NHS reduces Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre without notice

 

 

The above notice shared on Facebook is the first most of the public will have learned that the NHS NWLondon University Healthcare had implemented their plan to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 21 hours a week. The notice reverts to the old name of 'Urgent Care' and calls it a Department - whether that is actually a change of name or just another example of their  carelessness is unclear.

 

The website for the UTC (they still called it that) just accessed, has the old opening hours with a footnote that they have been confirmed today! LINK

 

Today, a day after its implementation yesterday, the LNWH NHS website carried a news story about the earlier closing time:

 

 

The Urgent treatment centre at Central Middlesex Hospital has new opening hours. It is now open from 8am to 9pm, with the last patient registered at 8pm.

A recent review of our urgent care services found that the centre saw an average of only four patients per hour between 9pm and midnight. We found that many of these patients could have received appropriate treatment or advice from their GP or a high street pharmacist.

Also, radiology services (X-ray, ultrasound, etc) at Central Middlesex Hospital are not available after 8pm. This is because low patient numbers and a limited workforce make allocating staff to radiology services after 8pm an inefficient use of resources. However, this did mean that some of the patients who attended the Urgent Treatment Centre after 9pm had to attend another centre or to return for care the following day.

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 centre remains open seven days a week and there is no change to our process if someone visits the site while seriously unwell. Our 24/7 critical outreach team will still look after them until they can be transferred to an appropriate setting.

Our Urgent treatment centres provide medical care when it is not critical or life threatening for people of all ages. It's important to get the right care in the right place. If you're feeling unwell and not sure where to go call NHS 111 or visit 111.nhs.uk when you need medical help fast. Our website also has information and advice if you're not sure where to go.

I highlight the above quote as it contains no verifiable information, no link to results, and no figures. It is of the same ilk as the non-consultation on the Northwick Park Hydrotherapy Pool. It of course pretends not to have heard about the 570 signature petition presented to Brent Council Scrutiny Committee calling for an urgent meeting of the Committee to investigate the Trust's plans. A call adroitly and complacently kicked into the long grass by Committee Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth as being on his 'radar'. If radar worked like that many ships would have been sunk and aircraft blown up by the enemy.

 

Meanwhile, many would be patients will be turning up at the UTC to find its doors closed.

 

It really seems that without democratic oversight the local NHS treats the people of Brent  with contempt - aided by Brent Scrutiny Committee. 

 

Standby for more slicing away of services at Central Middlesex Hospital. Is it earmarked for future housing development? 

Time for residents and visitors, and especially young people, to be seen and heard over hotel plans for Wembley Park public space

 Proposed hotel development from the stadium steps side of Engineers Way

I had heard that Quintain had advertised their plans to build a new hotel in the Samovar Space/Market Square at the site so I popped down on a very chilly afternoon to see for myself.

I searched around Market Square and found nothing, then spied this,  in the distance on the edge of  the Samovar Space:

 

 

Close up it was a rather tatty notice with a QR code to Quintain's presentation:

 

 

 

And that was it - there were no other notices or indications of the plans that Quintain expect to submit to Brent Council planners in February or March. No wonder Wembley Park residents are protesting and launched a petition which so far has over 200 signatures. (SEE THE PETITION HERE).

 

I talked to the few people who had braved the cold (although more young people would be there after school) and despite sitting close to the notice while supervising their children had no idea about what was planned and were quite shocked to find out.

 

The Samovar Space is past its best as Quintain took down the Shell Performance Stage and other bits and pieces and the play area has not been repainted, but the potential for a space in the centre of Wembley Park can still be seen.  Only a much smaller area will be left if the hotel is built. All photographs were taken about 3pm this afternoon.

 

 

When the Samovar Space was installed great play was made of the involvement of young people inits design when their voices are often not heard in major developments.

