Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s latest “spin” versus the facts!

Guest Blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity    

 

 

 Zephaniah House under construction in Wembley High Road (with “The Pages” opposite).

 

On 24 February, Brent Council issued a press release: “More affordable homes coming as Zephaniah House reaches key milestone”. Its content has already been shared by websites including Kilburn Times, Harrow Online and Construction News. Like most stories from Brent Communications, it tells a positive tale, including “quotes” from Cabinet members, to give the impression that all of this “good news” is the work of our local Labour councillors. [What would you expect, when the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications is Cllr. Muhammed Butt?] 

 

“Topping out” at Zephaniah House (image courtesy of Brent Communications)

 

The news item this time was the topping out ceremony at Zephaniah House (on the former Ujima House site in the High Road), part of the Brent Council/Wates Residential Wembley Housing Zone development. The press release says that this is ‘an important step toward delivering 54 new affordable homes on the former Ujima House site in Wembley.’ As you can see from my opening photo, there is still a lot of work to do on the building before the homes there will be ready for occupation, which is supposed to be by 31 December 2026. But with local elections in just over two months, I’m sure they would like you to think it would be sooner!

 

“Quote” attributed to Cllr. Teo Benea (from Brent’s press release)

 

The featured “quote” in the press release is from Cllr. Teo Benea, as the Wembley Housing Zone is a Regeneration project which she inherited from her predecessor in that Cabinet role, Cllr. Shama Tatler. There is also a “quote” attributed to Cllr. Fleur Donnelly Jackson, the Housing Lead, which includes the lines: ‘… our ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can. Zephaniah House will help reduce our waiting list …. This is what it looks like when a council commits to tackling the housing crisis head on.’ I don’t know whether Cabinet members really compose these “quotes” themselves, or whether someone at the Civic Centre writes them. I will share this guest post with them, so they have the chance to reply!

 

I agree that building genuinely affordable Council homes for the people on the waiting list (around 34,000 is the most recent figure I’ve read from Brent Council) should be a top priority, so the 54 homes at Zephaniah House will go a small way towards ‘tackling the housing crisis’. But, yet again, the Council is using the term “affordable homes” to cover more than the genuinely affordable homes (that is, either at Social Rent level, or the slightly higher London Affordable Rent – “LAR” - level), which its 2020 Poverty Commission Report showed was all that most Brent residents in housing need could afford.

 

The start of my first Wembley Housing Zone guest post, in August 2021.

 

The most recent information I have on the 54 homes on the former Ujima House site was from a Freedom of Information Act request in 2023. These were originally all meant to be for rent at the genuinely affordable LAR level, but this had been changed to 32 (including all eight family-sized flats) at LAR, and 22 for shared ownership. If that has changed, I hope the relevant Lead Member can update us.

 

I have been writing about the Wembley Housing Zone since August 2021 (see illustration above), when I highlighted the fact that the proposals going to Cabinet ignored the Brent Poverty Commission’s housing recommendations, which they had accepted less than a year before, writing:

 

‘If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.’

 

A pdf copy of my guest post was sent to all Cabinet members a few days before the 16 August 2021 meeting, at which they formally decided to go down the “development partner” route. I received no response, and my views were ignored. When I later emailed the Lead Member for Housing, asking why they were not building more homes for genuinely affordable rent, she replied that as this project was under her colleague, the Lead Member for Regeneration, she’d forwarded the email to Cllr. Shama Tatler, who would respond to me. (She didn’t!)

 

I later discovered, through FoI requests, that this ‘preferred delivery option’ had already been informally agreed at an unpublished Policy Co-ordination Group meeting in July 2020. That followed on from a previous “go ahead” for the option, by as few as two Cabinet members (the Council Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration?), in 2019. As a result, there had been at least two “soft market testing” exercises, in February 2020 and April 2021, which were used to justify the recommendation to Cabinet in August 2021. You can read the details in my January 2022 guest post “Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white”, and its December 2021 prequel.

 

My November 2021 “parody” Brent Council “publicity photo” for its Cecil Avenue housing scheme.

 

The Zephaniah House press release also refers to the larger Wembley Housing Zone development, across the High Road on the Cecil Avenue site, which it says ‘will bring 237 new homes, including 84 affordable homes.’ As shown in my “cartoon” above, when this received full planning consent in February 2021, it was intended to include 250 homes. The August 2021 Cabinet decision meant that only 98 of these would have been “affordable”, and only 37 at the genuinely affordable LAR level. Big posters on the hoardings around the site now claim that Brent is “delivering new Council homes” there, but the reality is that 150 of them will be for private sale by Wates.

 

 

Two signs from the hoardings round the Cecil Avenue site (with my linking comment).

