Sunday's Lady Rose talk at Preston Community Library cancelled

 From Preston Community Library

We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel this event.

We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. We very much hope that we can reschedule the talk from Lady Rose for another date in the near future. 

Demolition of historic Mason's Arms, Kensal Green: community consultation closes October 23rd 2026

 

Mason's Arms as it was (Picture: pubwiki.co.uk)

 

 As pictured by the applicant in 2025 after closure

 

 

Latest proposal by the applicant

Kensal Green has another development battle underway following that over the  Harriet Tubman community centre in Hazel Road. This time it is  over the nearby Victorian Mason's Arms that closed down in 2024. 

The application is for:

Demolition of existing public house and construction of new six-storey building comprising public house (Sui Generis) on ground floor and 26 residential units (Use Class C3) on upper floors, cycle parking, private amenity space, refuse and recycling stores and servicing as well as the relocation of the listed trough and repair of the listed boundary wall. 665 Harrow Road, London, NW10 5NU

The proposal that has no affordable housing after a viability assessment is still open for community consultation LINK:

 This proposal has the support of the Kensal Triangle Residents' Association:   

After careful consideration Kensal Triangle Resident's Association (KTRA) would like to conditionally support the LJ Developments scheme for the former Masons Arms public house Development, Harrow Road.

After extensive discussion with our members and having studied the proposed scheme, we would like to be included in the final plans, as the heritage aspect of this development is important to the wider community.

'Creating Heritage for the Future'

Not only will the new building make this part of the Harrow Road more desirable, but the developers' intention to improve the Hazel Road open space will enhance this community asset. 

Having met with the developers, we believe their intentions are well placed.Despite the inevitable disruption the demolition and rebuilding will cause, we believe this project to be sound.

It was with a heavy heart that we came to this conclusion, as a great many of our members used the the Masons Arms, but feel creating heritage for the future is the way forward. 

It also creates much-needed new housing, and the scheme looks very well thought out.
The old building is in such a poor state was also noted, as there was little point in renovating such a compromised older space.

The fact that the developer seeks to have a pub/restaurant/amenities space on the ground floor also adds to the appeal of the scheme.

 

The proposed demolition of the original Victorian building is opposed by CAMRA:

  

Objection from Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch


Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch strongly object to the planning application to demolish the Masons Arms public house, Kensal Green NW10. The Masons Arms is an historic public house that has served the Kensal Green community for well over a century. Its long-standing presence, architectural character, and relationship with nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II listed horse trough and the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery wall, give it clear historic and townscape value. Although the building itself is not listed, national planning policy recognises that non-designated heritage assets can still hold local historic significance, and their loss must be taken into account in the planning balance.


The proposed pub area is much smaller, at 256.5 sq m, compared with 630 sq m in the current public house, resulting in a clear reduction in community floorspace, which is a material planning consideration. This is not an equivalent replacement and therefore conflicts with both the London Plan Policy HC7 and Brent Local Plan Policy DMP21, which requires that any redevelopment of a public house must provide a facility of comparable or improved size, layout. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable and unjustified loss of a public house that has community value and which contributes to the economy and in particular the nighttime economy of the borough.


The proposed six storey development is excessively bulky and out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, its height, massing, and overall visual dominance would create an overbearing presence that disrupts the established character of the area. This is a material planning consideration, as national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan all require new development to respect local context, respond positively to existing townscape, and avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.


The application removes the existing function room, a space that has historically supported community meetings, funeral wakes, weddings, birthdays, and local group activities. Its loss would permanently diminish the pub's role as a multi functional community venue, further undermining the policy requirement to retain or enhance community value.


No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing pub is unviable or that it has been properly marketed, as required by Brent's planning policies. Without such evidence, the demolition, or change of use of the Masons Arms cannot be justified. The proposal therefore fails to meet the tests set out in national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan for the protection of public houses. The lost of pub's garden, which was sold off and permission granted for change of use, means having a function room will be important to aid the long term viability of the pub.


CAMRA also notes the frequent risk that promised replacement pubs are delayed or never delivered once residential units are occupied. To prevent this outcome, and to ensure compliance with policy, it is essential that if permission is granted, Brent Council imposes a condition requiring that the new public house is fully fitted out, let to an operator, and open for trading before any residential units are occupied. Without such a condition, the community asset is at risk of being lost in practice even if nominally replaced on paper.