 

Julian Tollast, Head of Masterplanning and Design, Quintain, welcoming an Award for the Samovar Project, said: 

It is a sad fact that young people are often overlooked when it comes to the built environment. With this in mind, we are extremely proud of the work we have done, and are continuing to do, via Seen & Heard to make Wembley Park and the wider area a more welcoming place for all. To succeed at these awards and represent not only the Borough of Brent but London as well was an honour for all involved.

In this case it  seems it is not just young people who are not being 'Seen and Heard' but Wembley Park residents and  visitors.

What a contrast to the optimism of just over 2 years ago as demonstrated by this video:

     

• Date of planning submission February/March 2026.

• Planning determination will take around 3 - 4 months and if approved construction will not commence until end of 2026 at the earliest.

• Construction likely to take 2 - 3 years.

• If you wish to make any comments or have any questions on these proposals, please  send them to :

Development@wembleypark.com

https://www.quintain.co.uk/site-services/nw04

 

 IF YOU AGREE WITH THE OBJECTORS SIGN THE PETITION HERE

 

Stand up for the Palestinians tomorrow. Join the march. 12 noon Russell Square to Whitehall

 

Palestine and Gaza may be out of the headlines but Palestinians continue to suffer, and die or are wounded, despite the so-called ceasefire. Some from continued Israeli aggression and others from cold or malnutrition with no homes or shelter apart from flimsy tents or ruined houses. Food and medical supplies shortages continue.

Against that background President Trump, in an old-fashioned imperialist project, is set to annex Gaza and expel its population aided by ex-UK premier Tony Blair.

 

Keep up the pressure and join the march tomorrow. Look out for the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign banner at the meeting point on the corner of Bedford Way and Russell Square.

We will not be silenced. 

Poetry In Wembley: 'Roots' - Jane Clarke, Jessican Mookherjee and perhaps YOU! Thursday March 5th at Wembley Library, Brent Civic Centre, Wembley Park

 

I am sharing this early to give our poets in Brent a chance to write a poem, ot choose a favourite poem, to share alongside published poets at an Open Mic on Thursday 5th March.        

From Poetry in Wembley: Roots

 

Join us for a festival of Poetry at Wembley Library with poets, Jane Clarke and Jessica Mookherjee followed by Open Mic.

 

Local poets bring and read your own poems or poems you love to share.

 

Irish poet Jane Clarke reads from her latest collection A Change in the Air which was shortlisted for both the T S Eliot Prize and the Forward Prize for Best Collection in 2023. Her moving poetry of people and place explores our kinship with each other and the natural world.

 

“Her verse attends so closely to the land and the people of her rural homeland that it makes us attend more closely to our own”. Ron Charles, Book Critic at the Washington Post.

 

Jessica Mookherjee is a British poet of Bengali heritage and grew up in Wales and London, now lives in Kent. She has been published in many print and online journals and anthologies and was twice highly commended for best single poem in the Forward Prize 2017 and 2021.

 

Author of 3 full collections from Nine Arches Press, her second collection , Tigress, was shortlisted for the Ledbury Prize in 202.

 

This event is funded by “Love Where You Live” Project and Star Books

Free: Tickets  https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/poetry-in-wembley-roots-tickets-1979854864195

 Booking recommended.

 

As an encouragement here is a video of poetry written by Brent children as part of the 2020 Borough of Culture. Covid put paid to plans for a huge poetry slam so some of the poems were shared on YouTube instead:

  

Petition to Halt the Proposed Hotel Development at Samovar Space and Wembley Park Market Square (Plot NW04)

 

A Wembley Matters reader  in Wembley Park writes:

Quintain's 'pro-active' 'consultation' with the Wembley Park (and wider Wembley) community still seems limited to the couple of A5 posters they've put-up at random points around the development (they're really "blink and you'd miss them", it's almost like they're hoping no-one notices them!). No attempts what-so-ever at truly engaging directly with the community they profess to care so much about.

Now a petition has been launched against the hotel development on what is currently a lively open space - a break from the surrounding high rise where people can meet and childen play.

