WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Dear Editor,
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
Aerial view of the 1 Morland Gardens site. (From Google Maps satellite view)
In a guest post on 18 September, Morland Gardens – Why no progress? , I published the text of an open email I’d sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and Head of Capital Delivery. It was the anniversary of a petition I had presented at the September 2025 Full Council meeting, on behalf of Willesden Local History Society, calling on the Council and its Cabinet to retain the 150-year old heritage Victorian villa, “Altamira”, as part of its redevelopment of the former Brent Start college site at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge. Despite Officers beginning a review of plans for the site in November 2023, after their flawed original planning consent had expired, no plans had yet been brought forward.
When the Council is publicly questioned in this way, it is only fair to publish their reply, and this is the full text of the response I received at the end of September:
‘Dear Mr Grant
RE: Request for update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens
Thank you for your open email dated 15 September 2026 addressed to the council’s Chief Executive and myself, regarding an update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens.
Since my last response in November 2025, the council has carried out a number of actions to progress a proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens. This includes:
1. Continued engagement with youth organisations
2. Submission to the Greater London Authority (GLA) for funding from the 2026 –
2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP)
3. Feasibility commission
1. Youth Engagement
Council officers continue to engage with youth organisations to develop the youth facilities offer at Morland Gardens and to understand how the building could meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough. This is being fed into the feasibility work discussed below.
2. SAHP Application
In February 2026, the GLA launched the London component of the SAHP, requesting affordable housing delivery partners to submit proposals for a programme of affordable homes delivery over the next decade. The council has submitted an ambitious delivery programme of 1,300 affordable homes of which Morland Gardens is part of this submission. We have included for 65 social rent homes, the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme at the site. We understand from the GLA that delivery partners will be told imminently on the outcome of their bids. In the interim, the council has included affordable homes within the facility mix to be reviewed as part of the feasibility commission described below. Whilst this indicates our intentions, the plans are heavily dependent on securing grant funding from the GLA.
3. Feasibility Commission
The council has commissioned Mott MacDonald to undertake a feasibility study into providing a mixed-use development at Morland Gardens, including provision for youth facilities, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and affordable homes. This work is looking at a variety of options which includes the retention of the Altamira and is expected to conclude towards the end of October which may coincide with the SAHP bid outcome announcement.
Therefore, the council is not currently able to confirm whether it intends on retaining the Altamira building or not. However, the council is progressing options for the scheme and will review the feasibility work, the outcome of the SAHP bid, review viability implications and funding mechanisms before proposing a capital delivery project for Cabinet’s consideration. This is expected in the new year and I will let you know when any decision is placed on the council’s Forward Plan.
You kindly issued the article by Mark Sabolch back in August 2024 and feel free to share my contact details with Mr Sabolch should he wish to include the building in the London leg of his tour looking at heritage buildings in the UK that inspired the designs of Australian architects in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Thank you for your enquiry and please let me know should you have any further queries.
Regards
Head of Capital Delivery’
While I am pleased that some progress has been made, I do have concerns over the chances of the heritage asset being retained, despite the statement that this is one of the options being considered as part of the “Feasibility Commission”. It will be great if the Council can get funding for genuinely affordable ‘social rent homes’ from the GLA’s 2026-2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP), but the Brent’s bid for the money is based on 65 homes for this site.
As the email above says, sixty-five homes is ‘the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme’. One of the main reasons the original 2020 planning consent failed is that the proposed site included not just the land at 1 Morland Gardens, but also the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden land in front of it. The Council had no legal right to build on that extra land, and it failed in its attempt to obtain that right! That extra land would have been part of the footprint for the ten-storey tower block where many of the 65 homes would have been built, and the building would have been so close to the major road junction of Hillside with Brentfield Road (one of the worst air pollution locations in Brent) that the windows on the lower floors would have to be fixed closed, with artificial ventilation provided.
Architect’s drawing of the proposed 2020 Morland Gardens building, with my speech bubble added.
Realistically, I don’t believe it would be possible to include 65 homes on the 1 Morland Gardens site without demolishing the Victorian villa. If the consultants, Mott MacDonald, have been told by Brent that a scheme must deliver that number of homes, or a figure close to it, they will come back with a report which says it would not be feasible to retain the locally listed heritage building. Is that what Council Officers (and the Cabinet members they will have spoken with about the future of the site) want the outcome to be?
Philip Grant.
