25 Objections lodged against the development of 14 The Paddocks and its large back garden into 10 flats and two houses

 

Columbina 14 The Paddocks, Wembley Park

The Paddocks is a road of detached houses with long back gardens, next to the former Brent Town Hall, now the Lycee. It is a hill and the road is quite busy with traffic between the  Salmon Street/Fryent Way  roundabout and Forty Lane. The 206 bus route runs along the The Paddocks to its terminus on the roundabout serving the Kings Drive Estate.

Columbina, 14 The Paddocks, is a handsome 5 bedroom detached house, with outbuilding and a long back garden near the brow of the hill on the corner with Greenhill Way.

 

 The willow in Greenhill Way

It previously featured on Wembley Matters when a magnificent willow in its  back garden was removed after storm damage. There was local speculation that this was done to enable development of the back garden but the Brent Tree Officer confirmed that removal had been advised because of the tree's post-storm instability.

 

The back garden minus the willow

Plans have been submitted to Brent Council for the demolition of Columbina and its replacement with a 3 storey building of 10 flats.

 

 Present

 

Proposed

Two semi-detached homes are proposed for the back garden that would front Greenhill Way. Because of the long back gardens there are few houses on Greenhill Way at present.

 Proposed

 

There are currently 25 Objections to the twin development on the Brent Planning Portal LINK and no submissions of Support. The objections are from residents in The Paddocks and Greenhill Way. 

Planning Officers will be considering the harm to the area weighed against the benefit of new housing to meet Brent's targets. The applicant claims that a financial viability assessment demonstrates that no affordable housing can be provided if the expected profit is to be maintained (supported by a report with more typos etc than even Wembley Matters articles!) but this is challenged by another assessment - even then it would be an off-site contribution towards affordable housing.

The number of people accommodated in the new development would be many more than in Columbina, even if it is an HMO:

 

Because Greenhill Way has few houses it has surplus parking spaces, some used by commuters bound for nearby Wembley Park station and even some Brent Council workers as it is a 15 minute walk to the Civic Centre. When parking spaces were removed on the Kings Drive council estate to make way for infill housing, Brent Council suggested using Greenhill Way for resident parking.

 

 

 The Objections all make similar points. This is one:

  

I am writing to formally object to planning application 25/0403 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a residential development comprising a two-storey building with converted roof space containing 10 self-contained flats, basement-level car parking, cycle storage and 2 dwellinghouses, together with new vehicular access, off-street car parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment.



I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons.



The proposed development represents a significant overdevelopment of the site. Replacing a single dwelling with a total of 12 residential units would be an excessive intensification of a residential plot and would be completely out of keeping with the character of The Paddocks. The road is predominantly made up of family homes (like my home) and introducing a large block of flats with additional houses to the rear would fundamentally alter the quiet, suburban nature of the street. I am shocked that someone would even consider submitting such a proposal.



The scale, bulk, massing and density of the proposal would not respect the established character of the area. The Paddocks is largely characterised by detached and semi-detached family homes with gardens, and the proposed development would appear cramped and excessive in comparison. A block of 10 flats, together with 2 additional dwellinghouses, would be far more intensive than the existing pattern of development and could set a harmful precedent for similar overdevelopment of single-family homes in The Paddocks and surrounding residential streets.



I am particularly concerned about the impact on traffic and highway safety. The Paddocks is already a busy road, and traffic has become noticeably worse over the years due to Wembley Stadium event days, Wembley Park, the London Designer Outlet and the academy school on Forty Lane. It is already difficult for residents to pull out of their own driveways safely because of the volume of traffic. Adding 12 households to one plot, together with a new vehicular access and basement parking, would create further vehicle movements and increase pressure on an already congested road.



The basement car parking is also a serious concern. Vehicles entering and leaving basement parking can create additional safety risks, particularly where visibility is limited or traffic is heavy. The proposal could result in queuing, reversing, obstruction of the highway, and conflict with pedestrians, cyclists, refuse vehicles and emergency services. The local road network is already under pressure, and this development would worsen the existing situation.



