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.

Littering and Flytipping: Is Brent Council's claim of improvement justified?

On Tuesday next week, the day after Full Council Budget Setting, the  Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny is considering the performance of contractors on flytipping and littering.

The officers' report states:

It is recommended that the committee note improvements made through performance monitoring of Veolia contract, reporting through FixMyStreet portal, enforcement actions undertaken and the wider impact of Don’t Mess with Brent campaign on fly tipping and littering.

However, some of the information in the report undermines the claim:

FLYTIPPING 

The above graph appears to suggest a rise in the actual amount of flytipping compared with last year.
 

The decrease in the number of reported flytips follows the change to having to log-in to report on FixMyStreet but the report argues:

The decrease in fly-tip reporting since August 2025 is mainly attributed to the removal of anonymous reporting feature on the platform. This action was necessitated due to receipt of several inappropriate messages received on the platform. Although there is a decrease in reporting, the change has resulted in the improvement of standards of reports made.

Fewer reports but a higher standard - how does the latter improve the flytipping problem? 

On the issue of who does the reporting of flytipping the figures show the public is by far the most active, although that has not stopped the Leader of Brent Council apparently editing the App for some self promotion beyond what one would expect from a non-political App. Should the public start doing some private promotion when they report?

 
 Of course there are many more public than councillors or staff but the trend is significant. 

Officers write;

What we can observe from the table above is that total number of street cleansing and fly-tipping reports were initially being made by staff in the 2023/24 financial year. This largely reflects the early introduction of FixMyStreet. But gradually we can see significant decreases in staff reporting in the following financial years. This indicates a reduced reliance on intermediary reporting by staff and demonstrates FixMyStreet becoming embedded as a self-service channel for residents.

STREET SWEEPING

Brent has moved from a regular street sweeping schedule (what the report terms 'a rigid street cleansing schedule) to  'intelligence-based'. This means residents have to report when their street needs sweeping.

Since its introduction, an average 750 street cleansing reports are created per month with 25,450 total reports created since April 2023 with residents making 83% (21,107) of the total number of reports. Highlighting strong resident engagement with this category.

But are our streets  cleaner?

The report is very positive about the impact of the FixMyStreet App. It notes that the current contract ends in October this year and a procurement timeline needs to be organised.

ENFORCEMENT 

In the calendar year 2025 Brent Environmental Enforcement generated £426,000 in income from littering and flytipping mixed penalty notices. There has been substantial press publicity and council publicity to highlight the cost to individuals or commercial premisies. A number of cases studies are reported.

We were worst in the country for fly-tipping in 2024. We will be in the 23rd position this year. This is a significant improvement.

•   We have tripled our enforcement officers from 6 to 18

•   We continue to take a zero-tolerance approach to fly-tipping and have more than doubled the amount of fines we have handed out. With over 5,700 fines handed out to people that are ruining our streets.

•   Our fines are the highest they legally can be and are a deterrent to thosec onsidering leaving a mess in the public realm.

  Communications: Our approach has been multi-faceted, but has focused mainly on messages around zero-tolerance across the whole borough. 

Wealdstone Brook protected for now as planners turn down Woodgrange Close development

 Proposed houses and disused garages

 

 The site beside the trees of the Wealdstone Brook

 

Brent Planning officers have refused the application to build 6 houses on the site of disused garages near the Weladstone Brook. The application had received 19 objections including from prospective councillors for the area. LINK.

Planners set set out the reasons for refusal below. (Beware the double negative in point 1):

  

1.In the absence of sufficient information, it has not been demonstrated that the development, due to the close proximity to the Wealdstone Brook, would not adversely affect the Wealdstone Brook in terms of load bearing or induce torsional stress on the channel bank / wing wall, and would not prejudice the health and survivability of retained trees. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, and BGI1 of the Brent Local Plan and with Policies 2019-2041 and Policies G7 and SI7 of The London Plan.

 

2. The proposal, by reason of a lack of sufficient accurate information, fails to demonstrate that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on trees, would meet the required gain in biodiversity, would not unduly harm protected species, a Wildlife Corridor and Grade 2 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), or provide an adequate urban greening factor. This is contrary to policies DMP1, BGI1 and BGI2 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and Policies G6 and SI17 of The London Plan.

 

3. The proposed development fails to demonstrate safe and functional use for refuse vehicles because the submitted tracking diagram shows that the refuse vehicles would transcend the western site boundary and do not account for a ramped pedestrian access. The development is therefore contrary to policies DMP1 and BT3 of the Brent Local Plan 2019 -2041 and Brent Council’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Guidance for Residential Properties.

 

4. The proposed development fails to provide a safe, step free, and inclusive pedestrian access route between the site and the adjoining footpath network. The lack of ramped or level access may force wheelchair users, pushchair users, or others with limited mobility to access the site via the northern entrance which would result in unsafe vehicular and pedestrian conflict. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D5 and T7 of the London Plan 2021 and policies DMP1 and BT1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041.

 

5. The proposed development is not subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act which would be required to ensure the delivery of the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable housing through an off site contribution. As such, the impacts of the development would not be mitigated and the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policy and policy BH5 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041, together with the guidance set out within Brent's S106 Planning Obligations SPD.

 

In a comment on earlier coverage of this issue John Poole wrote:

 Cllr. Janice Long and I, John Poole, two prospective Labour Councillors for the Kenton Ward at the local elections next May, visited the site  and spoke with local residents at the Mural Bridge whose use Woodcock Park on a regular basis and they were shocked and surprised at the prospect of housing at that site and so close to the Wealdstone Brook. Cllr. Long wonders what else could the site be used for - the disused garages go back to the 1950s - and we all agreed that it is an ideal area for a greening project to add to Brent Council's increase in biodiversity in the area and supporting the Council's Carbon Net Zero policy.