Drama at Brent Planning Committee as decisions overturned within minutes and allegations of intimidation fly. Kingsbury High MUGA approved,

The recording of Thursday's very unusual Planning Committee appears to have been delayed.

 

Brent Council website today

 

This is unusual but the meeting was extremely unusual. Three decisions were made on the Wembley Hospital, Chaplin Road: FOR, AGAINST, DEFER and serious allegations made about intimidation of residents by the applicant for Thanet Lodge.

One the recording is available I will cover fully but meanwhile the story can be told in my Tweets.

 

Proposed development on Wembley Hospital site

 

DEMOLITION OF WEMBLEY HOSPITAL AND REPLACEMENT BY HOUSING 

 

 Recorded Decision:

RESOLVED to defer the decision for the following reason(s): ·       As the majority of Members on the Committee had indicated that they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, including: i)               insufficient provision of affordable housing; ii)              insufficient parking provision on site and impact of congestion on surrounding streets; iii)            lack of community space; iv)            lack of on-site play space for older children; v)             insufficient provision of family sized housing; vi)            harm to neighbouring amenity including loss of daylight; and vii)           impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene.   Voting on the above decision was unanimous and accordingly, the application was deferred to allow for further assessment and consideration of the matters identified by the Committee.

 

THANET LODGE GARAGES, BRONDESBURY

Recorded Decision

 

Decision:

RESOLVED to defer the decision for the following reason(s):

 

·       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.

 

 

A positive aspect of the meeting was the incisive questions posed by Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Cllr Anton Georgiou who had clearly done their homework and showed they would not be fobbed off. This makes a refreshing change. Cllr Gallagher's contribution regarding the applicant's claim that the Thanet Lodge application was self-build was particularly effective.

 

Oh, and despite polite representations made by two Roe Green Village residents, the application by Kingsbury High School for a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) in the school grounds was finally approved. Changes in where the MUGA was situated, a curtailment of the use of lighting, and assurances about the ecological status of the materials used for the MUGA were the background to the decision.

 

 

 

In at the deep end - a visit to Wembley Arena's former swimming pool.

  

Guest post by Graham Cooksley, with an introduction by Philip Grant

 

Public swimming at the Empire Pool, late 1930s. (Wembley History Society collection)

 

If you read the “Wembley Matters” series about the history of Wembley Arena, written for its 90^th anniversary in 2024, you will know that it originally included a swimming pool. It was known as the Empire Pool, and what an amazing pool it was! When it opened in July 1934, Wembley’s new pool was the largest covered swimming bath in the world, 200 feet (almost 61 metres) long, 16 feet (almost 5 metres) at the deep end, and holding 700,000 gallons of heated water. As well as the main pool, with Europe’s first wave machine, there was a paddling pool for children, a “fountain pool”, 250 changing rooms and 1,250 lockers.

 

Advert for the Empire Pool.
(from the back cover of a 1934 British Empire Games swimming programme)

 

The pool was used for public swimming and international competitions in the summer during the 1930s, but covered over during the winter months for ice hockey matches and skating, among other sports events. It was last used as a pool for the swimming and diving competitions, and the water polo finals, at the 1948 Olympic Games. 

 

The finish of a swimming race at the 1948 Olympic Games. (Image from the internet)

 

But the pool was not filled in, and still kept the original “temporary” wooden floor over it until that was replaced with a stronger concrete covering in 1974. Graham Cooksley, who posts interesting and historic images and stories about the Stadium and Arena on “X” (formerly Twitter) and Instagram @wembleyarchive1923, recently had a tour of the former pool, and kindly offered to share the experience with “Wembley Matters” readers. If you want to know “what lies beneath” the arena floor (not that horror story), please read on! Graham writes:

 

Since starting my Wembley Stadium and OVO Arena Wembley collection many years ago it has, since learning that the old Empire Pool still remained underneath the floor of the arena, been a long-held desire to view it one day.

 

In an email correspondence with the Arena team (I write a monthly heritage blog for their Social Media pages) a cheeky ‘would it be possible to view the old pool’ request developed over a few weeks into a calendar date for May 2026 when we would be visiting for a day’s play in the World Table Tennis World Championships.  This Arena visit was my first since a David Bowie gig back in 2003 so that was good enough, but to get to see the old pool would be “Christmas day for an eight year-old” levels of excitement, but for a 57 year-old. 