 

The proposed development would harm the setting of the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery boundary wall, which runs directly behind the site. As a Grade I listed structure, it is of exceptional national importance, and national planning policy requires that great weight be given to its conservation. The existing Masons Arms forms part of the traditional low rise townscape that frames and supports the historic character of the cemetery wall. Replacing it with a six storey building would introduce an intrusive and disproportionate mass that would dominate views, disrupt the historic scale of the street, and erode the legibility of the cemetery wall as a heritage asset. The development would harm the setting of the Grade II listed horse trough located immediately outside the Masons Arms. This heritage asset derives its significance not only from its physical form but from its historic relationship with the surrounding streetscape and long established public house. Demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a six storey structure would fundamentally alter the scale, character, and visual context of the trough, diminishing its historic setting and eroding its legibility as part of the area's traditional streetscene. This impact is a material planning consideration and is contrary to national policy on heritage protection, which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. If permission is granted, the developer should submit a plan for storage of the Grade II listed horse trough, so it does not get damaged during redevelopment of the site, the Brent Conservation Officer should oversee the plans for the trough, to endure it is not harmed by the new development. Original bricks should be used where possible in the repair of the listed boundary way, overseen by the Brent Conservation Officer.


A further material planning consideration is the significantly higher carbon footprint of demolition compared with retrofitting. National planning policy requires decision makers to support development that moves towards a low carbon future and to give substantial weight to reducing embodied carbon. Demolishing the existing Masons Arms and constructing a new six storey building would generate a far greater volume of embodied carbon than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure. Brent Council's own climate emergency commitments, all of which expect applicants to demonstrate that demolition is the least carbon option. No such justification has been provided, and the application fails to show that demolition is necessary or environmentally responsible.


The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises public houses as essential community facilities and expects local authorities to guard against their unnecessary loss. It is also contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy HC7, which requires boroughs to protect public houses and resist proposals that would lead to the loss of their community, cultural, or economic value.


For these reasons, CAMRA North London Branch objects to the application and urges Brent Council to refuse planning permission

 Because of its history of hosting drinks after Kensal Green Cemetery funerals, the comments come from further afield than usual:

 

Firstly I know I am not a local to The Masons Arms and this objection maybe sentimental but The Masons has been part of my family history since before WW2. My family grew up in Earlsmead Rd and we were a very big family. 28 members lived in five different houses and in Greyhound rd. My uncle would play the piano in the pub, my nan played the accordion and was the cleaner for the pub. In the 60's when I would visit my nan we would go to the Masons Arms and it was always a pub for the family to meet up. Fifty years later we still visit as a family and have get togethers even for my dad's 85th birthday. It is a special place where family can meet as well as visit passed family members in the cemetery.

I am a huge history buff and to find out that the horse trough was the first in London proves how important the area has been for many years. The cemetery is one of the finest Victorian Great 7 and people who visit for funerals often need somewhere to stop for refreshments after. I know many pubs are being closed but there is so much more that can be done to help the pub survive. Our local pub has different music nights, art classes, sip and paint, craft afternoons and so much more. It should be a community pub and not be turned into flats. The whole atmosphere will change in the area as there are no other pubs close by. It was said that it had encouraged anti social behaviour but whilst the pub is boarded up it will only get worse. I was there one day when the garden was open which was beautiful and there was a regular barbecue. Having the garden reopened will encourage family visits.

I can see along the Harrow Rd there are many apartments which take away the community feel to Kensal Green. I am absolutely sure that many people will object to the Mason's being demolished. Why in this country do we rush to remove our architectural heritage. The coffin carrier is also a piece of architectural heritage. Do not destroy the pub. Please!

 

However, some locals support the application:     

 

I strongly support this application. I have lived here for 26 years and often enjoyed the Masons Arms as a local pub. However, since the garden closed, the pub has struggled to be viable.


For the past few years, the Masons has been empty most days, apart from post-funeral gatherings, which became increasingly rare. It now stands derelict and is a fire hazard, attracting antisocial behaviour.


Just 500 metres down the road, the William IV pub has also closed, which also struggled with footfall over the past years, despite being refurbished into a pub/hotel and imaginative party nights, pub quizzes and excellent food. All of which suggests to me that the footfall along this part of the Harrow Road is not sufficient to support one, let alone two, large local pubs.