I am also very concerned about the disruption that would be caused during construction if this application were approved. The proposed demolition, excavation for basement parking, construction works, deliveries of materials, skips, scaffolding, machinery and contractor vehicles would be incredibly disruptive for existing residents. The Paddocks is already a busy road, and construction traffic would likely cause further congestion, blocked access, traffic build-up and difficulties for residents entering and leaving their driveways. This would be particularly serious on Wembley Stadium event days and during school traffic periods, when the road is already under significant pressure.



There is also likely to be an unacceptable impact on parking. Even if some parking is provided on site, the number of proposed units is likely to generate additional demand for visitor parking, deliveries, taxis, service vehicles and general household use. Any overspill parking would worsen congestion and place further pressure on residents who already struggle with traffic and parking conditions, especially on Wembley Stadium event days.



The proposal would also have a harmful impact on residential amenity. A development of this size could lead to overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, increased noise and disturbance, light pollution and a general sense of enclosure for nearby residents. The number of new occupiers, vehicles, deliveries and comings and goings would be far greater than the existing single dwelling and would materially change the living conditions of surrounding households.



I am also concerned about the loss of existing garden space and the impact this may have on the character of the area, biodiversity, drainage and the quality of the residential environment. The replacement of garden land with a much more intensive built form, hardstanding, access arrangements and basement construction could reduce natural drainage and add further pressure to local drainage systems.



The proposed basement works raise additional concerns about excavation, construction impact, drainage, groundwater and the potential effect on neighbouring properties. Excavation for basement parking can cause significant disturbance, noise, vibration, dust and disruption to surrounding residents. These matters should be fully and independently assessed before any decision is made.



The local area has already experienced substantial residential intensification and development around Wembley. Local roads, schools, services, drainage and public infrastructure are under growing strain. Allowing this level of intensification on a quiet residential street would add to the cumulative pressure already being experienced by residents.



For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Brent Council refuses this application. Should officers be minded to approve it, I request that the application be referred to the Planning Committee for full consideration, with a site visit and a detailed highways assessment taking into account Wembley Stadium event-day traffic, the impact of Wembley Park and the London Designer Outlet, the traffic generated by the school on Forty Lane, parking pressure, basement construction, drainage, landscaping, neighbouring amenity and the character of the area.

 

Details for anyone who wishes to make a submission Object, Support, or Neutral:

 

Ref 25/0403 

 

https://pa.brent.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=DCAPR_172134&activeTab=summary

 

 

LETTER: We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub

 

Details: https://www.willesdengreensurgery.nhs.uk/new-hub

 

Letter to The Editor regarding the proposed Health Hub in Gladstone Park, Willesden Green

We are a group of concerned residents living close to Gladstone Park.

In March some (not all) of the residents in the neighbourhood were informed of plans to demolish an existing building and build a new integrated GP practice called the Health Hub inside the boundaries of the park, next to the new children’s playground. The developer’s plans also provide for a community hall, wellbeing studios, a pharmacy, a cafe, toilets, a food truck and even a padel court. 

As you can imagine, people jumped at the idea of having these new facilities in the park. The developers got the endorsement of the Friends of Gladstone Park group by promising them a communal space to be included in the scheme.

However… As is often the case with private enterprises, we have not been told the whole story, but rather only what we wanted to hear. 

If we remove our rose-tinted glasses and look at the proposal in detail, it becomes abundantly clear that this new complex is in the wrong place, will not serve the people that it claims to serve, and will have devastating consequences for our beautiful park and the quiet character of our neighbourhood. 

We were told this new building would be a GP practice built to serve the local community within 10 minutes walk from the site. But in reality the catchment area will be much larger and the scope considerably more ambitious:

 

 

• The practice is to meet the needs of major planned developments as far as Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner. Not so local anymore!
• The number of patients is currently planned to be 20,000 but it can grow exponentially (the GP practice which is to be housed there grew from 3,800 patients in 2018 to 15,000 today).
• It will not only be a GP practice, but also 'co-locate GP services with neighbourhood health, mental health, housing, and social care teams'.

Why are they placing all these facilities inside a park? 

