. That approach ignores the requirements of Brent Council's heritage planning policy BHC1, and its adopted Historic Environment Strategy, which both signal the importance of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in proposed developments affecting them.

 

I have referred to the section on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" before, but these words from it need repeating:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.'

 

The historic value of "Altamira" is huge. This was the landmark building at the entrance to an 1870s estate named Stonebridge Park. It was in at the birth of that district of our borough, and with its distinctive belvedere tower, it was one of the few original Victorian villas left standing when most of the street called Stonebridge Park was demolished to make way for the 1970s Stonebridge Park Brent Council estate.

 

Many of those 1970s buildings were demolished after less than 30 years, but "Altamira" is now 150 years old, and still in good structural condition, as well as being a beautiful example of Italianate architecture. It will be part of the Morland Gardens regeneration site, and it can be used for place-making purposes, helping to share the story of Stonebridge Park with young people, and the wider community, now and for future generations. That is why it should be retained, and why you and other Council Officers involved should decide to recommend its retention as part of your detailed submission to Cabinet.

 

Please keep me updated on progress with your review, and let me know if you need support from me (and the wider local history community) for an SAHP funding bid which includes retaining the heritage building. Best wishes,’

 

 

Philip Grant.

 

New plans for hotel opposite the Wembley Stadum Olympic Steps and beside the Brent Civic Centre

 

In the summer I got wind of plans to build a hotel on the Samovar Space adjacent to Brent Council's Civic Centre. I asked Quintain what was planned and they responded with a statement published here in August 2025 LINK.

 

Cherries in blossom outside the side entrance to Brent Civic Centre (Photo: Wembley Park)

The Samovar shell had been removed without any notice and was later found in a corner of Union Park.  Locals, shoppers and fans, will be familiar with the orange benches and cherry trees presently occupying the open space (above) and the markets held opposite the Civic Centre and Sainsbury. Quintain said that this space was always meant to be temporary.

Revised plans to go to Brent Council in February or March 2026 lower the proposed building slightly and is less dense that originally proposed. It could be either office space or a hotel. As Brent Council has had little success in letting its own surplus office space a hotel sounds more likely.

The 'public' space (owned by Quintain), renamed Samovar Square, will be smaller than at present and images indicate that the Civic Centre will be hidden from some perspectives. Residents of the nearby Landsby East building may fear they will be overlooked by hotel bedrooms. The pedestrian route will lose some of its current unique quality.

Quintain have put up an A5 notice on the site with a link to their plans but clearly the proposals need wider publicity and I hope this post will help. 

Quintain announcement on their wesbitesite LINK where a presentation can be found.

• Date of planning submission February/March 2026.

• Planning determination will take around 3 - 4 months and if approved construction will not commence until end of 2026 at the earliest.

• Construction likely to take 2 - 3 years.

• If you wish to make any comments or have any questions on these proposals, please

send them to :

Development@wembleypark.com

 

Here are some extracts from the presentation:

You will need to look carefully but on the above the thin blue dotted line shows the original proposal for height and density. The grey is the current proposal.

 

New plans for

The Civic Centre disappears when approaching along Olympic Way from Wembley Park station

 

The smaller area covered by Samovar Square can be seen from above illustration and that below

 

 The current space with Engineer's Way at the top and market  stalls at the bottom.

 

 

There will be some tree removal and some retention and relocation of trees

 

 In an attempt at reassurance over the loss of the larger space Quintain puts forward three examples of how the smaller space could be used.

 

In the proposal, what was the 'every day' route to Sainsbury's and the Civic Centre is re-routed via the front of the hotel. Other routes go across Samovar Square which raises questions about congestion when events take place in the square.
 

Government underfunding means council tax increase, higher council rents and increased charges as Brent Council faces £30m budget gap by 2028-29

 

 

I wrote a while ago that which ever party (or parties) win the May local election in Brent will be faced with a challenging financial situation. They will inherit the 2026-27 budget currently going out to consultation after approval at Monday's Cabinet Meeting.

Although there was plenty of mutual praise anomf Cabinet members there was no disguising the serious financial situation with increasing costs of homelessness accommodation, the Housing Revenue Account  coping with the cost of repairs required by the Social Housing Regulator, increasing costs in Adut and Children's Social Care and the soaring demands on the High Needs Grant for children with SEND, In addition 65% of Brent Council maintained schools are forecasting in-year deficits and facing restructures of staff to reduce costs.

 Meanwhile the Labour Government is still to decide the local government funding settlement and the current confusion over the Budget offers little realistic hope. Green MP Carla Denyer said, 'Local councils continue to be underfunded by the UK Government, and I will keep pushing Labour to give them the funding they need.'

The Brent budget gap is due to rise to £30m by 2028-29:

Apart from growth through increased demand there is also the additional inflation cost;

 To bridge the £10.4m 2026-27 budget gap savings/cuts are proposed to be decided at the Budget Setting Meeting in February 2026:

A 4.99% Council tax increase is proposed (2.99% general, 2% social care) and a 4.8% council rent increase, increased service charges and increased borrowing to bring the Housing Revenue Account into balance:

 

Among proposals to close the budget gap are a saving through challenging procurement costs of £3m, digital including AI innovation £1.43m, service efficiencies of 1% £3.2m, staffing reduction £400k, increased fees and chages £500k, self-service web-forms rather than email £655k, lane rental increase to utility companies £350k , off-street parking charges increased to market rates £130k.  There also be less tolerance of bad debt and an effort to get maximum market rent from Brent properties other than council homes.