The need for affordable housing in this area far outweighs the protection of a derelict, unusable pub building, which cannot be financially viable. What's the point of having a beautifully refurbished Victorian pub if there are no young people who can afford to live in the local area to populate it?


I think the proposed design, which mirrors the Holland & Holland factory almost opposite, is a very clever method of linking the new building with the existing environment. The size and composition of the frontage is in keeping with the H&H building, also a well-respected landmark of Kensal Green.


The local environment will also benefit from the redevelopment of the park and playground opposite the Mason's Arms, which will again reduce antisocial behaviour and result in a leisure space that the local community can enjoy.


I strongly support this proposal and urge Brent Planning to approve this application to benefit the local area and its citizens.

 

Other locals are opposed: 

      

As a resident of the Kensal area for 7 years I strongly object to the plans to demolish the Masons Arms. So many of the historic buildings in this area - such as many pubs, the Manor House and Lodge, Tavistock House, the stonemasons workshops, etc - have now gone to be replaced with ugly blocks of flats and very little of the original 'Kensal Green' remains.

Of course, I recognise that new homes are needed in London but why does it always come with the destruction of our history? Ideally, it would remain a pub but if that is really not viable, then why not retain and convert the existing building into flats? I am sure not everyone wants to live in a boring new-build and would jump at the chance to live somewhere with a bit of history and character.

Also as a member of the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery, I know that the pub has many connections to the cemetery, and that unique history would be lost if the pub was demolished. I also fear the impact of the 6 storey block looming over the cemetery - currently with another threat of a development to the south of the cemetery.

The Masons Arms is a beautiful, historic building which still retains many of its Victorian interiors and fittings - and the destruction of it would be a terrible loss to the local community. I also sincerely request that whatever happens, if the developers are not going to keep/use the unique wooden coffin display case, that they donate it to either the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery or the General Cemetery Company.

I ask you to reconsider this development and the wanton destruction of yet another piece of the last remnants of our local history.

 

 

  

I strongly object to application 26/0807 for the demolition of the Masons Arms public house and construction of the proposed six-storey development at 665 Harrow Road.

With Harriet Tubman House in Hazel Road also under threat, it would be a profound loss for Kensal Green to lose two significant Victorian landmark buildings simultaneously. The Masons Arms is an important historic public house dating from before 1865, making it one of the oldest surviving buildings in Kensal Green, with strong historical connections to the world-famous Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery immediately behind it.

Historically, the pub provided accommodation for stone masons and craftsmen from across Europe employed at the cemetery during the nineteenth century. The grade II listed horse trough was used by dray-horses until the 1930s and perhaps even later. The building therefore forms part of the social and architectural history of Kensal Green and the Harrow Road corridor.

Its distinctive Dutch-style gable is one of the most recognisable architectural features along the seven-mile stretch of Harrow Road between Paddington and Harrow-on-the-Hill, giving the building considerable local landmark value and contributing positively to the character of the streetscape. It is an oversight that it was never listed along with the Grade I cemetery behind it.

The pub also retains rare and unusual historic interior features, including a unique coffin stand associated with funeral wakes connected to the cemetery, where coffins were historically passed through a hatch into the bar area. These features form part of the cultural and historic significance of the building and should not be lost.

The current situation presents residents with a false binary choice between a neglected, boarded-up building and total demolition. The present condition of the property should not be used to justify the destruction of a historic local landmark, particularly when the deterioration appears to have been allowed, and the developers have made no attempt to remove the graffiti despite requests from residents.

With imagination and sensitive design, the building could be successfully repurposed to accommodate residential units while retaining the elegant and historically important Victorian façade and core structure, as has already been achieved with other historic public houses along Harrow Road, including the former College Park Hotel at 873 Harrow Road and the former Flora public house at 525 Harrow Road.

It is particularly disappointing that the scheme proposes demolishing the existing historic public house only to incorporate a replacement bar within the new development. A more sensitive and sustainable approach would be to retain and incorporate the original Victorian ground-floor public house itself, preserving an increasingly rare type of traditional London pub interior that future generations are likely to value even more highly, and one that Sir Paul McCartney chose to use when seeking a traditional London pub of character.
The proposed six-storey building would also be excessively tall and wide, and overbearing in this location. At approximately one-and-a-half storeys higher than the adjoining hostel building, the development would appear architecturally dominant and visually jarring within a predominantly low-rise section of Harrow Road, and overshadow Hazel Road Open Space and the gardens on the South side of Hazel Road.