 

Meeting my contact at the OVO Arena at mid-day, while France v Romania Ladies was still ongoing, we made our way into the open plan offices where we met our guide from the estates team.  Hard hats were issued, and a service elevator took us down to the basement.  The underworld of the Arena is a strange mix of storage including old vending machines, standing as if waiting to be filled and used, cabling that would rival any underground station, and runs the entire length of the arena, and horizontal and vertical pipes and beams which criss-cross each other thus making those hard hats essential.

 

1. The holes for the wave making machine. (All numbered photos by Graham Cooksley)

 

First stop on this underworld tour were four cavernous holes in the floor, these were where the wave making machinery, the first in Britain, were located.  Ladders still take maintenance teams down to occasionally pump out water that still gathers in areas, probably due London’s soft clay.  Then we approach the actual swimming tank.  

 

2. Looking towards the deep end, with the ‘A’ frames and their black sheets.

 

Bathers 90 years ago would have stepped down into the waters from poolside changing lockers, whereas we walked into it through various breeches in the surrounding tank ‘wall’ and given the change of orientation that took place during the arena’s refurbishment twenty years ago, we are straight into the deep end.  Mezzanine walkways in the tank are surrounded by strange large ‘A’ frames with stretched black sheets, these we are told are for sound proofing the underworld during music acts, the vibrations from which can cause damage to the structure of the building.

 

3. One of the lamp holes in the side of the swimming pool.

 

4. The overflow channel (in black) near the top of the pool’s tank.

 

Lamp holes line the sides of the tank, some are used as cabling through points while some still retain their ‘glass’ which would have shone so brightly in those illuminated prewar days.  Around the rim of the tank the water overflow channel remains, just waiting for someone to grab hold and kick the water once again.  On the floor of the deep end is a dust covered ‘Public Toilets’ sign. How many years has that laid there? I offer it a good home, but the request is unanswered.   

 

5. The ‘Public Toilets’ sign at the bottom of the pool’s deep end

 

6. A ‘plug hole’ in one of the concrete floor beams.

 

Directly above us France and Romania continue their game but we are directed to view some small round holes in the 1974 concrete floor, our guide tells us that these are literally plug holes. At the end of an ice season the machinery would be switched off and the melting water would drain through these holes and into the swimming tank to be pumped out.  One ingenious feature in the existing concrete floor is / was a network of pipes embedded to freeze water and to form the rink.  

 

7. Some of the embedded pipes, exposed in a section of the original floor.

 

One end of the newly-built Empire Pool in 1934, with a corner water tower arrowed.

 

The underworld space gets more limited as the concrete floor above us gradually meets the pool floor as it shallows out over the length of the building, but as we leave the underworld there is one last stop to look up into the interior of one of the four iconic corner towers of the OVO Arena.  These are water towers and still have the pipework inside them and could still work if ever needed.  Sadly, our tour ends, it’s been fantastic and now eight weeks later it was such a privilege, and we are so grateful to the Arena team for making it happen. 

 

Graham Cooksley. 

25 Objections lodged against the development of 14 The Paddocks and its large back garden into 10 flats and two houses

 

Columbina 14 The Paddocks, Wembley Park

The Paddocks is a road of detached houses with long back gardens, next to the former Brent Town Hall, now the Lycee. It is a hill and the road is quite busy with traffic between the  Salmon Street/Fryent Way  roundabout and Forty Lane. The 206 bus route runs along the The Paddocks to its terminus on the roundabout serving the Kings Drive Estate.

Columbina, 14 The Paddocks, is a handsome 5 bedroom detached house, with outbuilding and a long back garden near the brow of the hill on the corner with Greenhill Way.

 

 The willow in Greenhill Way

It previously featured on Wembley Matters when a magnificent willow in its  back garden was removed after storm damage. There was local speculation that this was done to enable development of the back garden but the Brent Tree Officer confirmed that removal had been advised because of the tree's post-storm instability.

 

The back garden minus the willow

Plans have been submitted to Brent Council for the demolition of Columbina and its replacement with a 3 storey building of 10 flats.

 

 Present

 

Proposed

Two semi-detached homes are proposed for the back garden that would front Greenhill Way. Because of the long back gardens there are few houses on Greenhill Way at present.

 Proposed

 

There are currently 25 Objections to the twin development on the Brent Planning Portal LINK and no submissions of Support. The objections are from residents in The Paddocks and Greenhill Way. 

Planning Officers will be considering the harm to the area weighed against the benefit of new housing to meet Brent's targets. The applicant claims that a financial viability assessment demonstrates that no affordable housing can be provided if the expected profit is to be maintained (supported by a report with more typos etc than even Wembley Matters articles!) but this is challenged by another assessment - even then it would be an off-site contribution towards affordable housing.

