Thursday, 11 June 2026
Wednesday, 10 June 2026
Sainsbury's Alperton redevelopment of car park - consultation Thursday June 11th and Saturday June 13th
The Sainsbury's Barratt London leaflet says:
What's proposed:
New homes for local people
New green spaces
New retail and business space
Retention of the current Sainsbury's store
New customer car park for Sainsbury's store
The store and its car park from above (Google Earth)
Ward map
BREAKING: Quintain defy local opposition and submit planning application for a 17 storey hotel between Brent Civic Centre and Olympic Way
The new hotel and surrounding area
Quintain's plans to activate 2018 planning permission to build a new hotel on the open space outside Brent Civic Centre, currently occupied by Market Square and the Samovar Space, met with stiff opposition last year, not least from current residents of the Quintain estate. They and visitors to the LDO, Arena and Wembley Stadium had got used to using the space, making it a social meeting place amidst all the tower blocks.
This afternoon Quintain released the statement below:
11 Exhibition Way
Wembley
HA9 0FA
From the Planning Application documents (Reference number 26/1351) LINK
Olympic Way appears more closed in
Wembley just wild about Harry! Road closures & bus diversions for 12 Harry Styles concerts - 8 on weekdays
There will be 12 Harry Styles concert dates at Wembley Stadium over the rest of this month starting on Friday June 12th and through to July 4th,
Eight of these dates are on weekdays with road closures starting at 1pm with associated bus diversions. This will impact school children travelling home from school, particularly those using the 206 bus route which will be not run south between Wembley Park and Brent Park. This also affects workers travelling to Brent Park and the industrial estates south of the stadium, including the Amazon warehouse and the Tesco and Ikea stores.
Brent Council approved the increased number of concerts at Wembley Stadium in January 2025 with 8 more major concerts a year. A major event is defined as an attendance of more that 60,000. Decision notice:
The number of major events held at the stadium in any one calendar year shall be restricted to no more than 54 (to exclude European Cup and World Cup events where England/UK is the host nation). This shall be described as the cap. Within the event cap, the number of major events involving UK based domestic association football teams shall be restricted to no more than 25. LINK
A Wembley Hill resident contacted Wembley Matters:
Does this mean that on all these days road closures and bus diversions will be active from 1pm? Doors open 5pm. Not only that I have appointment at my doctors at Wembley Park Humphry Repton Lane which is also closed on event days, my appointment is for 4.00 p.m.on Friday.Does this mean all locals using bus services 206,92,182 and 83 are again inconvenienced with either no service or diversions.
Tuesday, 9 June 2026
Employment & Benefits Support, Chalkhill Community Centre 17th June 3-6pm
Welford Centre, 113 Chalkhill Road, Wembley, HA9 9FX
Wembley Park tube and 182, 206, 223, 245 (Forty Lane) 297 buses.
BREAKING: Woodfield dispute escalates as academy chief issues 47 staff with 30 day fire and rehire notice
The Chief Executive Officer of the Compass Learning Trust that runs two special schools in Brent, Woodfield School and The Village School, has issued 47 Woodfield staff with a 30 day consultation notice after which fire and rehire would be implemented:
Staff now have two options available:
Option 1 – Accept the Variation of Contract
Staff may choose to sign a variation to their contract based on the final offer outlined above by no later than 8th July 2026. Individual variation letters will be issued during the coming week.
Option 2 – Decline the Variation of Contract
Staff who choose not to sign the variation will be invited to dismissal and re-engagement meetings.
Fire and rehire is due to be outlawed in January 2027 so the Trust is moving quickly. The letter from the CEO outlines the Trust's claim that its faces a dire financial situation. This of course raises the issue of how it got into this situation. The NEU were never given these deficit details. There is no mention of the £3.8m held in reserves:
The purpose of the [proposed] restructure was to address the school’s ongoing and unsustainable financial position and to ensure its long-term viability. Woodfield School reported a deficit of £76,469 at the end of the 2023/24 financial year, which increased significantly to a net deficit of £372,422 in 2024/25. Current projections indicate that, without intervention, the deficit will increase by a further £517,790 over the next three years, resulting in a cumulative five-year projected deficit of £966,681. These figures exclude agency staffing costs, where current annual expenditure exceeds £600,000. The Trust is taking steps to bring expenditure under control.
Brent NEU has previously raised concerns over poor financial management at the school and high executive salaries. LINK The CEO addresses this:
In addition to the school-level savings identified through the restructure process, the Trust has also reviewed its central costs following discussions with the NEU regarding the level of top slice charged to schools and the cost of leadership at Trust level. As a result, the Trust has reduced the top slice by £400 per pupil. To support this reduction, following the departure of the previous CEO in April 2026, both the CEO and CFO (Chief Finance Officer) roles have been reduced to 0.6 FTE.
The management's initial proposal was to reduce the hours of support staff by 3-1/2 hours per week equating to a loss of £200 a month. Workers rejected the offer below as derisory. It reduced the reduction in hours by one hour.
An increase in contracted hours from the proposed 32.5 hours to 33.5 hours per week.
A free school lunch for affected staff, provided by the school kitchen.
A 1.30pm finish at the end of each term for all staff.
A half-day for affected staff on the October Performance Management INSET day.
30 minutes of overtime for affected staff for the completion of Behaviour Reports.
Pay protection until 28 February 2027
The NEU will continue striking and has called for massive support for its picket lines on Thursday and Friday of this week. The strike by mainly female mainly ethnic minority low paid workers recalls the struggle of Jayaben Desai and her fellow Grunwick strikers and today's school workers are equally determined.
