Road closures and bus diversions in Wembley Park August 14,15, 16, 18 and 19

 Buses affected post event 18, 83, 92, 182, 206, 223, 224 and 483

Chair's casting vote ensures approval of controversial Wembley Hospital planning application

 

Proposed development of Wembley Hospital site, Chaplin Road

There has been much interest in how Labour has clung on to power in Brent following the local election result. The 'arrangement' reached with the Tories where they were recognised as the main opposition group, given chair positions on committees and the deputy mayorship was decisive but in the case of the ostensibly non-political Planning Committee rested with the Chair, Cllr Saqib Butt, brother of Labour leader Muhammed Butt, who has a casting vote in the event of a tied vote.

 This fell apart at a previous committee considering the Wembley Hospital planning application where an initial vote of approval, based on the chair's casting vote, was overturned when it was revealed that one approval vote was invalid as the councillor concerned had not been present for the whole meeting. This meant that the application was refused but officers moved quickly to suggest the item was deferred to a future meeting after officers had considered the validity of reasons for refusal.

The item was heard again this week and again there was a tied vote, with the chair using his casting vote for approval. Although the Planning Committee is 'non-political' Labour members voted for the application and Cllr Harshabhai Patel (Conservative). Cllr Michael Maurice (Conservative), Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam (Green) and Cllr Anton Georgiou (Liberal Democrat) voted against.

 Their reasons  they opposed approval followed similar lines and included the failure to meet affordable housing guidelines, concerns over parking overspill into nearby streets, loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties, density and lack of rigour in addressing potential problems of overheating.

Planning Officers confirmed this time that all the reasons given were valid in planning terms.

 

 

Preston Park Children's Playground closed due to safety risk to children

 Preston Park Children's Playground yesterday

Following concerns about the state of the children's playground in Preston Park and safety concerns LINK, Brent Council Parks Department yesterday decided to close the playground pending completion of repairs.

In a message to councillors the Head of the Parks Department wrote:

I am writing to make you aware that we have made the decision today to immediately close the children’s play area in Preston Park, due to safety concerns.

 

I appreciate that it is the summer holidays; however, the surfacing underneath almost all pieces of equipment has now deteriorated to such a condition that we consider it to be a risk for children using the space.  We do not take this decision lightly, but we have a responsibility to provide safe places for play.

 

We had identified some surfacing issues previously and had been obtaining quotes for their repair. Unfortunately, contractors have advised us that temporary repairs will not work and full scale resurfacing of the safety surface is needed. This is not something that can be undertaken immediately and we are therefore closing the playground today whilst we get quotes for the works.

 

The closest alternative children’s playgrounds can be found at Northwick Park, John Billam Open Space and Woodcock Park.

 The news comes after the local controversy over the proposals for a Multi Use Games Area on one of the park's tennis courts during which the state of the children's playground was raised and spending priorities questioned. 

 

Clearly the closure is not ideal during an especially hot summer school holiday and last night it was reported that the playground was still in use, but questions are being asked about how it was allowed to deteriorate to this extent, and how it managed to achieve Green Flag status given the situation.

 

Friends of Gladstone Park statement on plans for the Gladstone Centre

 The proposed Centre

 

The Gladstone Centre

 

There has been much discussion about plans for the development of the Gladstone Centre, which is still in Pre-planning stage.

Some people are for the new development, and some are against it. 

 

The Friends of Gladstone Park was formed to represent the views of all users of the park.

 

Therefore, following a vote, of the eligible trustees of the Friends of Gladstone Park, on the ongoing plans for the new Gladstone Centre development, we find that at this point we are neutral (neither for nor against). 

 

Below is a detailed statement of our position. 

 

 

There will be a public consultation in the future, at which everyone will be able to have their say. When the date is announced we will post it here.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

The Gladstone Centre

Statement 5 August 2026

 

Friends of Gladstone Park (FoGP) has been concerned about the Gladstone Centre for many years and have made requests on behalf of the community, to Brent Council to repair or rebuild it.

 

FoGP campaigned to get the centre reopened after it was closed during COVID. It became clear it needed considerable investment just to patch it up. Redevelopment or demolition were the realistic options. Brent Council was not willing to take it on. FoGP suggested a sports centre, but Brent Council was not in favour, citing other options nearby.

 

FoGP held public meetings and events where park users were asked what they would like to see happen to the building. These were the most common requests and FoGP maintains these goals for the new centre:

A community space of the same size as before
The community part of the building to have an independent entrance - and management.
Is available to the public every day including evenings and weekends
There is a cafe that is accessible to all
There are toilets that are reasonably accessible for park users
The visual aesthetics of the building must fit in with the environment
The size of the building to be confined to the existing footprint and never allowed to go above the treeline (at today’s height)
The building must be aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with a park environment.

FoGP again approached the council with our requests, but it was clear that the Council would not solely fund a community centre. The only concrete option that arose was the proposal from Willesden Green Surgery (WGS) to redevelop the building as their new surgery.

 

With no real alternatives on the table, FoGP felt the best course of action was to engage constructively with WGS and Brent Council, and to try to ensure that the design allowed for the requirements the community had asked for – as per the list above.

 

FoGP requested that the new building be built on the same footprint* as the existing centre and would ideally be only two storeys high. We understood that the Kilburn Cosmos Rugby Club, who have rented part of the Gladstone Centre building for many years, would be offered an alternative space in the Sports Pavilion, and the Pavilion café would be relocated into the new building.