Yoga in the threatened Samovar Open Space  (Picture from wembleypark.com)

 

The Petition (SIGN HERE)

We grew up surrounded by the vibrant energy of Wembley Park Market Square, a place where families gather, children play, communities connect, and traditions flourish. This is not merely a physical space, it is the heartbeat of our local culture. People from all walks of life come together here, united by a rich tapestry of diverse stalls, warm interactions, and a deep sense of belonging. Sadly, this cherished community space is now under threat.

A proposal has been put forward and discussed with the council to construct a hotel on Olympic Way, directly opposite the Civic Centre, on the site of Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space without any meaningful consultation with local residents or their elected representatives. Residents should have been informed by email and a proper consultation should have been held for all neighbouring residents, rather than limiting consultation to only those living at Landsby East.

If approved, this development would have far reaching consequences for both residents and the environment, while permanently eliminating a valued open space that is central to our community life.

The construction of a hotel in this location would not only overshadow and diminish this much loved public space, but would also likely result in increased traffic congestion, noise pollution, environmental damage, and additional strain on already pressured local infrastructure. The character and charm of the neighbourhood could be irreversibly altered, depriving future generations of the cultural, social, and communal experiences that have long defined Wembley Park.

Beyond the environmental and infrastructural concerns, such a large scale development would significantly impact residents’ quality of life. Increased footfall from hotel guests could lead to overcrowding, parking difficulties, and the erosion of the peaceful atmosphere that the community currently enjoys.

We firmly believe that alternative locations exist which are far more suitable for a development of this nature, locations that do not require the sacrifice of an invaluable community space. We therefore urge Brent Council, Quintain, and all relevant stakeholders to reconsider this proposal and take meaningful action to ensure that Wembley Park retains its unique cultural identity and heritage.

Please stand with us in preserving the vibrancy and spirit of Wembley by opposing the proposed hotel development at Wembley Park Market Square and Samovar Space. Sign this petition to protect the heart of our community and help secure a future in which local culture and shared spaces are safeguarded for the benefit of all.

 

 

The Farmers' Market in Market Square - the hotel will overshadow the Civic Centre Library and replace much of the Square (picture from Wembley Park Com) 

 

Comments on the Petition site:

To Brent Council and Quintain, Wembley Park is being shaped by decisions that prioritise profit over people. Both Brent Council and Quintain should seriously consider the principles outlined in Thomas Heatherwick’s Humanise, which argues that buildings and neighbourhoods must be designed around human health and wellbeing — not maximum financial return. More buildings may generate revenue for developers, but the long-term impact on residents will be far greater. Increased strain on the NHS, social services, and housing support is inevitable when overcrowding and poor living conditions are normalised. These costs will be paid by the public, not by the developers who benefit today. What drives this approach is simple: greed. And it is telling that no one making these decisions would realistically choose to live at Wembley Park under the conditions being created for others. Development should serve the people who live there — not just the financial interests of a few. The right thing to do is to stop, reassess, and place human lives, health, and dignity ahead of profit. 

This square is one of the few genuinely shared community spaces we have - it’s where local markets run, kids play, and people actually spend time together. Building a hotel here would permanently take that away. On a practical level, the area already struggles with infrastructure: the local Sainsbury’s regularly has long queues and stock shortages, and transport and foot traffic are already stretched, especially when concerts or events finish. Adding a hotel would significantly increase congestion, confusion for visitors, delivery traffic, waste, noise, and pressure on services that clearly aren’t equipped to handle it. With limited open space, crowd flow would become a real safety concern during busy periods. This development doesn’t improve the area - it removes a vital community space and creates ongoing problems for residents, families, and local businesses. The construction period alone would last years, bringing constant noise, dust, visual blight, and disruption that would make events difficult or impossible to run and harm local traders. Environmentally, losing open space will worsen air quality, increase noise and light pollution, and contribute to urban overheating and drainage issues. The area already lacks the infrastructure to support additional pressure, and increased traffic, deliveries, and visitor congestion would create ongoing safety and accessibility problems. This proposal prioritises developer profit over long-term community wellbeing and the character of the area.