 

 

The park is for recreational activities and quiet enjoyment of nature. This development will increase the footfall tenfold, when the park is already plagued by constant littering, anti-social behaviour and the danger of speeding electric bikes.

 

 

And how will people in need of health or social services be able to easily reach it from Church End, Neasden and Staples Corner? The developers propose the 226 bus. Whoever has used that line can attest it is unreliable and highly susceptible to local traffic congestion. 

Gladstone Park is designated Metropolitan Open Land, which affords the highest level of protection from development. But the developers have told us there is no other viable site in the surgery’s catchment area to fulfil their needs, therefore an exception is to be made. They say that the site has to be owned, as well as partially funded, by the council and then leased for a peppercorn because of ‘the unaffordable cost of private land’.  

 

 

If the council makes this concession for one particular GP surgery, why shouldn’t other GP practices also demand more protected land and £2.97m CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) money for their own ambitions? 

 

 

It is, surely, a dangerous precedent.

There is a similar project, the GP Super Surgery in Wembley, run by Wembley Park Medical Centre and serving around 25,000 patients. It was recently built by Quintain real estate in their new Repton Gardens building development, placing health services inside the new growth areas. 

With the flurry of new developments happening or going to happen in the neighbourhood (10,500 new homes according to the Brent Cabinet Report) and property developers maximising their profits by building new luxurious flats without supplying the minimum amount of social housing, why is the council not securing a more suitable location for the surgery in one of those developments? Or nearer to the patients who need these services most!

Why are Brent Labour cabinet members and the Leader so casually willing to sacrifice a chunk of our beautiful, protected local park? 

 

 

Brent Council can and should do better.

Yours faithfully,

 

 

A group of concerned residents

 

Brent Council gives reasons for Licensing Sub-Committee's refusal of Arcadia's application for 1 Walm Lane Adult Gaming Centre

 From Brent Council

  

An application for a new adult gaming centre in Willesden Green has been rejected by Brent Council’s Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The application by Arcadia Casino Limited was refused because it was not considered consistent with two licensing objectives under the Gambling Act 2005:

 

* Preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime.

* Protecting children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

 

The Sub-Committee considered evidence about crime and anti-social behaviour, the number of gambling premises already in Willesden Green, local deprivation, and the potential impact on vulnerable residents.

 

It also heard from Brent Public Health and five objectors, including three councillors, who raised concerns about crime and disorder linked to the number of gambling premises in the area. They noted that gambling-related harm in Brent is significantly above the national average.

 

More than 200 objections were submitted by residents, ward councillors and community representatives. Local concerns in Willesden Green were central to the decision.

 

The decision comes as Brent continues to call for councils to have stronger powers to refuse gambling premises where there is evidence of local harm. Earlier this year, Brent brought together more than 40 councils and mayors to call for reform of the Gambling Act 2005, including changes to the “aim to permit” duty, which limits councils’ ability to refuse applications.

 

A separate application for a new gambling premises licence on Kilburn High Road, due to be heard on 8 July 2026, has also been withdrawn.

 

The Leader of Brent Council & Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care,  Cllr Muhammed Butt, said: 

 

This is an important decision for Willesden Green and for every resident who has said enough is enough.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the evidence carefully and independently, including concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, deprivation, the concentration of gambling premises and the risk of harm to vulnerable people. On that basis, it was right that this application was refused.

'Debate' at Brent Cabinet over Preston Park Improvments

 

 Presentations and Cabinet member response in full (Brent Council)

Monday's Cabinet was unusual in that there was almost a debate. Normal Cabinets usually rubber stamp decisions with a few remarks from members praising each other's proposals.

Members did not debate with each other on Monday but unusually permission was granted to a group of residents to respond to another group's petition presentation. Not a real debate as no interaction was allowed but there was at least presentation of differing points of view.

The focus was proposals for the improvement of Preston Park that arose as an NCIL  (Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy) initiative, It had been discussed for several months and discussions continued perhaps ill-advisedly over the local election period.

The initial proposal was for a MUGA (Multi-Use Games Area) on one of the tennis courts in the park (Red rectangle on map below).