The scale and massing of the proposal would harm the character of Kensal Green and Kensal Rise, creating an over-developed and overly urban appearance inconsistent with the existing townscape. The development would additionally reduce sunlight and outlook to Hazel Road Open Space and to the rear gardens of properties on the south side of Hazel Road, adversely affecting residential amenity.

For these reasons, including the substantial heritage loss, inappropriate scale and massing, and harmful impact on local character and amenity, I respectfully urge Brent Council to refuse this application and instead encourage a scheme that retains and sensitively repurposes this important historic building.

 

For balance I include a submission in favour by a young local but do follow the LINK and review all the comments.

  

I strongly support this development.

This development brings the potential for a new, functioning pub/bar and deli, which the local community would appreciate. The desire for the existing (and now derelict) Masons Arms pub to reopen underscores the demand and therefore, I believe, the future commercial success of the new Masons Arms. As a young person living locally, I am very keen for a local pub to not just operate but to thrive too.

The current state of the Masons Arms has led to squatters, fly tipped rubbish and fires being lit. This is not conducive to Kensal Green being a save and liveable area. The inside of the building, I have been told, has several severe structural defects which would render the renovation of the existing building unviable.

There is not enough housing stock at a national level, and this area is no exception. The flats the development will bring will mean more people can make Kensal Green their home and subsequently stimulate the local economy with additional disposable income. Local businesses are suffering from a lack of footfall on Harrow Road and I believe this would go a long way to rectifying that.

I believe that the developers have listened to local concerns and the amended planning application (regarding the historic trough, height of the building, etc) reflects this.

The regeneration of the Hazel Road green space is sorely needed, and will allow, in particular, women and families in the area to feel safer at night and enjoy the space more during the day.

I encourage the council to approve the application and allow the project to proceed.

 

The Victorian interior of the pub was valued by many customers but  I have not been able to take any photographs inside the boarded up building but go to this London CAMRA website for an appreciation and pictures. LINK

 

Don't miss an evening with two amazing poets, tomorrow October 8th 7pm at Preston Community Library

 

 

Dream Street 

 

Jennifer Wong

 

It wouldn’t have made sense
to go back, not even

for a nostalgic visit.
The houses have been torn down,

I’ve heard, by bulldozers.
Each cobblestone laboriously

hurled off the street.
The rich have moved in

to a street of mansions
and private, gated gardens.

The magnolia trees were gone.
Don’t ask me how.

The grocer run by a kind
Sikh, was the last to go.

On his last day, he gave away
the fruits for free. So many

mangoes and lychees left.
It wouldn’t have made sense

even to go back
to snap a picture.

The rich wouldn’t allow it.
There’s a sign right there:

trespassers: penalty £5000.
But each time, each count

of magnolia
bears the size of hope.

 

On Hold 

Caroline Smith

'There is no timescale for dealing with this application.'

    He was just twenty-three,
    Arjan Mehta, when first he began
    calling the Home Office
    from a red phone box
    on the corner of Preston Road;
    would push against
    and let fall behind him
    the heavy creaking door,
    into its stale, vacated, smoke smell,
    stand on its concrete, littered floor
    his fingers twisting through
    the plastic snake cord,
    dragging round the metal dial,
    eager about his application.
    Seventeen years have passed
    with no answer.
    He is now forty.
    The sealed-up phone box
    long out of service,
    the black cradle
    within its sepulchre,
    silent as an obsidian urn.

 

LETTER: Why no reassurances from council leaders or police after Douglas Avenue gunshot incident?

 Dear Editor,

You may not have heard about this as it’s not widely publicised but it is very worrying with a very distressing video of the incident circulating of a shooting outside Wembley Police Station/Douglas Avenue leaving a 24 year old in critical condition.

https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/man-24-found-gunshot-wounds-34714902

 

Wembley Central residents are asking why they are not getting more reassurance from the Police and local Council Leaders, seems once again that Wembley Central residents are being forgotten.

 

A Wembley Central resident 

Philip Grant: Morland Gardens – Brent responds to my query over “Why no progress?”