Guest post by Asif Zamir, Independent Community Advocate
BRENT COUNCIL CLAMS UP: Transparency Challenges Over the £20m St Raphael’s 'Pride in Place' Board Recruitment
Following a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request regarding the recruitment process for the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s and Stonebridge Pride in Place fund, Brent Council has issued a highly evasive response (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0).
Rather than demonstrating the "open, fair, and transparent" governance promised in its corporate guidelines, the local delivery authority has completely withheld specific candidate metrics and process logs. Instead of providing the specific information requested, the council has merely supplied generic, blank procedural policy documents.
From the perspective of community oversight, this response raises serious transparency concerns.
The residents of the St Raphael’s & Stonebridge are entitled to full disclosure on the following three institutional points:
1. The Omission of the Advertised Resident Panel
The original request sought the specific decision logs confirming why the publicly advertised, localised resident stakeholder interview panel was omitted from the final evaluation process. The council’s response completely bypassed this question.
* The Procedural Breach: While the Candidate Pack permits political figures and council officers a seat on the final panel, Page 9, Section 4.5.9 of Brent Council’s own internal Recruitment and Selection Policy explicitly mandates that “steps must be taken to involve service users [residents] in the selection process wherever possible.” By completely omitting the advertised resident selection panels, the council removed vital community-led checks and balances, leaving political leadership as the sole evaluators of the post.
2. The Withholding of Basic Aggregate Statistics
The FOI request sought basic, non-identifiable numerical data: the total number of individuals who applied for the Chair position, and the total number successfully shortlisted for a formal interview.
* The Overreach of Data Protection: The council has claimed that disclosing these raw numerical figures violates Section 40(2) (Personal Data) under data protection laws. This represents a significant overreach of UK GDPR frameworks. Releasing a simple, raw aggregate statistic carries a zero percent probability of individual re-identification.
Withholding basic statistical counts prevents the public from assessing the competitiveness and openness of the selection process.
3. The Conflict Management Audit Trail
The successful candidate's public employment record indicates they served as a senior Brent Council staff member directly inside the Brent Council Leader’s Office until August 2025. They were subsequently appointed as the Independent Chair of this multi-million-pound community board in September 2026—just 13 months later.
* The Mandatory Policy Window: Under Page 7 of Brent Council’s own Conflict of Interest Policy, the Declaration of Interest forms of former employees must legally be held by the department for a minimum of 2 years after leaving the council's employ. Because the appointee falls squarely within this active 2-year audit window, an internal record trail MUST exist.
Despite this, the council has refused to provide anonymised copies of the due diligence, political activity disclosures, or conflict management logs requested to verify how the public perception of independence is being maintained.
Next Steps for Accountability
A flagship national initiative funded by central government to be "community-led" cannot be administered behind closed information barriers.
Consequently, we have taken two formal steps to challenge this evasion:
1. Escalated to Chief Executive Kim Wright: We have officially triggered a statutory Request for an Internal Review with the Information Governance team, copying in the Chief Executive and the legal department, to challenge the withholding of this data.
2. Notified Whitehall Assurance: We have forwarded the entire evasive FOI file and relevant council policy pages directly to the MHCLG Communities Delivery and Assurance Unit (PiPPcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk) for an independent compliance review.
I have also issued a direct, formal notice response to the newly appointed Chair, Priyesh Patel.
Our position is absolute: we have explicitly rejected any invitations to step into closed-door or private briefings at the Brent Civic Centre.
We will not enter any polished boardroom to discuss the future of a £20 million community fund while the council is actively hiding the recruitment data from the public. A formal, transparent meeting under strict public record rules will only be considered after Brent Council fully complies with basic transparency regulations, overrides its faulty data protection excuses, and releases the aggregate FOI statistics.
Public confidence cannot be rebuilt behind closed doors; the paperwork must be fully disclosed to the community first.
I’ve also formally written to Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman and Leader Councillor Butt requesting clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the appointment of the Independent Chair for the £20m St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.
I’ve asked them to confirm, among other things, whether any relevant professional or political associations were declared, whether any conflict-of-interest or risk-mitigation assessments were undertaken, whether the candidate’s recent Brent Council employment was considered in assessing independence, and whether residents were involved in the selection process.
I’ve given them until *5pm on Wednesday 7 October* to respond.
Dear Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman, and Leader Councillor Butt,
I am contacting you in my capacity as an independent community advocate for the St Raphael’s estate and Stonebridge regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.