 

Of the 84 “affordable” homes, information from an FoI request, which I shared in January 2024, shows that 56 (that’s just 23.6% of the 237) would now be for rent to Council tenants at LAR level, while 28 would be for shared ownership. The drop in the “affordable” figure (87 to 84) must be the three which I was advised would be for “discounted market sale”, a form of so-called “affordable housing” available if your annual income is no more than £90k!

 

It was claimed in the press release that Brent Council’s ‘ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can.’ But is that what they have done with the Wembley Housing Zone? They already owned the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, and had previously used money provided by the GLA to purchase the Ujima House office block. Without having to incur the cost of purchasing the land, Brent should have been able to build all of the homes there as Council housing. That would particularly have been the case if they had got on with the scheme in 2021, when interest rates on loans from the Treasury were lower, and building costs had not risen as much as they have now.

 

A sign on the hoardings at Cecil Avenue, about Brent’s WHZ “Vision”.

 

So why didn’t they? That must be down to the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone “Vision”, driven by the then Lead Member for Regeneration and supported by the Council Leader. It was clearly their wish to make it a joint venture with a “developer partner”, which led to a delay until early 2023, when they awarded the building contract to Wates Residential (agreeing to pay them £121,862,500). And although Cllr. Tatler posed for this photo with Wates on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023, for a press release announcing the contract award, it was February 2024 before construction began.

 

Cllr. Shama Tatler and Wates officials, from a March 2023 Brent press release.

 

Cllr. Tatler’s “vision” for the Wembley Housing Zone can be summed up in this sentence from her Cabinet Member Foreword, in a report to a Cabinet meeting on 8 April 2024 (which approved ‘up to £11.23m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden’ on the Cecil Avenue site):

 

‘The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’

 

That is NOT a vision to build as many homes as possible, for genuinely affordable rents, in order to reduce the number of local people in real housing need on Brent’s waiting list!

 

As early as January 2022, I was calling for proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision, with a view to increasing the number of genuinely affordable homes in the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, but all my efforts were thwarted by councillors or Council Officers. It was only at a Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 23 April 2024 that Cllr. Tatler was finally asked to explain why Brent had not delivered more genuinely affordable homes as part of that project. When I watched the webcast of that meeting, I could not believe what I was hearing, so I played it through several times, and this is the answer Cllr. Tatler gave:

 

‘'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

What she publicly told the Committee was untrue, as recorded on “Wembley Matters” at the time. I wrote to Cllr. Tatler, with a copy to the Scrutiny Chair, but she never replied to me, and as far as I am aware she never apologised to the Committee for misleading them.

 

If you want facts about Brent’s affordable housing, rather than “spin” or misinformation, I suggest you read Martin’s blogsite, and don’t rely on what you hear from the Council!

 

Philip Grant.

Brent apologises over poor communication regarding the sudden closure of St Raph's Community Centre but much more needed to restore trust

 

Sharing Space session at the Community Centre pre-closure

As Wembley Matters reported there was shock on St Raphael's Estate when Brent workmen suddenly and  without notice changed the locks on the residents' community centre. In the aftermath that followed there was speculation that the closure, on grounds of  fire safety, may have been politically motivated. LINK

Asif Zamir, of St Raph's Voice, that runs events at the Centre, has recently announced that he is standing as an Independent in the local elections. 

Mr Zamir sent an official complaint to Brent Council and received an apology that left a number of questions: 

  

Thank you for your email dated 16 February 2026. While I appreciate the apology regarding the "way in which the closure was communicated," I must formally correct the record on several points where your summary does not align with the documented facts.

1. Failure of Notification

 

Your email states that the Residents’ Association (RA) Chair was "advised of the situation" and informed of the lock changes. This is factually incorrect. The Chair was not informed of the closure, nor was the changing of the locks presented as a solution or even discussed. The email chain sent to the Council Leader and the Lead Member for Housing clearly demonstrates a total absence of communication from Council officers prior to the locks being changed. This was not a "shortcoming" in communication; it was a complete failure to engage with the community’s elected representatives.

 

2. Safety Contradictions and Resident Risk

 

There is a deeply concerning logical gap in the Council’s timeline. You state that safety concerns were identified on 30 January and required "swift action."

 

However the room was allowed to remain open for on Fri, Sat, Sun and Monday Morning; accessible to residents after these "significant safety concerns" were known to the Council, I understand and appreciate you may not have been personally involved in this, but it remains the responsibility of the council to inform us and discuss solutions.

 

Instead of immediate notification to residents regarding these "grave dangers," advising the chair to ensure the room is not used, deploying emergency staff to disconnect the power or isolate the fusebox the Council’s primary instruction was to a locksmith whom would change the locks mid session on Monday.

 

If the building was truly unsafe, allowing residents to continue using the space while quietly arranging a lock change suggests a failure in the Council's duty of care.