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

   

Aerial view of the 1 Morland Gardens site. (From Google Maps satellite view)

 

In a guest post on 18 September, Morland Gardens – Why no progress? , I published the text of an open email I’d sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and Head of Capital Delivery. It was the anniversary of a petition I had presented at the September 2025 Full Council meeting, on behalf of Willesden Local History Society, calling on the Council and its Cabinet to retain the 150-year old heritage Victorian villa, “Altamira”, as part of its redevelopment of the former Brent Start college site at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge. Despite Officers beginning a review of plans for the site in November 2023, after their flawed original planning consent had expired, no plans had yet been brought forward.

 

When the Council is publicly questioned in this way, it is only fair to publish their reply, and this is the full text of the response I received at the end of September:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Request for update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens 

 

Thank you for your open email dated 15 September 2026 addressed to the council’s Chief Executive and myself, regarding an update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens.

 

Since my last response in November 2025, the council has carried out a number of actions to progress a proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens. This includes:

 

1. Continued engagement with youth organisations
2. Submission to the Greater London Authority (GLA) for funding from the 2026 – 2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP)
3. Feasibility commission

 

1. Youth Engagement

 

Council officers continue to engage with youth organisations to develop the youth facilities offer at Morland Gardens and to understand how the building could meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough. This is being fed into the feasibility work discussed below.

 

2. SAHP Application

 

In February 2026, the GLA launched the London component of the SAHP, requesting affordable housing delivery partners to submit proposals for a programme of affordable homes delivery over the next decade. The council has submitted an ambitious delivery programme of 1,300 affordable homes of which Morland Gardens is part of this submission. We have included for 65 social rent homes, the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme at the site. We understand from the GLA that delivery partners will be told imminently on the outcome of their bids. In the interim, the council has included affordable homes within the facility mix to be reviewed as part of the feasibility commission described below. Whilst this indicates our intentions, the plans are heavily dependent on securing grant funding from the GLA.

 

3. Feasibility Commission

 

The council has commissioned Mott MacDonald to undertake a feasibility study into providing a mixed-use development at Morland Gardens, including provision for youth facilities, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and affordable homes. This work is looking at a variety of options which includes the retention of the Altamira and is expected to conclude towards the end of October which may coincide with the SAHP bid outcome announcement.

 

Therefore, the council is not currently able to confirm whether it intends on retaining the Altamira building or not. However, the council is progressing options for the scheme and will review the feasibility work, the outcome of the SAHP bid, review viability implications and funding mechanisms before proposing a capital delivery project for Cabinet’s consideration. This is expected in the new year and I will let you know when any decision is placed on the council’s Forward Plan.

 

You kindly issued the article by Mark Sabolch back in August 2024 and feel free to share my contact details with Mr Sabolch should he wish to include the building in the London leg of his tour looking at heritage buildings in the UK that inspired the designs of Australian architects in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

Thank you for your enquiry and please let me know should you have any further queries.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

 

 “Altamira” in December 2025, with the belvedere tower at 2 Morland Gardens beyond.

 

While I am pleased that some progress has been made, I do have concerns over the chances of the heritage asset being retained, despite the statement that this is one of the options being considered as part of the “Feasibility Commission”. It will be great if the Council can get funding for genuinely affordable ‘social rent homes’ from the GLA’s 2026-2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP), but the Brent’s bid for the money is based on 65 homes for this site.

 

As the email above says, sixty-five homes is ‘the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme’. One of the main reasons the original 2020 planning consent failed is that the proposed site included not just the land at 1 Morland Gardens, but also the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden land in front of it. The Council had no legal right to build on that extra land, and it failed in its attempt to obtain that right! That extra land would have been part of the footprint for the ten-storey tower block where many of the 65 homes would have been built, and the building would have been so close to the major road junction of Hillside with Brentfield Road (one of the worst air pollution locations in Brent) that the windows on the lower floors would have to be fixed closed, with artificial ventilation provided.

 

Architect’s drawing of the proposed 2020 Morland Gardens building, with my speech bubble added.

 

Realistically, I don’t believe it would be possible to include 65 homes on the 1 Morland Gardens site without demolishing the Victorian villa. If the consultants, Mott MacDonald, have been told by Brent that a scheme must deliver that number of homes, or a figure close to it, they will come back with a report which says it would not be feasible to retain the locally listed heritage building. Is that what Council Officers (and the Cabinet members they will have spoken with about the future of the site) want the outcome to be?

