Bush Farm Collective calls for support for application for shipping containers on site for up to 5 years for barn restoration

 

The barn and orchard are remnants of the former Bush Farm in a corner of Fryent Country Park. The barn is in a pretty dilapidated state and restoration is a long term aim.

The Bush Farm Collective has appealed on Facebook for people to support its planning application for the siting of two shipping containers on the site to contain materials for the restoration The area where they would be installed is outlined in red on the site map below. The barn is next to the site labelled Riding School:

 

 

This is Bush Farm Collective's Appeal:

 

BUSH FARM URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP!

As you are aware we will be renovating our barn we've put in a planning application to have storage containers on site for a maximum of 5 years which is essential to do the works and before our full renovations planning application. 

 Brent wants people's views on this so please go to https://www.brent.gov.uk/.../viewing-or-commenting-on... (you will have to register if you haven't already) the only thing you need to enter is 25/0734 you will then add a wonderful comment about how beneficial everything is etc and click SUPPORT.

 I can not explain how vital this is, please please please share with your contacts for those that don't know bush farm collective is a grassroots community project with a dilapidated 400 year old barn the BFC team have worked endlessly to raise money to save it and bring it back to life to provide much needed education and well-being to all. feel free to view our instagram @bushfarmcollective or email bushfarmcollective@gmail.com with any enquiries.

 

The planning statement gives the cost of renovation as up to £2m.

At present there are 19 support submissions on the Brent Planning Portal and 11 objections. Only 7 local addresses were sent notice of the application. Some of the support submissions are from outside of Brent.

The Comments include this statement of support from the Brent Head of Property

Brent Letter of Support
To whom it may concern

Re: Community Ownership Fund Application. The Barn & Paddocks, Fryent Country Park, Salmon Street, NW9 8YA.

I write on behalf of the Dove Watson-Yorke in support of her proposal to the Communities and Local Government for a grant to fund the transformation of the Barn and Paddocks, a building and enclosed fenced fields that are in need of significant repair to create a modern shelter for horses and livestock. This proposal assists the Council's objective of improving access to fields and open spaces by young people in the local area.

The Barn is a unique one of a kind horse shelter facility in Brent and was previously occupied by another tenant that left the building and paddocks in a poor state of repair. Dove Watson-Yorke took over the Barn and the paddocks as her horses had been sheltered at the location with the consent of the previous tenant. The Council is seeking to enter into a Farm Tenancy Agreement with Dove Watson-Yorke for a 25 year term, subject to detailed heads of terms and the Barn and Paddocks repairs being carried out under an agreement to lease.

The Barn and Paddocks are in need of works and the Council has not been able to bring the property back into a reasonable state of repair due to the level of capital investment required. Repairs include those to the timber structure, replacement of asbestos roof, timber cladding to the outer walls, the addition of modern toilet and and kitchen facities updated services and subsantial field fence repairs. The improved conditions would allow a long term agreement to be entered into and would strongly aligned to the objectives of the Borough Plan. The Brent Borough Plan is charged with a renewed focus and actions to tackle cross-cutting issues such as health inequalities. The Council therefore considered Dove Watson-Yorke to be best placed to bring the Barn and Paddocks into good use and deliver outcomes for local young people. As part of evaluation we have considered Dove Watson-Yorks to have a business model and a plan for meeting these objectives.

We believe that Dove Watson-Yorke, will be able to gain access to and secure other sources of additional investment, and thus secure the future of the asset in the longer term for community benefit. Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use. The Council recognises that the letting has the potential to achieve a range of key objectives from promoting civic renewal, community cohesion, active citizenship and improving local public services to tackling poverty and promoting economic regeneration. If the proposed letting does not proceed, the Council may need to consider other options, such as demolition of the structure.