The number of people accommodated in the new development would be many more than in Columbina, even if it is an HMO:

 

Because Greenhill Way has few houses it has surplus parking spaces, some used by commuters bound for nearby Wembley Park station and even some Brent Council workers as it is a 15 minute walk to the Civic Centre. When parking spaces were removed on the Kings Drive council estate to make way for infill housing, Brent Council suggested using Greenhill Way for resident parking.

 

 

 The Objections all make similar points. This is one:

  

I am writing to formally object to planning application 25/0403 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a residential development comprising a two-storey building with converted roof space containing 10 self-contained flats, basement-level car parking, cycle storage and 2 dwellinghouses, together with new vehicular access, off-street car parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment.



I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons.



The proposed development represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. Replacing a single dwelling with a total of 12 residential units would be an excessive intensification of a residential plot and would be completely out of keeping with the character of The Paddocks. The road is predominantly made up of family homes (like my home) and introducing a large block of flats with additional houses to the rear would fundamentally alter the quiet, suburban nature of the street. I am shocked that someone would even consider submitting such a proposal.



The scale, bulk, massing and density of the proposal would not respect the established character of the area. The Paddocks is largely characterised by detached and semi-detached family homes with gardens, and the proposed development would appear cramped and excessive in comparison. A block of 10 flats, together with 2 additional dwellinghouses, would be far more intensive than the existing pattern of development and could set a harmful precedent for similar overdevelopment of single-family homes in The Paddocks and surrounding residential streets.



I am particularly concerned about the impact on traffic and highway safety. The Paddocks is already a busy road, and traffic has become noticeably worse over the years due to Wembley Stadium event days, Wembley Park, the London Designer Outlet and the academy school on Forty Lane. It is already difficult for residents to pull out of their own driveways safely because of the volume of traffic. Adding 12 households to one plot, together with a new vehicular access and basement parking, would create further vehicle movements and increase pressure on an already congested road.



The basement car parking is also a serious concern. Vehicles entering and leaving basement parking can create additional safety risks, particularly where visibility is limited or traffic is heavy. The proposal could result in queuing, reversing, obstruction of the highway, and conflict with pedestrians, cyclists, refuse vehicles and emergency services. The local road network is already under pressure, and this development would worsen the existing situation.



I am also very concerned about the disruption that would be caused during construction if this application were approved. The proposed demolition, excavation for basement parking, construction works, deliveries of materials, skips, scaffolding, machinery and contractor vehicles would be incredibly disruptive for existing residents. The Paddocks is already a busy road, and construction traffic would likely cause further congestion, blocked access, traffic build-up and difficulties for residents entering and leaving their driveways. This would be particularly serious on Wembley Stadium event days and during school traffic periods, when the road is already under significant pressure.



There is also likely to be an unacceptable impact on parking. Even if some parking is provided on site, the number of proposed units is likely to generate additional demand for visitor parking, deliveries, taxis, service vehicles and general household use. Any overspill parking would worsen congestion and place further pressure on residents who already struggle with traffic and parking conditions, especially on Wembley Stadium event days.



The proposal would also have a harmful impact on residential amenity. A development of this size could lead to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, increased noise and disturbance, light pollution and a general sense of enclosure for nearby residents. The number of new occupiers, vehicles, deliveries and comings and goings would be far greater than the existing single dwelling and would materially change the living conditions of surrounding households.



I am also concerned about the loss of existing garden space and the impact this may have on the character of the area, biodiversity, drainage and the quality of the residential environment. The replacement of garden land with a much more intensive built form, hardstanding, access arrangements and basement construction could reduce natural drainage and add further pressure to local drainage systems.



The proposed basement works raise additional concerns about excavation, construction impact, drainage, groundwater and the potential effect on neighbouring properties. Excavation for basement parking can cause significant disturbance, noise, vibration, dust and disruption to surrounding residents. These matters should be fully and independently assessed before any decision is made.



The local area has already experienced substantial residential intensification and development around Wembley. Local roads, schools, services, drainage and public infrastructure are under growing strain. Allowing this level of intensification on a quiet residential street would add to the cumulative pressure already being experienced by residents.



For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Brent Council refuses this application. Should officers be minded to approve it, I request that the application be referred to the Planning Committee for full consideration, with a site visit and a detailed highways assessment taking into account Wembley Stadium event-day traffic, the impact of Wembley Park and the London Designer Outlet, the traffic generated by the school on Forty Lane, parking pressure, basement construction, drainage, landscaping, neighbouring amenity and the character of the area.