Philip Grant.

St Raph's £20m Pride in Place Project transparency controversy: 'Public confidence cannot be rebuilt behind closed doors'

Guest post by Asif Zamir, Independent Community Advocate

 

BRENT COUNCIL CLAMS UP: Transparency Challenges Over the £20m St Raphael’s 'Pride in Place' Board Recruitment

 

Following a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request regarding the recruitment process for the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s and Stonebridge Pride in Place fund, Brent Council has issued a highly evasive response (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0).

 

Rather than demonstrating the "open, fair, and transparent" governance promised in its corporate guidelines, the local delivery authority has completely withheld specific candidate metrics and process logs. Instead of providing the specific information requested, the council has merely supplied generic, blank procedural policy documents.

From the perspective of community oversight, this response raises serious transparency concerns.

 

The residents of the St Raphael’s & Stonebridge are entitled to full disclosure on the following three institutional points:

 

1. The Omission of the Advertised Resident Panel

 

The original request sought the specific decision logs confirming why the publicly advertised, localised resident stakeholder interview panel was omitted from the final evaluation process. The council’s response completely bypassed this question.

 

* The Procedural Breach: While the Candidate Pack permits political figures and council officers a seat on the final panel, Page 9, Section 4.5.9 of Brent Council’s own internal Recruitment and Selection Policy explicitly mandates that “steps must be taken to involve service users [residents] in the selection process wherever possible.” By completely omitting the advertised resident selection panels, the council removed vital community-led checks and balances, leaving political leadership as the sole evaluators of the post.

 

2. The Withholding of Basic Aggregate Statistics

 

The FOI request sought basic, non-identifiable numerical data: the total number of individuals who applied for the Chair position, and the total number successfully shortlisted for a formal interview.

 

* The Overreach of Data Protection: The council has claimed that disclosing these raw numerical figures violates Section 40(2) (Personal Data) under data protection laws. This represents a significant overreach of UK GDPR frameworks. Releasing a simple, raw aggregate statistic carries a zero percent probability of individual re-identification.

 

Withholding basic statistical counts prevents the public from assessing the competitiveness and openness of the selection process.

 

3. The Conflict Management Audit Trail

 

The successful candidate's public employment record indicates they served as a senior Brent Council staff member directly inside the Brent Council Leader’s Office until August 2025. They were subsequently appointed as the Independent Chair of this multi-million-pound community board in September 2026—just 13 months later.

 

* The Mandatory Policy Window: Under Page 7 of Brent Council’s own Conflict of Interest Policy, the Declaration of Interest forms of former employees must legally be held by the department for a minimum of 2 years after leaving the council's employ. Because the appointee falls squarely within this active 2-year audit window, an internal record trail MUST exist.

 

Despite this, the council has refused to provide anonymised copies of the due diligence, political activity disclosures, or conflict management logs requested to verify how the public perception of independence is being maintained.

 

Next Steps for Accountability

 

A flagship national initiative funded by central government to be "community-led" cannot be administered behind closed information barriers.

 

Consequently, we have taken two formal steps to challenge this evasion:

 

1. Escalated to Chief Executive Kim Wright: We have officially triggered a statutory Request for an Internal Review with the Information Governance team, copying in the Chief Executive and the legal department, to challenge the withholding of this data.

 

2. Notified Whitehall Assurance: We have forwarded the entire evasive FOI file and relevant council policy pages directly to the MHCLG Communities Delivery and Assurance Unit (PiPPcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk) for an independent compliance review.

 

I have also issued a direct, formal notice response to the newly appointed Chair, Priyesh Patel.

 

Our position is absolute: we have explicitly rejected any invitations to step into closed-door or private briefings at the Brent Civic Centre.

 

We will not enter any polished boardroom to discuss the future of a £20 million community fund while the council is actively hiding the recruitment data from the public. A formal, transparent meeting under strict public record rules will only be considered after Brent Council fully complies with basic transparency regulations, overrides its faulty data protection excuses, and releases the aggregate FOI statistics.

 

Public confidence cannot be rebuilt behind closed doors; the paperwork must be fully disclosed to the community first.

 

I’ve also formally written to Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman and Leader Councillor Butt requesting clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the appointment of the Independent Chair for the £20m St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.

