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.

DfE keeping situation at Woodfield School under review including safeguarding and governance matters

 

Woodfield School strikers and supporters outside the Department for Education on Wednesday

 

The Regional Director of the Department for Education has responded to concerns raised by NEU officers regarding the situation at Woodfield School, managed by Compass Learning Partnership.

Dr Vanessa Odgen recognises the challenges of the situation at Woodfield but says that the responsibility for managing industrial relations lie with the trust as employer and the DfE cannot intervene directly.

On a particular safeguarding concern that has arisen during the strike, she says she expects trusts to provide assurance that they have effective arrangements in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils, and robust safeguarding policies and procedures that are implemented consistently across all academies.

Dr Ogden reveals that her team have been engaging with the Compass Trust to understand contingency arrangements in place on strike days: 

Our engagement is intended to ensure I am appropriately sighted on any risks, rather than to intervene in the trust's operational management of the dispute.

A central concern of the strikers has been high executive pay in the trust when the lowest paid are being asked to accept a cut in wages and when there is nearly £4m in trust reserves.

The Regional Director states:

You also raise concerns about the trust's use of public funds, including its reserves, deductions from school budgets, and support provided to Compass Futures. We are working with out Schools Financial Support and Oversight Team (SFSO) to assess the trust's financial position and these issues. Where there are concerns about transparency, value for money, or appropriate use of funding, we will seek assurances and take action if needed. The Secretary of State has emphasised that executive pay must be justified, transparent, and proportionate.  We challenge trusts where pay does not demonstrate value for money or align with the wider public sector, and we are strengthening expectations through the Academy Trust Handbook to ensure pay increases are clearly justified and reasonable.

Dr Ogden concludes by stating that the DfE will continue to keep the situation under review, including in relation to safeguarding assurances and governance matters, and 'will respond as appropriate should any significant concerns arise'. 

 

 

1 Walm Lane: 'A victory for our community' - Licensing Committee rejects Adult Gaming Centre application.

 

After a marathon session today. the Licensing Committee finally decided to refuse the application for an Adult Gaming Centre licence for 1 Walm Lane, Willesden Green - the former Lloyds Bank premises.

It was a cross-party resident led campaign that said. 'Enough is enough' over the deterioration of Walm Lane and High Road Willesden and threats to public safety with special concern over young people and children who are growing up in the neighbourhood.

There was a powerful presentation by Brent's Public Health Team on the social and health impact of gambling. Cllr George Burn (Labour, Willesden Green) had done some telling research into the business's background and suggested that it was a 'paper company' that filed its accounts late. There was no substance behind its application and its claims: the community deserved better.

Cllr Mary Mitchell demonstrated the value of a 'Green in the room' with a passionate but well-researched presentation:  

 

Cllr Suzanne Gallagher, spoke as a Willesden Green resident and parent, about having to explain to her 5 year old son, attracted by the lights flashing from gambling machines glimpsed through open doors, what exactly they were. She talked about the impact on gambler's own families of their habit as well as other key aspects of the application:

 

 

The applicant's legal representative challenged  what she claimed was a lack of proper evidence of the link between gambling and Anti Social Behaviour and crime, while admitting there was such evidence in terms of alcohol and drugs.

The lack of any police representation to the Committee. post its April 16th email saying they were satisfied with the 24 undertakings by the applicant, and therefore would not be making any representations, had clearly disappointed local councillors and residents - since so much had happened, including the murder of a 15 year old, since that date.

'The job of the police is to protect our community - they are negligent and have let us down' one resident said to me as the Committee went off to make their decision in private. 

The applicant said that he was a business man making a living, 'I work every day. I am not  some kind of multi-national business from outside the community making huge profits,' he argued vehemently.

This was a small committee and of the three members, a word should be said about the diligence and forensic questioning of Liberal Democrat councillor,  Fiona Mulaisho. She is clearly taking her job seriously.

Online Lunchtime Briefing on Waymo Today

 

Get up to speed with the Say No to Waymo campaign led by Brent Green Party 💚 councillors Amandine Alexandre and Suzanne Gallagher, ADCU (App Drivers and Couriers Union) and Pull the Plug 🔌

🗓️ Thursday 18 June 
🕰️ 12.30pm-1.15pm 
📍Online 

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/332833596016648?p=UKNooZqLCpdK3fKDWh

The event is open to everyone.