Spending currently underway ahead of the May election on roads and tree planting is largely financed as a one-off by the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy. 

Savings/Cuts proposed 

Hover mouse over foot of extract to enlarge.

 

 

Brent Council has launched a consultation on the proposals: 

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: 

Many councils continue to operate under severe financial duress. Brent isn’t immune to these challenges, but we have continued to manage our finances responsibly over many, many years, allowing us to protect the frontline services that matter most. 

We are now accelerating our programme to transform the way we work so we can continue to protect essential services. This isn’t an easy task but I’m pleased that most of our £10million financial plan will come from working more efficiently and effectively. If you live or work locally, I urge you to have your say on the proposals. 

Residents, businesses and local partners can share their views on the council’s 2026-27 budget proposals until 30 January 2026.

How much say should St Raphaels' residents have in Brent Council commercial lettings on their estate? Off-licence or childcare & tuition centre?

 

Lilburne Walk, St Raphael's Estate 

An applicant who applied to run a childcare and tuition centre in a Brent Council shop front property on St Raphael’s Estate  was told that her application “very strong” and “came a close second”, to another proposal.  That proposal was chosen because it “aligned more closely” with Brent’s strategies and objectives. That application was for an off-licence.

 

The unsuccessful applicant said she was struggling to see how this was a better strategic fit than a family run  childcare and education service business. The Metropolitan Police had initially raised concerns about the succesful application, highlighting risks to all four licensing objectives.

 

Her application outlined a safe, community-focused offer including childcare, tuition, school pick-ups and holiday activities. Residents are now raising serious concerns about the impact of an off-licence between two playgrounds, beside a mosque and opposite a community centre.

 

She asked:

 

What strategic criteria were used to assess the bid?

 

How an off-licence was deemed more aligned with those priorities than a childcare/education use?

 

Whether Social Value scoring or likely licensing impacts were considered?

 

 

Her concerns and call for transparency have now been taken up by the community group st Raphael's Voice who have issued a formal complaint to the Brent Council:

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT AND STRONG OBJECTION TO THE COMMERCIAL TENANCY DECISION FOR 67 LILBURNE WALK, ST RAPHS ESTATE,NW10 0TW

 

 

I am writing to register a formal complaint and express my profound disappointment and strong objection to the decision regarding the tenancy at the commercial premises at 67 Lilburne Walk, St Raphs Estate.

 

This letter serves as notice that the community demands a comprehensive, independent review of the commercial tender process itself, entirely separate from the alcohol licensing application process.

 

The community asserts it was fundamentally failed by the council's initial process due to a distinct and unacceptable lack of meaningful engagement with residents during the critical decision-making phase of the tenancy agreement.

 

The formal licensing application process, while a necessary stage, was a retrospective measure to address concerns, not a proactive consultation on the type of business that would best serve our estate. This approach is a clear failure in due process and community engagement, as a community we have battled with years of ASB, drink and drug fuelled violence. This could potentially undo much of the hardwork we have done to ensure we create thriving communities, give our children the best start in life, and live healthier lives.

 

Our objections are rooted in specific, tangible risks to public safety, public health, and the failure to secure community social value, all of which are material considerations that appear to have been inadequately weighted against pure commercial viability.

 

1.Public Safety and Crime & Disorder Hotspot:

 

St Raph's Estate is a historically identified "crime and disorder hotspot," an area that has been contending with significant alcohol and drug-fuelled antisocial behaviour, including (VWAG) violence towards women and girls. The introduction of an off-licence, one of four in the immediate vicinity, directly undermines the council's own stated priority of community safety and has the potential to exacerbate these existing issues, particularly given the premises' proximity to two playgrounds, a place of worship and community centre. These material concerns were raised by multiple "responsible authorities" including local residents, the Metropolitan Police, residents association, local foodbank, St Patricks church, local mosques, and youth club. The council appears to have disregarded the professional and local expertise on this critical issue.

 

2. Failure to Prioritize Social Value and Council Objectives:

 

The alternative proposal for a childcare and tuition centre would have directly and demonstrably supported the council's social objectives outlined in the Brent Borough Plan: Prosperity and Stability in Brent, A Cleaner, Greener Future, Thriving Communities, The Best Start in Life, and A Healthier Brent. By prioritising an off-licence, the council has bypassed a vital community asset that aligns with these strategic goals, failing to give social value, public health, and public safety equal weight to commercial considerations.

 

3. Demand for a Separate, Independent Tender Review:

 

The community formally requests that the decision-making process for the commercial tenancy at 67 Lilburne Walk be subjected to a separate, independent review. This review must scrutinise:

 

• The criteria used in the tender selection.
• How community and stakeholder input was gathered and, critically, utilised before the tenancy decision was made.
• The weighting given to social value and public safety over commercial viability.

This must be a distinct process from the ongoing or completed alcohol licensing application, as the tenancy decision and licensing decision are separate legal matters, each requiring independent scrutiny.

 

We urge the Council to act transparently and responsibly by reviewing this flawed decision-making process to ensure that robust community engagement is a fundamental, early, and decisive step in all future commercial tenancy agreements. We expect a formal response outlining the steps the council will take to initiate this independent review

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

Asif Zamir