 

I’ve asked them to confirm, among other things, whether any relevant professional or political associations were declared, whether any conflict-of-interest or risk-mitigation assessments were undertaken, whether the candidate’s recent Brent Council employment was considered in assessing independence, and whether residents were involved in the selection process.

 

I’ve given them until *5pm on Wednesday 7 October* to respond.

 

 Dear Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman, and Leader Councillor Butt,

I am contacting you in my capacity as an independent community advocate for the St Raphael’s estate and Stonebridge regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.

Given your elected roles and responsibilities within the ward and borough, I am seeking clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the selection process, particularly in light of information raised through my Freedom of Information investigation.

The FOI process (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0) has not, to date, provided answers to several specific questions concerning resident involvement in the selection process, aggregate applicant and shortlisting figures, and whether conflict-of-interest or independence assessments were undertaken in relation to the successful candidate.

I have also obtained information which indicates that the successful candidate was employed by Brent Council, including within the Council Leader’s Office, until August 2025. I have further identified information concerning subsequent local political activity involving ward representatives. I am not asking you to accept any allegation of impropriety; rather, I am asking for the relevant governance arrangements to be confirmed publicly.

I therefore request confirmation of the following:

1. Declaration of association

Prior to the conclusion of the Independent Chair selection process, did any Stonebridge Ward member, or anyone within the Executive Office involved in the process, formally declare any previous professional, political or campaign association with the successful candidate to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Director of Legal Services, or other designated officer responsible for managing conflicts of interest?

2. Conflict-of-interest assessment

Were any conflict-of-interest declarations, assessments, registers, risk assessments or other governance records created in relation to those associations? 

3. Risk mitigation

If any potential conflict or perceived conflict was identified, what risk-mitigation measures were put in place to ensure that participation by elected members in relation to the Neighbourhood Board remained appropriately separated from any previous professional or political associations?

4. Independence of the Chair

Was the successful candidate's recent employment by Brent Council considered as part of an assessment of whether they met the independence requirements of the Independent Chair role? If so, who conducted that assessment and what governance framework was applied?

5. Resident involvement

Did residents or local stakeholders participate in the evaluation, interview or selection of candidates for the Independent Chair position? If not, what was the recorded rationale for not incorporating a community-led interview or evaluation element?

6. Selection transparency

What were the total numbers of applicants, shortlisted candidates and candidates who progressed to formal interview for the Independent Chair position?

For clarity, I am not requesting personal data relating to other applicants.

I am seeking aggregate recruitment statistics, procedural information and confirmation of governance arrangements.

The Council's FOI response confirms that Brent was responsible for recruiting the Independent Chair positions. It also states that individual candidate scores and assessments were withheld as third-party personal data. My questions above are deliberately framed so that they can be answered without disclosing individual applicants' personal information.

I have now formally requested an internal review of FOI Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0. That review specifically asks the Council to reconsider whether the unanswered questions concerning resident involvement, aggregate selection figures, independence assessment and conflict-of-interest arrangements fall within the scope of the original request and can be disclosed without identifying individual applicants.

I would therefore be grateful if you could provide a substantive response to each question above by 5:00 PM on Wednesday 7 October 2026, so that the response can be placed on the public record alongside the ongoing FOI review.

If any of the information requested is not held, please state that expressly. If it is held but cannot be disclosed, please identify the relevant exemption or governance basis relied upon.

The purpose of this correspondence is to establish a clear factual record concerning the governance of the St Raphael’s Pride in Place programme and to ensure that residents can understand how independence, conflicts of interest and community participation were addressed during the appointment process.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Asif Zamir
Independent Community Advocate
St Raphael’s Estate and Stonebridge

 

Road closures from 3.45pm on Tuesday October 6th for England V Czechia at Wembley Stadium

 From Brent Council

 

Wembley Stadium will be hosting following event this week.

England vs Czechia Football match on following date this week:

 - Tuesday 6 October

Please read below to see how this might affect you.

Timings

-  England vs Czechia kick off will be at 7.45pm and road closures will be in place at 15:45pm on Tuesday 6 October.

We expect the area around Wembley Stadium to be very busy before and after this event so please avoid the area if you can, unless you have a ticket for the event.

Event day parking

Event day parking restrictions will be in place from 8am to midnight on main roads and from 10am to midnight on residential roads on Tuesday 6 October.

If you have a paper permit, please make sure you clearly display it in your vehicle. If you have an electronic permit, you do not need to display this.