Brent Council Budget and Council Setting meeeting is at 3.30pm tomorrow. Links to full alternative proposals from Tory, Green and Lib Dem Groups

The Council's Budget and Council Setting meeting tomorrow (Monday February 23rd) is the last Full Council Meeting of the Municipal Year. The next meeting will be after the May 7th Council Election and will see the fromation of a new adminstration.

The budget meeting will be at 3.30pm rather than the usual 6pm to allow for Ramadan observation.

There is some history attached to the meeting as it will be the first time a Green Group of councillors will present alternative proposals to Labour's budget.

All three opposition groups have submitted alternative proposals and the full details can be found on the links below:

  

·  6.2 Brent Conservative Group Alternative Budget Proposdals 2026 -27, item 6. PDF 604 KB

 

·  6.3 Green Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 462 KB

 

·  6.4 Liberal Democrat Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 284 · 

  

In their Introduction to their proposals the Greens say:

 

This Green Group set of budget amendments is not a fully comprehensive view of investment opportunities, cost saving measures or income generation opportunities.
 

Rather, it intends to set core principles for financial prioritisation and a direction of travel based on Green Party values of social and environmental justice.

Our priorities for investment fall within three areas:

1. Aligning with the energy transition away from fossil fuels and ensuring long- term energy resilience

2. Ensuring housing equity for all Brent’s residents including enhanced scrutiny of housing policies and operations and landlord licensing arrangements

3. Protecting and investing in Brent’s Green Spaces, including parks, protected areas of natural interest and pocket parks and other green spaces

Brent Council, as with all local authorities, remains in a local government funding crisis, despite the new Labour government’s funding settlement. There are therefore only hard decisions to be made in terms of cost savings, and it is not within the scope of our budget amendments to scrutinise the spending within service delivery. The Green Party is calling for a radical overhaul of the funding of local government as the present system, including council tax, is regressive and unsustainable.

However, we have proposed cost savings as they relate to internal processes such as removing costs associated with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor role, reducing the number of cabinet members, and a reduction in costly engagement initiatives with a low ROI (Return on Investment).

It is also our position that there are a number of under-utilised avenues for income generation and maximising the council’s assets, some, but not all of which have been costed up as part of these budget amendments. These include expanding CPZs and increasing parking revenue through a mix of increasing the base rate and introducing a variable parking rate which takes into account vehicle size, weight and emissions type, further investment in debt collection initiatives, and ensuring maximum ROI of Brent-owned properties, whilst recognising the social value they add to Brent as well as financial value. Where further exploration is required, we have budgeted for feasibility studies for these initiatives.

These budget amendments propose a modest use of SCIL funding at £2.4m, which will part-fund travel initiatives to enhance active travel and traffic calming measures.   

 

As noted by the Budget Scrutiny Task Group, there is an opportunity to deploy CIL funding more widely to support infrastructure and to offset financial pressures on services, while ensuring the residents that benefit are those most impacted by development across the borough.

 

The Full Paper sets out proposals in detail HERE. Below is a summary. Note that in the first item the sum of £15,000 is for a feasibility study - not a programme of work.

 

Was a 'consultation' reaching only 42 people an adequate basis on which to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 3 hours a day?

 When London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust issued a press release the day AFTER they reduced the hours of the Central Middlesex Hospital  Urgent Treatment Centre they said:

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm

The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'. 

The reduction in hours was then implemented.

Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.

The FOI revealed the following:

1. Only 42 responses were received

2.  70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)

3.  41%  of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them

4.  Only two people turned up to the in-person events. 

5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal. 

I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.

Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.

You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?

 

THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE 

1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430 

A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications. 

 

Questionnaire responses

 

The questionnaire received 42 responses

 

Respondents’ borough	Brent	Ealing	Harrow	Hillingdon	Hounslow
Percentage	70%	20%	3%	2%	3%

 

Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC  were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
	No impact	Minor impact	Significant impact	Unsure
Percentage	15%	21%	41%	23%

 

For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.

Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.

Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.

Public involvement events

Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.

* Promotional activity

• Trust website and social media channels
• Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
• Posters at the UTC.
• Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
• The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
• Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)

Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier  closure, said:

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people. 

 

The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.

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

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

The officers' report states:

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

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

FLYTIPPING 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officers write;

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

STREET SWEEPING

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

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

But are our streets  cleaner?