 

The petitioners objected to the proposed site as it was close to nearby houses and gardens and would cause more noise than a tennis court. They proposed an alternative site (Yellow rectangle on map) next to the children's playground and away from back gardens and homes.

Angela Barrett, presenting the petition on behalf of residents, said the alternative site had the backing of Brent Parks Forum and the Preston Park Safer Neighbourhood team. The original site was in a secluded part of the park that attracts anti-social behaviour raising safety and inclusion issues. She said:

I can begin with good news: since our petition was submitted, the Head of Parks Kelly Eaton has confirmed that the tennis court site is no longer being considered

A new location adjacent to the children's playground in the centre of the park would create a unified, safer family activity hub. It was more visible and easier to overlook, making it safer and more welcoming. 

The meadow from the children's playground

The area was intended to be a meadow, but has not established successfully and remains grass of relatively low ecological value. There would be potential to incorporate a rain garden and pollinator planting.

Angela suggested that  rather than a caged tarmac MUGA, which research shows can often not feel welcoming for girls and younger users, LINK LINK, a flexible grass-based alternative area or natural adventure playground could be provided. Positive proposals for better engagement have been put to Brent Council LINK.

She concluded by asking the Cabinet to support a new location and thoughtful design that will enhance the park for everyone. A facility that works well for all young people, feels safe and inclusive, fits into its surroundings and could even include a net ecological gain.

Soulla Kwong then spoke on behalf of Friends of Preston Park that began as a litter-picking group and developed as a group to improve the park, particularly for young children.

They had spoken to local children who had supported the idea of a MUGA and a chess table and table tennis  table that have already been installed. However, I understand that the alternative ideas for youth provision outlined above by Angela have not been presented to local children yet.

Soulla  said that the 'disused' tennis courts had been suggested as a MUGA site by children. As the court already had a firm foundation it would be less costly install a MUGA there.  No floodlights would be installed that would disturb neighbours.

She said that building a MUGA on the meadow would amount to loss of green space that the Friends would oppose: 'We have a duty not to destroy what little we have. Should we leave behind a concrete jungle or something that future generations can enjoy?'

Soulla Kwong did not respond to Angela Barrett's suggestion of a lower impact grass football field and natural adventure playground instead of a MUGA. 

It was a pity that there were no questions allowed from Cabinet members or interaction between the two groups that might have established some common ground.

It was left to Cllr Promise Knight to respond. She said that the proposal had started as part of the NCIL process with support from school children for a place where they could be active. She recognised residents' concerns over noise levels and the enjoyment of their homes and gardens. 

Having considered the feedback received she could confirm that the Park Service would continue to review the improvement programme in more detail, weighing up all the options and what was possible: 

I hope this provides reassurance to residents and demonstrates the council is listening carefully to both sides. 

Cllr Knight did not say explicitly that the tennis court site was no longer being considered. 

Interestingly, in one of a series on access to play on BBC Radio 4, there was a discussion about another area of controversy, whether council tennis courts should be free and self-run or taken over on the council's behalf by the Lawn Tennis Association, with coded locks and charges. HEAR IT HERE

Soulla Kwong called the tennis courts 'disused', however I  understand the courts are used for tennis and remain available to book via the LTA, although there are question marks about how well the current arrangement with the LTA is working. Angela also mentioned that occasional ASB occurs at the site. This may be a separate issue for the Parks Service to review.

 

The existing children's playground has safety and maintenance issues.  What would be the maintenance programme for a  MUGA and how would it be funded.  LINK

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

    

BREAKING: Withdrawal of gambling application for former Kilburn bank a victory for community power

 

 

Greens demonstrate outside the former Santander Bank in Kilburn High Road 

Hard on the heels of the Brent Licensing Committee turning down an Adult Gaming Casino application for the former Lloyds Bank in Willesden Green, Macau Casino Slots has withdrawn their application for 131-135 Kilburn High Road, the former Santander Bank.

 

Cllr Suzanne Gallagher (Green councillor for Kilburn Ward) hailed the news:

  

Huge news! 