I previously challenged the relationship between the construction and hotel industries whilst working in the Far East. Now, back in my own country, I see the same murky processes taking place. The apparent lack of consultation in this case with the local community is truly disturbing and it is essential that we challenge this at an early stage in the proceedings by demanding the necessary and promised levels of transparency before any decision is made. Please sign the petition at your earliest convenience

Note: I understand that the well-used Children's Playground opposite the entrance to the London Designer Outlet from the Boulevard is also subject to development in the future.

 

 

Open Day: Plans for Willesden Trades Hall - help shape the building's future - food, music (includings Lovers Rock soundtrack) and kids' activities

 

On behalf of the trustees of the Willesden Trades Hall Charity, we would like to invite you to an open day and consultation event at the Willesden Trades Hall and Apollo Club at 375 High Road, Willesden NW10 2JR, on Saturday 14th February 2026 from 12pm till 4pm. Flyer attached!

We are keen to hear your views on the emerging plans for the building’s future repair and re-use, designed by architects Adjaye Associates. There will be food, music, tours of the building, children’s activities and people to talk to. You can drop in at any time during the event. 

TOGETHER against the far right. Wednesday 28th January 7pm, Chalkhill Community Centre

 

Perspectives on London's housing emergency - affordable homes supply and threshold, CIL relief for developers, reduced powers of councils

 Below are three different perspectives that feed into the debate about how to address London's current housing emergency.

From the London Assembly

Rising costs, funding constraints and a lack of strategic focus are slowing the delivery of the affordable homes Londoners need most, particularly family-sized and accessible homes.

A new report from the London Assembly Housing Committee – Assessing delivery, needs and challenges of the Mayor’s Affordable Homes – warns that London’s affordable housing system is failing to keep pace with need, despite public investment through the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme. Delivery under the current programme has been slow, with 64 per cent of homes still to be started as of September 2025, less than a year before the programme is due to end in March 2026.

The Committee found that certain types of homes are in particularly short supply. Family-sized social rent homes and accessible homes for Deaf and Disabled Londoners are not being delivered at the scale required, leaving many families trapped in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation. The report also raises concerns about the lack of progress in delivering sites for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and the growing pressure on supported housing providers.

To address this, the Committee calls for a more targeted approach to funding affordable housing. Key recommendations include increasing grant rates and setting clear targets for family-sized and accessible homes under the 2026–36 Affordable Homes Programme, so that public investment better reflects London’s most urgent housing needs.

Other recommendations in the report include:

·          improving support for councils to acquire existing homes for social rent, as a faster way to increase supply

·           requiring better monitoring and reporting on homes delivered for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, to ensure commitments translate into delivery

·          securing sustainable funding for supported housing, including revenue funding alongside capital investment

Chair of the London Assembly Housing Committee, Zoë Garbett AM (Green Party), said:

London’s housing crisis is hitting families and disabled Londoners hardest, yet the homes they need most are the ones least likely to be built. The report highlights that delivery has slowed sharply since 2023, at the same time as demand for genuinely affordable housing continues to rise.

Evidence to the Committee showed that rising construction costs, high land prices, increased borrowing costs and new building safety requirements have all reduced the capacity of councils and housing associations to bring forward new homes. Without changes to how funding is allocated, the report warns that delivery under the next Affordable Homes Programme risks falling further behind.

Menwhile Brent Council reacted to Government and London Mayor proposals on the Housing Emergency that included reducing the affordable housing threshold and temporary relief on the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy required from developers.

Councillor Teo Benea, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property published a statement on the Council's position:

While we support urgent action to unblock housing delivery, the current proposals risk doing the opposite in places like Brent, reducing the number of affordable homes delivered while significantly cutting the funding that pays for the infrastructure that our borough relies on.

Brent currently has 2,054 households living in temporary accommodation, and tens of thousands of residents on our housing register who will face waiting decades for an affordable home; unless grant funding for building new council homes is increased.