 

*Friends of Gladstone Park Trustees, in line with the wishes of the park users, do not condone or support any reduction of open space in the park itself.

 

Plans have evolved, but FoGP has never wavered from pursuing the objectives that the park users originally requested. FoGP is conscious that we represent ALL park users and there are people for and against the development. At this stage the development is at the pre-planning stage and will need to go before the Planning Committee at Brent Council for approval. This will be in public so anyone who wishes to can have their say.

 

The Friends of Gladstone Park Trustees feel it is right to step back and let due process take its course.

 

FoGP is an apolitical group and Trustees who happen to be councillors do not have voting rights on matters related to Brent Council.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Who are and what is the Friends of Gladstone Park (FoGP?

 

· FoGP is a group of ordinary local residents who care about the park and volunteered to act as a conduit between the park users and Brent Council.

The mission statement is to Protect, Preserve and Promote Gladstone Park

· The group has grown in 12 years from 6 to 13 in number, meeting once every few months

FoGP is an apolitical group and trustees who happen to be councillors do not have voting rights on matters related to Brent Council.

· To let people know the FoGP existed for everyone, public meetings, walks, talks and litter-picks are held during the summer months.

 

· The Gardening Group of volunteer gardeners was formed to maintain the Walled Garden, shortly followed by the Woodland Copse group. It was at that point Friends of Gladstone Park became a charity and the original regular volunteers became trustees. This meant we could accept donations for plants, seeds, compost, tools – and obtain public liability insurance. We have virtually no admin costs as everyone gives their time free of charge.

FoGP communicates regularly with the Parks Department at Brent Council. (It is worth noting that while Gladstone Park is one of the larger parks in the Borough, Brent has over 85 parks and open green spaces, and FoGP is just one of the groups who fiercely protect their local park.)
FoGP successfully campaigned for the public toilet near the Walled Garden and will continue to campaign for more toilets in the park
FoGP continues to lobby the council and campaign against motor bikes and other motorised vehicles
FoGP continues to campaign against littering in the park, support litter picking, lobby for more bins and other initiatives to combat the problem
FoGP continues to plant and maintain the Walled Garden and the Rose garden
FoGP continues to protect and maintain the Woodland Copse which is now a designated Local Nature Reserve
FoGP supported the campaign for the refurbishment of the lower children’s playground
FoGP continues to lobby the council to maintain the pond
FoGP continues to lobby for drinking fountains in the park
FoGP continues to lobby against commercialisation of the park
 
Gladstone Park is a beloved and necessary open space in a busy city, for families, walkers, runners, dog owners, sports enthusiasts, nature lovers, bird watchers, pond watchers. Our aim is to protect it.
 
FoGP represents ALL users of Gladstone Park

The People's Emergency Briefing + Panel Lexi Cinema 8.20pm Wednesday 19th August - Film & Panel Discussion on how to respond to the climate and nature emergency

 

 

Summer 2026 is making history in Europe for record heat, forest and heath fires, and crop failures. What better time to take a serious look at the National Emergency Briefing with other concerned citizens, back the case for a national screening on TV and discuss how to respond to the crisis.

  

The People's Emergency Briefing + Panel

 

Lexi Cinema 8.20pm Wednesday 19^th August

 

The screening will be followed by panel discussion led by Beninio McDonough-Tranza, Co-ordinator, Brent Green Party, featuring:

 

Councillor Marijn van de Geer, Green Party councillor for Ealing North Acton 

 

Paul Stephens, Protest Liaison spokeperson, Extinction Rebellion; former Met Police officer

This film sets out the National Emergency Briefing on the climate and nature emergency, given to MPs at Westminster by leading experts in November 2025.  It is now being screened in communities across the UK, bringing people together to hear the evidence on what the emergency means for our lives and our future, and to discuss how to respond.

 

 

 

 

 

BOOK YOUR SEAT/S BY CLICKING ON THE IMAGE BELOW:

 

 

Hidden Contributions: Black Workers Who Built Brent - are you one? Get in touch?

 

Kilburn High Road Festival July 31st to August 15th - creativity, culture, connection

 

Barry Gardiner MP joins ward councillors in opposing the loss of Samovar Space and Market Square to hotel development

 

England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021 

(Credit & Copyright Alamy)

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a  hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.

Barry Gardiner writes:

   

Planning Team

Brent Council

 

29 July 2026

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04

 

I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.

 

You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.

 

This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.

 

At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.

 

Benefit of the Samovar Space

 

The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.

 

I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.

 

Supposed benefit of the development

 

There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.

 

A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.

 

This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.

 

Harms of the development

 

While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:

 

·     Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;

 

·      Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;

 

·      Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;

 

·      Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;

 

·      Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;

 

·      Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.

 

Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.

 

Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.

 

The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.

 

The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.

 

Planning compliance

 

I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.

 

 

I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.

 

The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:

 

The National Policy Planning Framework 2012

 

Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities

 

102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…

 

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

 

a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

 

b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

 

c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

 

Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041

 

Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy

 

Development will be acceptable provided it is:

 

a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;

b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;

i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

 

Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design

 

6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.

 

London Plan 2021

 

Policy G4 Open space

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Not result in the loss of protected open space

 

Policy S4: Play and informal recreation

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile

5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

 

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities

 

C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…

2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

Concluding remarks

 

It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.

Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I  support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.

 

Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.

 

I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent West

 

To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351