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

ENFORCEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Proposed houses and disused garages

 

 The site beside the trees of the Wealdstone Brook

 

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

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

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

A fond farewell to Carol Foster

 

Carol Foster,proudly wearing her Palestine Solidarity Campaign Lanyard

 

Carol Foster will be a familiar face to many people in Brent, especially Wembley Park and Chalkhill. Carol saw retirement not as a chance to put feet up, but an opportunity to pitch herself headlong into political campaigning for human rights and environmental and social justice. She continued to be an active trade unionist and for a while was RMT 's delegate to Brent Trades Council.

Sadly, Carol died unexpectedly on Sunday February 1st after a short illness, surrounded by fellow campaigners who were also her dearest friends. Her funeral takes place on Monday.

Seasoned political photographer, Steve Eason, has give Wembley Matters permission to publish some of the wonderful photographs he took over the years: photographs that show the breadth of Carol's decades of campaigning.

 

 

The photograph below is from the Brent and Harrow Palestine Solidarity Campaign  Facebook where fellow campaigners were in awe of Carol's passion and energy - she sometimes managed several demonstrations in one day - and they loved her for it.

 

 

There were many tributes to Carol from friends old and new on the Brent and Harrow PSC Whats App Group. This is just one from Myles Hickey:

  

I would like to add a few memories in tribute to Carol, who sadly has been taken from us too early. I first met Carol at one of our street gatherings in Kilburn or Willesden organised by the branch. Her presence was pretty much guaranteed at these events. She was a good speaker, able to give a poignant account of her family's experiences at the end of WW2 and of their dealings with the British state and with Zionists. She never flinched from recounting details from her personal and family life, which others might not have shared, in order to help the cause of Palestinian freedom.

 

 She made the same heartfelt contributions at the weekly IJAN led picket in Swiss Cottage calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely. I particularly remember one speech she gave at a Wembley Central event, which brought home to me what a turbulent time her family had endured at the end of the last world war. She had always hoped to see Palestinian liberation in her lifetime, an achievement which her parents did not witness.

 

She had a no-nonsense approach, she was direct and outspoken and she always had something to say. You never just exchanged greetings with Carol, she would always tell you of her latest interaction with others, often spiky exchanges where these involved relatives or acquaintances who did not share her politics. These stories were often funny and told with Carol's mischievous grin. She could be quite ribald!

 

I remember her fall at Piccadilly tube in September 2024 while on the way to a national march. I sent her a message telling her how we missed her wit and feisty spirit on the march; my get well card to her was of a sparrow, as Carol, big in heart but tiny in physical stature, always reminded me of one. Needless to say, as soon as she got out of hospital she was back in action in the cause of Palestine. She was a courageous individual whose fighting spirit inspires all of us who had the good fortune to know her.

 

The photograph below catches bueatifully another side to Carol, that she by no means kept to herself: her immense love of dogs, The lovely picture of a besotted Carol was posted by the Lounge Cafe, of the Chalkhill Community Centre. Carol could often be found there on the corner sofa, beside the counter, scrolling through her mobile phone, probably for details of yet another protest, demonstration or march. If you were lucky (and had the time) she might entertain you with one of her fabulous stories.

 

 

Farewell Carol.

 

The Hazel Road community centre in context

Because of the interest in plans (granted planning permission) to demolish Harriet Tubman House* in Hazel Road, Kensal Green, I visited this afternoon to take photographs of the current context of the Victorian building. In the previous article Philip Grant mentioned that only one councillor appeared to view the slide of the proposed new  building. Here is the applicant's CGIs of their building as seen from Hazel Road and Harrow Road and today's photographs.

Proposed from Harrow Road

 

Current

 Proposed from Hazel Road

 Current

 

 The community centre entrance

 

The playground close to the centre was being well-used at 4.30pm today and there was a great feeling of a relaxed community. 

 

The Hazel Road Playground

The trees between the community centre and Harrow Road are amazing survivors from a bygone age and form a rather lovely oasis of calm between busy Harrow Road and quieter Hazel Road.

 

 These rather special surroundings are not directly threatened by the new building but demolition and construction are bound to make an impact. More troubling to residents is the possibility of further applications in the area in the future now that this big change has been approved.

 

*Harriet Tubman rescued people from slavery by hiding them in safe houses until they reached freedom. 