Lowering the effective affordable housing threshold and introducing substantial reductions in borough level Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would remove vital investment in schools, future transport schemes like the West London Orbital, public realm improvements, as well as community and medical facilities, without addressing the real barriers to delivery.

Our submission is clear that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) makes up only a small proportion of overall development costs, and that cutting it would have a disproportionate impact on Brent, particularly in areas that are already growing.

We want to work with Government to help realise their ambition of 1.5 million new homes, getting more families into secure and genuinely affordable housing, and supporting first time buyers onto the housing ladder.

That means introducing policies that increase delivery without undermining affordable housing, or stripping out the funding needed to support growing communities. We have submitted our formal response to both consultations, urging a rethink so we can deliver homes, infrastructure and opportunity together.

The Just Space Alliance, the campaign against the dominance of developers and landowners in planning, have written a detailed response that you can read HERE 

Here is a key extract:

Part 1: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Relief
 

We note that;

 Local authorities already set CIL levels to ensure developments can be viable and can choose not to charge CIL.
 

 Local authorities can already give Exceptional Circumstances Relief (ECR), if a scheme is unviable. This proposal would effectively over-ride local authority discretion.
 

 CIL is not cited as one of the causes of ‘non-viability’ (causes are Covid, high interest rates, construction and labour costs, new regulations, fall in demand for unaffordable housing).
 

 There is a danger that CIL relief will not be time limited, once introduced it will become the norm for financing developments.

We strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons

 If the Government allows both a significant reduction in CIL payments alongside consents that provide only 20% affordable housing this simply benefits landowners and developers with no corresponding public benefits. Land values will rise, driving up house prices and rents.

 These proposals would reduce the money that local authorities have to spend on essential improvements to the local area and providing social infrastructure for new and existing residents. Councils do not have the money to make up this shortfall, so it would have a long term impact on communities across London.
 

 The measures give priority to the delivery of ‘units’ rather than the sustainable development of appropriate homes addressing identified need – which is for social housing, not more unaffordable housing.
 

 The consultation contains no evidence of its necessity or effectiveness. It is extraordinary that the government has not provided its own financial modelling to support these proposals. The developer’s lobby have done so. It is deeply concerning that the affordable housing requirement may be reduced based on untested evidence provided by developers.

 If the govt wants to encourage developers building the homes we need, they could propose a reduction in CIL for schemes that commit to providing at least 35% affordable housing and for this to be the primary approach.
 

 The proposed £500,000 threshold discriminates against small schemes and the potential contribution of SMEs, which the Government purports to encourage.
 

 There would be no cut to Mayoral CIL. It is not clear why the boroughs are bearing the burden.

 The proposal for applications for CIL reductions to provide sufficient and truthful evidence to support viability modelling is welcomed. Information provided should be put into the public domain and the approach extended to apply to viability assessments used to reduce affordable housing contribution in planning applications.

Part 2: increasing Mayor’s powers to approve applications

The proposal is firstly to extend the Mayor’s power to ‘call in’ much smaller schemes of over 50 homes, but only if the borough intend to refuse the application – and the Mayor could then approve. Secondly it is proposed that the Mayor would be given additional powers to‘call in’ applications to build on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) .

These powers are designed to over-ride potential refusals by local councils of inappropriate schemes – all too rare an occasion anyway (many boroughs haven’t refused any major
schemes for years).

Local decision-making by local planning authorities (and local planning committees) is essential for transparency, legitimacy, and local democracy. We do not consider it appropriate for the Mayor to be given the power to over-ride the local authority’s democratic decision making process for schemes smaller than 150 homes, which are essentially local matters. Similarly it is not appropriate to give the Mayor specific additional powers of approval over-riding boroughs in relation to sites which are within the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. This would fundamentally upset the relationships set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

For these reasons we do not support a further extension of the Mayor’s call in powers.

In conclusion, we believe that the whoe package of measures - including those being concurrently consulted on by the Mayor - are fundamentally flawed, unevidenced, contradictory to the core principles and policies set out in the statutory London Plan, and therein fundamentally improper and open to legal challenge.