Given your elected roles and responsibilities within the ward and borough, I am seeking clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the selection process, particularly in light of information raised through my Freedom of Information investigation.
The FOI process (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0) has not, to date, provided answers to several specific questions concerning resident involvement in the selection process, aggregate applicant and shortlisting figures, and whether conflict-of-interest or independence assessments were undertaken in relation to the successful candidate.
I have also obtained information which indicates that the successful candidate was employed by Brent Council, including within the Council Leader’s Office, until August 2025. I have further identified information concerning subsequent local political activity involving ward representatives. I am not asking you to accept any allegation of impropriety; rather, I am asking for the relevant governance arrangements to be confirmed publicly.
I therefore request confirmation of the following:
1. Declaration of association
Prior to the conclusion of the Independent Chair selection process, did any Stonebridge Ward member, or anyone within the Executive Office involved in the process, formally declare any previous professional, political or campaign association with the successful candidate to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Director of Legal Services, or other designated officer responsible for managing conflicts of interest?
2. Conflict-of-interest assessment
Were any conflict-of-interest declarations, assessments, registers, risk assessments or other governance records created in relation to those associations?
3. Risk mitigation
If any potential conflict or perceived conflict was identified, what risk-mitigation measures were put in place to ensure that participation by elected members in relation to the Neighbourhood Board remained appropriately separated from any previous professional or political associations?
4. Independence of the Chair
Was the successful candidate's recent employment by Brent Council considered as part of an assessment of whether they met the independence requirements of the Independent Chair role? If so, who conducted that assessment and what governance framework was applied?
5. Resident involvement
Did residents or local stakeholders participate in the evaluation, interview or selection of candidates for the Independent Chair position? If not, what was the recorded rationale for not incorporating a community-led interview or evaluation element?
6. Selection transparency
What were the total numbers of applicants, shortlisted candidates and candidates who progressed to formal interview for the Independent Chair position?
For clarity, I am not requesting personal data relating to other applicants.
I am seeking aggregate recruitment statistics, procedural information and confirmation of governance arrangements.
The Council's FOI response confirms that Brent was responsible for recruiting the Independent Chair positions. It also states that individual candidate scores and assessments were withheld as third-party personal data. My questions above are deliberately framed so that they can be answered without disclosing individual applicants' personal information.
I have now formally requested an internal review of FOI Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0. That review specifically asks the Council to reconsider whether the unanswered questions concerning resident involvement, aggregate selection figures, independence assessment and conflict-of-interest arrangements fall within the scope of the original request and can be disclosed without identifying individual applicants.
I would therefore be grateful if you could provide a substantive response to each question above by 5:00 PM on Wednesday 7 October 2026, so that the response can be placed on the public record alongside the ongoing FOI review.
If any of the information requested is not held, please state that expressly. If it is held but cannot be disclosed, please identify the relevant exemption or governance basis relied upon.
The purpose of this correspondence is to establish a clear factual record concerning the governance of the St Raphael’s Pride in Place programme and to ensure that residents can understand how independence, conflicts of interest and community participation were addressed during the appointment process.
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Asif Zamir
Independent Community Advocate
St Raphael’s Estate and Stonebridge
From Brent Council
Wembley Stadium will be hosting following event this week.
England vs Czechia Football match on following date this week:
- Tuesday 6 October
Please read below to see how this might affect you.
Timings
- England vs Czechia kick off will be at 7.45pm and road closures will be in place at 15:45pm on Tuesday 6 October.
We expect the area around Wembley Stadium to be very busy before and after this event so please avoid the area if you can, unless you have a ticket for the event.
Event day parking
Event day parking restrictions will be in place from 8am to midnight on main roads and from 10am to midnight on residential roads on Tuesday 6 October.
If you have a paper permit, please make sure you clearly display it in your vehicle. If you have an electronic permit, you do not need to display this.
Above Ballymore's description from their company accounts
Brent Cabinet on October 12th will be asked to approve the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer of the remaining regeneration of the South Kilburn Estate.
The company was in competition with Mount Anvil and St George. The appointment of a single developer followed dissatisfaction with the lack of coherence and other issues associated with multiple developers.