 

Following our community campaign against the proposed Bingo Hall, Macau Casino Slots have officially withdrawn their application for 131-135 Kilburn High Road. The hearing scheduled for July 8th is now cancelled.

 

The old Santander building was never an appropriate location. Kilburn High Road already suffers from a high concentration of gambling establishments. Crucially, this site sits within a community ranking among the top 2% most deprived neighbourhoods in England.

 

Brent has a duty to protect our most vulnerable residents from predatory industries.

 

Furthermore, we must protect former banking premises that now lie empty across our borough; casinos are not a suitable substitute for what was once an important community service.

 

This is a massive win for community power! Coupled with last week's refusal decision for the Adult Gaming Centre in Willesden Green, this withdrawal sends a powerful message of hope to boroughs across London and beyond.

 

These businesses should not be setting up shop in our most deprived areas. This victory goes beyond Brent, it is a blueprint for community resistance everywhere. We want to help those communities who are fighting for the heart and soul of their high street.

 

Let this serve as a crystal-clear message to other gambling operators: look elsewhere. You are not welcome in the most deprived corners of Brent.

 

Thank you to everyone who stood with us! We promise to continue standing with you in the fight against gambling harms

The Chalkhill Estate that never was!

Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

1. Cover of the January 1963 Wembley Borough Council booklet.

 

When I wrote an illustrated article, “Chalkhill – 1,000 years of history”, in 2012, I was aware of three versions of the Chalkhill Estate, dating from the 1920s, late 1960s and early 2000s. I recently became aware of plans for a different renewal of the Chalkhill Estate, drawn up by Wembley Borough Council and published in January 1963. Although these plans for the Chalkhill and Barnhill Roads Redevelopment Area were overtaken following the creation of the London Borough of Brent in 1965, I think that readers may be interested to see what might have been!

 

Why was Wembley’s Borough Engineer and Surveyor considering the redevelopment of a private housing estate which had been laid out just over forty years earlier? He was responding to guidance issued by the then Conservative Government’s Minister of Housing and Local Government, Henry Brooke, in 1960:-

 

2. The “National Policy” paragraphs from the opening section of the January 1963 booklet.

 

Planning permissions for most of the suburban housing developments in Wembley and Kingsbury from the late 1920s and 1930s had specified housing densities of eight or ten homes per acre. The “Metroland” Chalkhill Estate was probably chosen as the area for Wembley’s first response to this call for ‘redevelopment at higher densities’ because its individual building plots had been sold off at sizes from a quarter of an acre upwards (with many homes there on half acre or one-acre plots). The grounds of “The Shalimar” at 43 Chalkhill Road were large enough for garden parties to be held there, as I’d discovered when I shared the remarkable story of “Ram Singh Nehra - a Wembley Indian in the 1930s” in 2021! By the 1960s, different builders had already started buying up properties there with large gardens for possible redevelopment. 

 

3. An early 1920s advert for building plots on the Metropolitan Railway’s Chalk Hill Estate.

 

From the mid-1920s onwards the Government had required local Councils to draw up a Development Plan for their area, which had to be approved by a Minister. Wembley’s outline amended proposals for the Chalkhill area had already been agreed by Whitehall:

 

4. An extract from the Redevelopment Area booklet, and 5. ‘the plan attached’ to it.

 

Under the proposed plan, the area would remain residential, with mainly low-rise homes, although with the possibility for up to three “tall” blocks of flats (no more than 11 storeys – compare that to Wembley Park today!) close to the station. Existing trees would be ‘preserved wherever possible’, and there would be good ‘pedestrian access through the area affording safe, convenient and attractive footways towards shops, transport and other public facilities.’ As more families then had cars, each development would ‘be provided with adequate parking spaces for motor vehicles.’

 

6. Paragraph about the types of homes from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

 

7. The key to the Redevelopment Area map.

 

Traffic problems in the Chalkhill neighbourhood were also addressed in the Redevelopment Area proposals. One of the most radical ideas was to make a short section of Chalkhill Road, nearest to Wembley Park station, a cul-de-sac, and to include a multi-storey car park there for station users and the shops in Bridge Road, with some new shops opposite.