 

3. Lack of Responsiveness

 

Your summary omits the fact that emails from the RA and myself were ignored by all officers for a full week following the incident. "Hindsight" does not explain why active attempts by the community to seek clarity or alternative provision were met with silence during a purported safety crisis.

 

4. Outstanding Requirements

 

While I note the assignment of a single point of contact, the community still requires the following to restore trust:

 

The Full Technical/FRA Report: We are still waiting to understand the specific failings that led to this urgent closure.  

 

A Detailed Timeline: We require a "pinned down" schedule for the remedial works.

 

Work Logs: A comprehensive list of works already completed and those that remain outstanding.

We would like these documents to be provided without further delay so the Residents' Association can independently verify the status of our community space.

 

Regards,

 

Asif Zamir

 

On February 25th St Raph'sVoice  said: 

 

The council advise that they are still awaiting receipt of the formal Fire Risk Assessment report, upon which they will be in a position to provide a clear timeline for the required remedial works that need to be undertaken to the community room.

 

This is after 3 weeks!

LETTER: John H of South Kilburn still waiting for repair to his Octavia HA flat to be completed - 3 months on

 

Readers will remember the case of John H, the disabled South Kilburn pensioner, who was without heating for many weeks in the winter. After repeated stories on this blog and help from Brent Council the heating in his housing association flat was eventually restored, but the associated repairs are still outstanding. The wordcloud above gives an idea of the nightmare that John has encountered in trying to get the repair completed.

In despair, John wrote another letter to Wembley Matters yesterday that I publish below:

   

Dear Editor,

 

It is now 3 months (24th Nov. 2025-24th February 2026) since I reported to my landlord Octavia, that 2 of my thermostats had failed and needed to be replaced.

 

However, I am still waiting for the repair to be completed, even though my heating was restored on the 6th of January 2026.

 

Yesterday SureServe were due to install a new thermostat in my living room, but they failed to attend, which has now reached 14 missed appointments over 3 months.

 

Mears are due to come tomorrow to repair all the damage caused by SureServe when they restored my heating system.

 

I made a complaint to Abri yesterday by email regarding waiting for 7 weeks to get my temporary thermostat replaced with a new one in my living room.

 

As they did not reply to yesterday's email, I have now submitted another one, using the Abri complaints online form regarding the wait of 50 days for my thermostat.

 

 

John H

South Kilburn

 

Brent Green Group Leader: 'For Brent residents austerity with a red rosette is just the same as with a blue rosette'

 Last night's Brent Council Budget Setting meeting  was different from others during the last more than a decade because for the first time an alternative was presented by a party to the left of Labour.

It was clear that in this, the last Full Council meeting before the May election,  the move of five  Labour councillors to the Green Party, riled the Labour leadership. They wanted to paint their move as opportunist rather than a matter of principle connected to Labour's national and local failings. Some Labour councillors looked a little shame faced during these attacks.

Deputy Leader Cllr Mili Patel, likened the three opposition parties to characters from the Wizard of Oz, quite forgetting that the real Wizard of Oz in her scenario, was in fact Cllr Muhammed Butt who was sitting next to her.

The election campaign has already seen some tricky moves by Labour including the release of Community Infrastructure Levy funds for pre-election improvements previously deemed impermissable, Labour election leaflets published with green colours rather than red, and Brent Council publicity on social media and in the Brent Magazine featuring plenty of pictures of Brent councillors claiming credit for various initiatives. Not an equal playing field.

The Brent Budget Debate was similarly unbalanced with Labour Cabinet Lead after Cabinet Lead extolling their own virtues with quote after quote listing the millions they were spending for the people of Brent, quite forgetting it was the people's money they were spending not the party's.

 

 

Labour's skip's? 

Cllr Muhammed Butt and Cllr Krupa Sheth feature

 

Those pre-election CIL funds and Cllr Krupa Sheth again

 

Designed to deceive? No, surely not?

 

Lib Dems and Greens voted against each other's alternative budgets last night and the details were different.  However, there were some common themes regarding the importance of truly affordable housing (Greens want a separate Housing Scrutiny Commitee),  environmental initiatives and reviewing the mayoral roles and finances. 

Room for cooperation once elected? 

STAFF IN BRENT SCHOOLS SAY 8 WEEKS MATERNITY LEAVE IS BETTER BUT OUR BABIES DESERVE MORE. SUPERMARKET STAFF CURRENTLY GET MORE LEAVE THAN SCHOOL STAFF!

 From Brent District National Education Union

  

BRENT SCHOOL STAFF CAMPAIGN TO STOP MOTHERS BEING FORCED BACK TO WORK TOO EARLY

National Education Union members across the borough of Brent have welcomed the increase in maternity leave from 4 fully paid weeks to 8 but are disappointed that Minister for Women & Equalities, Bridget Phillipson didn’t see fit to allow us 28 weeks maternity leave, equal to that of her staff in the Department of Education.