The following are extracts from the Lead Member and Officers' Report to Cabinet:
In a small number of developments... residents have experienced build quality issues. Elsewhere multiplicity of landlords arising from the current site by site development model has resulted in the inconsistent and variable standards of management and maintenance of their homes and the public realm. This inconsistent approach has also restricted the full placemaking potential and social value impact of a comprehensive regeneration programme.
The community is also experiencing noise, dust, traffic disruption and increased anti-social behaviour, the inevitable consequences of large-scale, long-term regeneration and construction programmes. This experience has been exacerbated due to programme delays arising from viability challenges and tough economic conditions.
Thus far:
.... the programme has delivered (including under construction) a total of 1,954 homes including 1,239 (63%) social rent homes. In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs. 225 tenants are currently remaining to be rehoused,120 of which are being rehoused at NWCC, Peel, C&G and in new and existing council homes across the borough.
You will notice a deficit of 105 tenants to be rehoused.
The 'viability challenges and tough economic conditions' mentioned above are likely to impact on what single developer is able to deliver. However, the report to Cabinet sets out some of what officers see as the positives in Ballymore's bid:
• their approach to placemaking supported by specific commitments, standards and delivery mechanisms to practically deliver a coherent, integrated sustainable and high-quality South Kilburn neighbourhood with a distinct identity.
• their street activation strategy including culture, leisure, retail, community and workspace uses supported by commitments to affordability, creating opportunities, supporting enterprise and community-capacity building.
• their proposals for a network of streets and open spaces which is well managed, climate-resilient, supporting biodiversity, active travel, play and inclusive community life.
• their commitment to adoption of design standards and design approach that positively affects health, well-being, comfort and convenience of living in South Kilburn.
• their processes and protocols for designing, commissioning, monitoring and evaluating robust and durable build quality and building performance and their commitment to the highest level of aftercare and resident satisfaction.
• their approach and commitment to environmental sustainability, climate resilience and adaptation.
• their strategy for meanwhile uses which effectively manages a neighbourhood in transition and delivers visible, tangible social and economic benefits for residents from the outset including how this will contribute to the long-term placemaking of South Kilburn.
• their approach to providing a full range of residential tenures - private and affordable to create a mixed, inclusive and resilient community; including their approach to delivering 50% affordable housing across the masterplan.
• their approach to long-term, unified estate management and stewardship for South Kilburn, in coordination with the earlier phases including their proposals for resident and tenant/occupier involvement in future routes for community voice in decision-making.
Readers will note the difference in the highlighted 63% social rent homes and 50% affordable housing - the latter is a slippery concept and viability issues may affect the proportion of affordable homes and their tenure.
Brent officers were also impressed by Ballymore's approach to social value:
The preferred bidder’s proposals for delivery of social value in response to criteria relating to Empowered Communities is based on their understanding of South Kilburn community’s needs, aspiration and ambition for the regeneration. The response includes the following:
• their 10 year social value strategy alongside a social value action plan for the first two years addressing identified areas of need of the South Kilburn community including Young people, Cost of living crisis, Community capacity building, Community voice and Climate emergency.
• their suggested list of activities, initiatives and events, commitment to resources and demonstration of their skills and expertise alongside their approach to working with the network of South Kilburn VCSE, the council and other institutional and statutory service providers in a complementary manner to address each area of need.
• their suggested mechanisms to measure demonstrable impact through KPIs, quantitative proxies and qualitative assessment to provide a rigorous, professional, transparent and evidence-based reporting framework to measure, monitor and report delivery impact.
• their suggested governance structure to oversee the delivery of social value and how they will ensure a “review, refine and revise” approach to understanding local needs, designing initiatives, monitoring progress and measuring impact.
Meanwhile a resident was not impressed by Brent Council's poor communication regarding the Ballymore appointment itself:
Fun fact. Brent Council directly informed various organisations about this decision. One which it didn't is the South Kilburn Residents Panel, which supposedly had a tiny part in the decision. Surprised? Not in the least.
The name Ballymore may ring a bell with readers. It has come up on this blog as one of the developers of the controversial canalside Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury site that Kensal Green Residents Association have been campaigning against:
https://www.keepkensalgreen.com/ https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/05/campaign-launched-for-low-rise.html
Six years ago they hit national headlines over allegations that their own employees were writing enthusiastic reviews of the company's developments on Trust Pilot' LINK
More seriously there has been great concern over a series of fires at its luxury New Providence building near Canary Wharf:
I am sorry to report that this important timely event has had to cancelled. Those people who have booked tickets should have been informed.
Harlesden