 

8. Paragraph about fixing the through-traffic problem from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

 

9. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map with proposals for the western end of Chalkhill Road.

 

What had been the next section of Chalkhill Road would have become green open space under the proposals, with footpaths across it leading to Barnhill Road and the remaining part of Chalkhill Road. Having blocked the through-traffic “rat run”, the new main entrance to the estate would be from Forty Lane, opposite the Town Hall steps, running straight down to curve into Barnhill Road. New housing along the Forty Lane frontage would be set back from the main road, and accessed from service roads.

 

10. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map showing the new access from Forty Lane,

 

The Redevelopment Area proposals recognised that the higher density of homes on the estate would lead to a larger local population, with the Borough Surveyor writing: ‘A residential neighbourhood, if it is to include the means of satisfying the needs of its inhabitants, should contain adequate religious, education and social activities.’ One of the needs identified was for a new Primary School, and another was for a park. Although the exact locations for these could not be settled, the proposals recommended reserving land for these facilities between Barnhill Road and the Metropolitan railway lines.

 

11. Possible sites for a school and park on the Redevelopment Area map.

 

Chalkhill Primary School was built on part of this “reserved land” in Barnhill Road, with the infants’ section finished by the end of 1970, and the primary school fully open by 1972. However, residents had to wait until 2013 for the opening of Chalkhill Park!

 

Another of the proposals by which ‘the tendency for traffic to use residential roads for through travel will be stopped, and the obstruction of Blackbird Hill [and Bridge Road] by right-turning traffic will be avoided’, was ‘the connection of Chalkhill Road and Barnhill Road near the site of the proposed Catholic Church.’ How this was originally proposed, compared with what was actually constructed, can be seen on these maps:

 

12. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map and the modern Google Maps satellite view.

 

The two roads were connected via Ken Way, and Chalkhill Road was diverted round what became the site for the church, closing off a junction which was too close to the Blackbird Cross intersection. When the new English Martyrs’ Roman Catholic Church was built in 1969/70, to replace a temporary wooden church in Chalkhill Road which had opened in 1930, it was not the traditional rectangular shape shown on the 1963 map, but a beautiful modern round design.

 

13. English Martyrs’ R.C. Church under construction in 1969, and seen from Blackbird Hill
across the former Chalkhill Road junction in 2013.

 

Wembley Borough Council did not envisage building this new Chalkhill Estate itself. Instead, it set out its Redevelopment Area proposals as an overall guide for private developers of the principles it wanted to see applied by them in putting forward individual plans, which would work together over time to form a cohesive well-designed estate. This was explained in the booklet’s final section:

 

14. The final “Summary” paragraph from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

“Speculators” had already been buying up properties with large gardens, suitable for the what the Council proposals suggested as ‘satisfactory redevelopment units of not less than four acres’. One such planned development was already in the pipeline, and in the same month that the booklet was published this was the local newspaper’s front page story:

 

15. Headline about the start of Chalkhill’s “New Town”, 18 January 1963.

 

I’m not sure which development on the site of six houses the “Wembley News” article was referring to (possibly Windsor Crescent?), and if you know please share that information as a comment below. Clearly a start was made on the Wembley Borough Council Redevelopment Area scheme, but it did not get very far before Brent Council came into being in April 1965, and decided to build its own Chalkhill Estate!

 

16. An aerial view of Brent’s newly completed Chalkhill Estate, 1970. (Courtesy of Barbara Phillips)

 

Looking at the area now, you could believe that this late-1960s development was “the Chalkhill Estate that never was”, as the concrete “Bison” blocks of flats were demolished from 1997 onwards, to make way for another version of Chalkhill. But I hope this look at an alternative 1960s vision of the estate has provided an interesting piece of local history for you.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Acknowledgement: The late Geoff Hoggett worked in the Chalkhill area in the 1960s, and at some point acquired a slightly muddy copy of the Redevelopment Area booklet and plan. His interest in local history caused him to save them, and they were found by his daughter, Julia, rolled up in a cardboard tube, after his death. I’m grateful to her for sending them to me, so that I could share this story with you.