 

Imperial College Healthcare consult on the first stage of an ambitious redevelopment plan for St Mary's Hospital including space for health sector commercial enterprises

          

For many people in the south of Brent, St Mary's Paddington, is their local hospital. If you have been there you will know the cluster of decaying buildings, taped corridors and scaffolding that greets you.

 

Imperial College Healthcare now says that it has the cash to carry out the very first stage of planning its long overdue rebuild. A controversial aspect may be that a taller hospital with a smaller footprint will enable Imperial to set land aside for some health linked commercial enterprises.

 

The full proposals and consultation link can be found HERE while below are some key aspects of the plans. Remember the actual demolition and rebuild will need a massive injection of cash beyond this initial planning stage.

 

FROM THE CONSULTATION SITE

     

St Mary’s Hospital has been treating patients and making healthcare breakthroughs since it first opened in 1845, but its sprawling patchwork of aging buildings are crumbling. 

 

With the need for a new St Mary’s Hospital increasingly urgent, we now have the funding to undertake detailed design and planning work. 

 

Our ambition is to build a new, taller hospital on a smaller footprint, located within the eastern part of the current site. This will allow us to:

 

• organise services, research and staff facilities in a much better way
• keep our existing facilities running while we build the new hospital
• reshape the whole site with an overarching masterplan

 

We want to explore using the surplus land to expand the cluster of life and data sciences businesses that has been developing around the hospital. As well as supporting better health and care, this would boost economic growth and help attract additional investment in a new hospital.

 

We need a bigger, better St Mary’s to respond to the changing and growing health needs of our local population over the coming decades. And the need is increasingly urgent if we are to ensure our future in Paddington and avoid major building failures that put services at risk.

We have launched the first phase of a public consultation on the new St Mary’s and wider site.

 

As we start the masterplanning process, we want to understand what matters most to you.

 

• How do you use the area now?
• What are the opportunities to be explored?
• What issues might cause concern?
• What would you like to see on the site?

 

In particular, we are consulting on:

 

• the overall approach to delivering a new teaching and major trauma hospital on part of the existing site
• emerging masterplan principles for the wider estate, including access and movement, public realm, heritage, sustainability and how the site connects to surrounding neighbourhoods
• the role of research and life sciences on land released once services move into the new hospital.
• St Mary's' sprawling patchwork of aging buildings, half of which are older than the NHS itself, are now in such poor condition that a major building failure is likely within 4-7 years. The impact on patients and staff of providing care in airless, crumbling facilities is immeasurable. St Mary's is simply no longer fit to deliver the 21st century healthcare our staff, patients and local communities deserve.That's why a complete rebuild is needed for St Mary's to stay in Paddington and continue to provide life-saving care to the people of central and north west London.
• BBC London featured the urgent need for redevelopment across St Mary's, the scale of the challenges we face, as well as our efforts to improve our estate in the interim. Watch below (Source: BBC London)   

 

A new St Mary's Hospital

 

We are proposing to build a new, 800 bed hospital to meet growing and changing needs. It will continue to house London’s busiest major trauma centre, offering a wide range of emergency, acute and intensive care, as well as maternity and neonatal services.

The new hospital will need to:

 

• Have a flexible, future-proofed layout, supporting new treatments and ways of working
• Put the needs and experiences of patients, visitors and staff at the heart of its design
• Have integrated research and engagement spaces to support innovation and learning
• Include a rooftop helipad, bringing St Mary’s into line with all other major trauma centres
• Respect the area’s history while creating a striking new building
• Be environmentally friendly and support the NHS’s goal to reach Net Zero carbon emissions

 

A larger life sciences hub

Paddington Life Sciences was established in 2023 as a formal partnership between the NHS, Imperial College London, and a wide range of commercial organisations.

Our current proposals aim to create a space that fosters collaboration and growth.

The new St Mary’s would sit at the heart of a leading life sciences hub, representing an expansion of the cluster of life and data sciences businesses that has developed around the hospital.

It aims to bring together doctors, researchers and businesses to work on some of the biggest health challenges facing society today.

Once the hospital is complete, the wider area would offer new spaces for research, innovation and community activities.

This will help to deliver: 

• New jobs and investment
• Training, skills and opportunities for local people
• Faster development of new treatments and technologies.