A Brent NEU petition has gone from strength to strength with educators saying they wish they could care for their own children in the same way they care for the children they work with. We just want equality with other workers, including supermarket workers (Aldi, M&S, Tesco and ASDA all offer 26 weeks fully paid with Lidl leading the market at 28 weeks)

A recent Brent NEU survey highlighted that mothers are being forced back into work due to terrible maternity pay, leaving very young babies in childcare, whilst expressing milk in school toilets and car parks.

87.5% of Members said they were willing to take industrial action to improve maternity rights in Brent.

 

Brent Council Budget and Council Setting meeeting is at 3.30pm tomorrow. Links to full alternative proposals from Tory, Green and Lib Dem Groups

The Council's Budget and Council Setting meeting tomorrow (Monday February 23rd) is the last Full Council Meeting of the Municipal Year. The next meeting will be after the May 7th Council Election and will see the fromation of a new adminstration.

The budget meeting will be at 3.30pm rather than the usual 6pm to allow for Ramadan observation. WATCH LIVE HERE

There is some history attached to the meeting as it will be the first time a Green Group of councillors will present alternative proposals to Labour's budget.

All three opposition groups have submitted alternative proposals and the full details can be found on the links below:

  

·  6.2 Brent Conservative Group Alternative Budget Proposdals 2026 -27, item 6. PDF 604 KB

 

·  6.3 Green Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 462 KB

 

·  6.4 Liberal Democrat Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 284 · 

  

In their introduction to their proposals the Greens say:

 

This Green Group set of budget amendments is not a fully comprehensive view of investment opportunities, cost saving measures or income generation opportunities.
 

Rather, it intends to set core principles for financial prioritisation and a direction of travel based on Green Party values of social and environmental justice.

Our priorities for investment fall within three areas:

1. Aligning with the energy transition away from fossil fuels and ensuring long- term energy resilience

2. Ensuring housing equity for all Brent’s residents including enhanced scrutiny of housing policies and operations and landlord licensing arrangements

3. Protecting and investing in Brent’s Green Spaces, including parks, protected areas of natural interest and pocket parks and other green spaces

Brent Council, as with all local authorities, remains in a local government funding crisis, despite the new Labour government’s funding settlement. There are therefore only hard decisions to be made in terms of cost savings, and it is not within the scope of our budget amendments to scrutinise the spending within service delivery. The Green Party is calling for a radical overhaul of the funding of local government as the present system, including council tax, is regressive and unsustainable.

However, we have proposed cost savings as they relate to internal processes such as removing costs associated with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor role, reducing the number of cabinet members, and a reduction in costly engagement initiatives with a low ROI (Return on Investment).

It is also our position that there are a number of under-utilised avenues for income generation and maximising the council’s assets, some, but not all of which have been costed up as part of these budget amendments. These include expanding CPZs and increasing parking revenue through a mix of increasing the base rate and introducing a variable parking rate which takes into account vehicle size, weight and emissions type, further investment in debt collection initiatives, and ensuring maximum ROI of Brent-owned properties, whilst recognising the social value they add to Brent as well as financial value. Where further exploration is required, we have budgeted for feasibility studies for these initiatives.

These budget amendments propose a modest use of SCIL funding at £2.4m, which will part-fund travel initiatives to enhance active travel and traffic calming measures.   

 

As noted by the Budget Scrutiny Task Group, there is an opportunity to deploy CIL funding more widely to support infrastructure and to offset financial pressures on services, while ensuring the residents that benefit are those most impacted by development across the borough.

 

The Full Paper sets out proposals in detail HERE. Below is a summary. Note that in the first item the sum of £15,000 is for a feasibility study - not a programme of work.

 

Was a 'consultation' reaching only 42 people an adequate basis on which to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 3 hours a day?

 When London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust issued a press release the day AFTER they reduced the hours of the Central Middlesex Hospital  Urgent Treatment Centre they said:

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm

The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'. 

The reduction in hours was then implemented.

Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.

The FOI revealed the following:

1. Only 42 responses were received

2.  70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)

3.  41%  of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them

4.  Only two people turned up to the in-person events. 

5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal. 

I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.

Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.

You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?

 

THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE 

1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430 

A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications. 

 

Questionnaire responses

 

The questionnaire received 42 responses

 

Respondents’ borough	Brent	Ealing	Harrow	Hillingdon	Hounslow
Percentage	70%	20%	3%	2%	3%

 

Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC  were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
	No impact	Minor impact	Significant impact	Unsure
Percentage	15%	21%	41%	23%

 

For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.

Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.

Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.

Public involvement events

Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.

* Promotional activity

• Trust website and social media channels
• Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
• Posters at the UTC.
• Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
• The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
• Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)

Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier  closure, said:

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people. 

 

The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.