 

Details for anyone who wishes to make a submission Object, Support, or Neutral:

 

Ref 25/0403 

 

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=DCAPR_172134&activeTab=summary

 

 

LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub

 

Details: https://www.willesdengreensurgery.nhs.uk/new-hub

 

Letter to The Editor regarding the proposed Health Hub in Gladstone Park, Willesden Green

We are a group of concerned residents living close to Gladstone Park.

In March some (not all) of the residents in the neighbourhood were informed of plans to demolish an existing building and build a new integrated GP practice called the Health Hub inside the boundaries of the park, next to the new children’s playground. The developer’s plans also provide for a community hall, wellbeing studios, a pharmacy, a cafe, toilets, a food truck and even a padel court. 

As you can imagine, people jumped at the idea of having these new facilities in the park. The developers got the endorsement of the Friends of Gladstone Park group by promising them a communal space to be included in the scheme.

However… As is often the case with private enterprises, we have not been told the whole story, but rather only what we wanted to hear. 

If we remove our rose-tinted glasses and look at the proposal in detail, it becomes abundantly clear that this new complex is in the wrong place, will not serve the people that it claims to serve, and will have devastating consequences for our beautiful park and the quiet character of our neighbourhood. 

We were told this new building would be a GP practice built to serve the local community within 10 minutes walk from the site. But in reality the catchment area will be much larger and the scope considerably more ambitious:

 

 

• The practice is to meet the needs of major planned developments as far as Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner. Not so local anymore!
• The number of patients is currently planned to be 20,000 but it can grow exponentially (the GP practice which is to be housed there grew from 3,800 patients in 2018 to 15,000 today).
• It will not only be a GP practice, but also 'co-locate GP services with neighbourhood health, mental health, housing, and social care teams'.

Why are they placing all these facilities inside a park? 

 

 

The park is for recreational activities and quiet enjoyment of nature. This development will increase the footfall tenfold, when the park is already plagued by constant littering, anti-social behaviour and the danger of speeding electric bikes.

 

 

And how will people in need of health or social services be able to easily reach it from Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner? The developers propose the 226 bus. Whoever has used that line can attest it is unreliable and highly susceptible to local traffic congestion. 

Gladstone Park is designated Metropolitan Open Land, which affords the highest level of protection from development. But the developers have told us there is no other viable site in the surgery’s catchment area to fulfil their needs, therefore an exception is to be made. They say that the site has to be owned, as well as partially funded, by the council and then leased for a peppercorn because of ‘the unaffordable cost of private land’.  

 

 

If the council makes this concession for one particular GP surgery, why shouldn’t other GP practices also demand more protected land and £2.97m CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) money for their own ambitions? 

 

 

It is, surely, a dangerous precedent.

There is a similar project, the GP Super Surgery in Wembley, run by Wembley Park Medical Centre and serving around 25,000 patients. It was recently built by Quintain real estate in their new Repton Gardens building development, placing health services inside the new growth areas. 

With the flurry of new developments happening or going to happen in the neighbourhood (10,500 new homes according to the Brent Cabinet Report) and property developers maximising their profits by building new luxurious flats without supplying the minimum amount of social housing, why is the council not securing a more suitable location for the surgery in one of those developments? Or nearer to the patients who need these services most!

Why are Brent Labour cabinet members and the Leader so casually willing to sacrifice a chunk of our beautiful, protected local park? 

 

 

Brent Council can and should do better.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

A group of concerned residents

 

Brent Council gives reasons for Licensing Sub-Committee's refusal of Arcadia's application for 1 Walm Lane Adult Gaming Centre

 From Brent Council

  

An application for a new adult gaming centre in Willesden Green has been rejected by Brent Council’s Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The application by Arcadia Casino Limited was refused because it was not considered consistent with two licensing objectives under the Gambling Act 2005:

 

* Preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime.

* Protecting children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

 

The Sub-Committee considered evidence about crime and anti-social behaviour, the number of gambling premises already in Willesden Green, local deprivation, and the potential impact on vulnerable residents.

 

It also heard from Brent Public Health and five objectors, including three councillors, who raised concerns about crime and disorder linked to the number of gambling premises in the area. They noted that gambling-related harm in Brent is significantly above the national average.

 

More than 200 objections were submitted by residents, ward councillors and community representatives. Local concerns in Willesden Green were central to the decision.

 

The decision comes as Brent continues to call for councils to have stronger powers to refuse gambling premises where there is evidence of local harm. Earlier this year, Brent brought together more than 40 councils and mayors to call for reform of the Gambling Act 2005, including changes to the “aim to permit” duty, which limits councils’ ability to refuse applications.

 

A separate application for a new gambling premises licence on Kilburn High Road, due to be heard on 8 July 2026, has also been withdrawn.