The NEU Regional London Office will be receiving advice from senior lawyers, probably by Friday this week and meanwhile the NEU London senior officer are stressing to members that they should not sign under any circumstances- as negotiations are meant to be still ongoing, and the strike is also ongoing. The NEU will be in a stronger position legally if members do not sign and continue the campaign. Members are advised to continue the strike action to demonstrates that the workers are still in hope of an improved offer.
Even if people did sign, this would not need doing until July anyway as there is a consultation period first, giving time for a proper legal response to the letters.
The picket line is from 7.30am outside the school:
Woodfield School, Glenwood Avenue, Kingsbury, London, NW9 7LY
London Assembly report on heat networks where some suffer from inescapable bad deals
Heating networks are becoming more common in Brent with concerns over reliability and accounts of excessive bills. This London Assembly report is timely and should be considered by the new administration in Brent:
Britain’s energy regulator, Ofgem, must urgently consider implementing price protections for heat network customers, with continued energy price increases due to the conflict in the Middle East
Ofgem was appointed as the regulator for heat networks in January 2026.
The London Assembly Environment Committee has today published its report - Zoning: The Heat Networks Puzzle – calling for stronger price protections for Londoners on heat networks.
The Committee investigation found that due to planning rules in new developments, a significant number of Londoners on heat networks in these new builds are in social housing.
Heating homes currently accounts for around 18 per cent of the UK’s climate emissions.
London Plan policy has promoted heat networks, which feature significantly in the Mayor’s strategy for achieving net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2030. The Mayor’s preferred ‘pathway’ is based on 460,000 heat network connections by 2030, and so the Committee looked in detail at how to get things right.
The Committee heard that heat network customers have often struggled to understand what they are paying for, how prices are calculated, and whether charges are fair.
The Committee is now calling for:
· The Greater London Authority (GLA) to take the lead in ensuring price protection for Londoners and establish a set of Fair Pricing Principles for all heat networks in London.
· Where existing under-performing legacy heat networks in social housing are being upgraded, there should be price protection for leaseholders in terms of capital costs.
· The GLA should work with Ofgem and the Department of Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) to develop a best practice guide, similar to an EPC rating that gives a short, clear introduction to heat networks, their efficiency levels, and explains heat network charges.
Leonie Cooper AM, Chair of the London Assembly Environment Committee while the investigation took place said:
We are deeply concerned that some Londoners have experienced considerable harms as a result of higher heating prices.
For too many in London, their experience of heat networks has not been satisfactory. They are getting a bad deal, and one from which they cannot escape.
For some, this is a very steep personal price to pay for a lower carbon heating network.
Tackling climate change is something we support, but we must ensure customers are protected from volatile price increases, particularly with the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.
Councillors' concern at over-development in Wembley Park that prioritises private profit over community
The proposed new building close to Wembley Stadium station
Guest post by the Green Party councillors for Wembley Park, Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame.
As Councillors representing Wembley Park, we are seriously concerned about the proposed construction of a new 8 to 25-storey care home/ co-living space and the wider impact it will have on residents and the local area most affected by this proposal.
What Wembley Park is truly lacking is accessible, usable community space that enriches the lives of the people who have made this area their home, especially young people and children, who are increasingly being offered less and less as development continues. Over recent years, communal and recreational spaces have steadily disappeared, replaced by private developments that do little to support the existing community. This lack of investment in meaningful community infrastructure has contributed to growing anti-social behaviour, disproportionately involving and impacting young people.
We are deeply concerned about the strain this development will place on local infrastructure and public services, which have consistently failed to keep pace with Wembley Park’s rapidly growing population. Only recently has a new GP surgery been built, and it is already approaching capacity. There remains a severe shortage of accessible community facilities and public spaces, particularly on this side of the estate.
The environmental impact of the proposal cannot be ignored. Residents are increasingly being forced to live in a concrete-jungle designed to maximise private profit while the wellbeing of the community and local environment is treated as secondary. We need more greenery and open spaces and the construction of yet another building does not help.
Traffic and infrastructure concerns in Wembley Park have not been adequately addressed. There is severe congestion around that end of Empire Way, particularly on event days, where residents regularly struggle to access their homes. The parking provision proposed for the care home appears insufficient for staff, visitors and residents with disabilities. Restricting access to personal transport in this way risks limiting independence and accessibility whilst placing additional pressure on surrounding roads and infrastructure.
We are equally concerned about the quality and condition of many existing developments in Wembley Park. Residents continue to raise serious issues relating to mould, poor maintenance, broken doors, insufficient security measures, and unclear emergency access protocols in buildings that are only a few years old. These concerns raise important questions about whether the current private-public development model is genuinely delivering safe, liveable, and affordable homes for residents.
The proposed building will significantly reduce access to natural light for surrounding homes and residential buildings. Reduced daylight sunlight negatively affects wellbeing while also increasing household energy usage and costs during an ongoing cost of living crisis. There are also serious concerns specific to the proposed care home itself. From the applicant’s own report, we understand that 32% of care home rooms will fail to meet recommended daylight standards and 54% will fail to achieve recommended sunlight levels. Access to natural light in communal areas is also inadequate. This raises significant concerns about the quality of life being proposed for elderly residents who deserve safe, dignified and healthy living conditions.
All of these concerns reflect a wider pattern of over-development in Wembley Park where expansion and private profit are too often prioritised over residents’ wellbeing, community infrastructure, environmental quality, and long-term liveability. Residents deserve to be properly heard before further irreversible decisions continue to reshape the area.
The Neighbourhood Consultation expires on Wednesday June 10th - COMMENT HERE
The application itself expires on July 17th. Comments sent to Brent Planning (Case reference 26/0967) by email should be taken into account ahead of the Planning Committee where the application is heard,