 

The Leader of Brent Council & Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care,  Cllr Muhammed Butt, said: 

 

This is an important decision for Willesden Green and for every resident who has said enough is enough.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the evidence carefully and independently, including concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, deprivation, the concentration of gambling premises and the risk of harm to vulnerable people. On that basis, it was right that this application was refused.

'Debate' at Brent Cabinet over Preston Park Improvments

 

 Presentations and Cabinet member response in full (Brent Council)

Monday's Cabinet was unusual in that there was almost a debate. Normal Cabinets usually rubber stamp decisions with a few remarks from members praising each other's proposals.

Members did not debate with each other on Monday but unusually permission was granted to a group of residents to respond to another group's petition presentation. Not a real debate as no interaction was allowed but there was at least presentation of differing points of view.

The focus was proposals for the improvement of Preston Park that arose as an NCIL  (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) initiative, It had been discussed for several months and discussions continued perhaps ill-advisedly over the local election period.

The initial proposal was for a MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area) on one of the tennis courts in the park (Red rectangle on map below).

 

The petitioners objected to the proposed site as it was close to nearby houses and gardens and would cause more noise than a tennis court. They proposed an alternative site (Yellow rectangle on map) next to the children's playground and away from back gardens and homes.

Angela Barrett, presenting the petition on behalf of residents, said the alternative site had the backing of Brent Parks Forum and the Preston Park Safer Neighbourhood team. The original site was in a secluded part of the park that attracts anti-social behaviour raising safety and inclusion issues. She said:

I can begin with good news: since our petition was submitted, the Head of Parks Kelly Eaton has confirmed that the tennis court site is no longer being considered

A new location adjacent to the children's playground in the centre of the park would create a unified, safer family activity hub. It was more visible and easier to overlook, making it safer and more welcoming. 

The meadow from the children's playground

The area was intended to be a meadow, but has not established successfully and remains grass of relatively low ecological value. There would be potential to incorporate a rain garden and pollinator planting.

Angela suggested that  rather than a caged tarmac MUGA, which research shows can often not feel welcoming for girls and younger users, LINK LINK, a flexible grass-based alternative area or natural adventure playground could be provided. Positive proposals for better engagement have been put to Brent Council LINK.

She concluded by asking the Cabinet to support a new location and thoughtful design that will enhance the park for everyone. A facility that works well for all young people, feels safe and inclusive, fits into its surroundings and could even include a net ecological gain.

Soulla Kwong then spoke on behalf of Friends of Preston Park that began as a litter-picking group and developed as a group to improve the park, particularly for young children.

They had spoken to local children who had supported the idea of a MUGA and a chess table and table tennis  table that have already been installed. However, I understand that the alternative ideas for youth provision outlined above by Angela have not been presented to local children yet.

Soulla  said that the 'disused' tennis courts had been suggested as a MUGA site by children. As the court already had a firm foundation it would be less costly install a MUGA there.  No floodlights would be installed that would disturb neighbours.

She said that building a MUGA on the meadow would amount to loss of green space that the Friends would oppose: 'We have a duty not to destroy what little we have. Should we leave behind a concrete jungle or something that future generations can enjoy?'

Soulla Kwong did not respond to Angela Barrett's suggestion of a lower impact grass football field and natural adventure playground instead of a MUGA. 

It was a pity that there were no questions allowed from Cabinet members or interaction between the two groups that might have established some common ground.

It was left to Cllr Promise Knight to respond. She said that the proposal had started as part of the NCIL process with support from school children for a place where they could be active. She recognised residents' concerns over noise levels and the enjoyment of their homes and gardens. 

Having considered the feedback received she could confirm that the Park Service would continue to review the improvement programme in more detail, weighing up all the options and what was possible: 

I hope this provides reassurance to residents and demonstrates the council is listening carefully to both sides. 

Cllr Knight did not say explicitly that the tennis court site was no longer being considered. 

Interestingly, in one of a series on access to play on BBC Radio 4, there was a discussion about another area of controversy, whether council tennis courts should be free and self-run or taken over on the council's behalf by the Lawn Tennis Association, with coded locks and charges. HEAR IT HERE

Soulla Kwong called the tennis courts 'disused', however I  understand the courts are used for tennis and remain available to book via the LTA, although there are question marks about how well the current arrangement with the LTA is working. Angela also mentioned that occasional ASB occurs at the site. This may be a separate issue for the Parks Service to review.

 

The existing children's playground has safety and maintenance issues.  What would be the maintenance programme for a  MUGA and how would it be funded.  LINK