Dove Watson-Yorke would be better placed than the Council to manage this asset in the local community, with her local knowledge, and hands-on management likely to lower overheads and achieve better and more intensive and sustainable use from the asset than might be the case under traditional models of service delivery. The letting would also support the delivery of service outcomes which would otherwise be unnaffordable by the Council. There is a lack of high quality assets available for community use in Brent. The proposed letting is therefore a rare opportunity to make use of a potentially high quality asset for community benefit.

The works to be carried out at the Barn and Paddocks, as a condition of the agreement to lease, will include Dove Watson Yorke funding and returning the Barn and Paddocks to a safe, compliant and lettable state of repair. 

The proposal meets the general objectives of providing targeted investment to strengthen capacity and capability in communities to support them to shape their place and develop sustainable community businesses. We strongly support this application and the focus on increasing the use of open spaces for local young people.

I look forward to working with you in improving opportunities for young people in our communities and achieving health equity.
Yours sincerely,


Head of Property
London Borough of Brent

 

There is a submission from a Trustee of the Barn Hill Conservation Group that looks after Fryent Country Park, writing in a personal capacity:

 

I am a long time resident in Kingsbury, a regular volunteer with Barn Hill Conservation Group BHCG and a trustee of BHCG charity. However, I write in a personal capacity.

The proposed redevelopment of the stables barn is a difficult, complex task. The stables with horses are a much loved feature of Fryent Country Park. The applicant has a very difficult task with limited resources. The proposal is an essential step along the way and has my full support.

 

An opposing view is put by a near neighbour:

 

Firstly, I believe granting permission for two storage containers would exacerbate the derelict site the area has become over the past few years, along with the large horse transporter that is used as a mobile home. Moreover, I question the necessity of such large containers for such a long period, especially considering that the barn's reconstruction is due to commence later this year. While I strongly support the barn's refurbishment, the requirement for these containers raises concerns about the timeline for its completion.


In reference to the letter of support submitted by the 'Head of Property' at Brent Council, it's evident that the council is merely pleased that someone else is taking on the responsibility of rebuilding the derelict barn, rather than have to address the issue themselves. They base their trust on a business plan filled with whimsical ideologies, disregarding the potential impact on local residents. The site is not a riding school, there has been no involvement with local schools, and community engagement is minimal at best. My back garden backs onto one of the paddocks, and I have three young children. This portal is the first time I've heard of the educational workshops purported in the business model. Perhaps we don't fit within the definition of 'local community'?


We have attended two events hosted by Bush Farm Collective, one of which we left due to the explicitly inappropriate music being played. Has anyone at Brent Council investigated the authenticity of the claims made in Bush Farm Collective's business proposal?


The 'Brent Council Head of Property' also stated, "Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use." However, to my knowledge, the barn and 'riding school' have not been available for community use in the nine years we have lived here.


Currently, the area appears to be used as a personal party hub for BFC, with loud gatherings, music, dogs barking, and general noise disrupting the normally peaceful surroundings. Granting planning permission would only allow this free run of the land to continue, making it an impossible environment for us who live within it.

 

A supporting statement from outside the area gives a different view of the Bush Farm Collective's activities;

I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary storage at the paddocks and barn at Fryent Country Park. I have taken part in conservation activities with the Bush Farm Collective (BFC), planting hedges, and improving the land for wildlife. I have also attended and volunteered at the community events organised by the BFC in collaboration with the local community. I have witnessed the hard work and dedication the BFC put into these events. I see how much they benefit the local community members who engage with the group, attend events and get involved with activities. I am also aware of the important work the collective do to support volunteers and children with outdoor activities, that are so important for mental health and general well-being.

 

A further objection contains some points not covered above;

 

 As a daily user of Fryent Country Park and a local resident I was deeply concerned to hear, only two days ago, that this planning application had been submitted several weeks ago. There are no notices on the barn itself, the two noticeboards, the gate or nearby lamp-posts to alert the community around the park. Nor has anyone from the 'Bush Farm Collective' made any attempt to speak to park users or neighbours about their plans. As word of mouth has spread over the past few days, it is apparent that nobody was aware of these plans.

The 'business plan', for which this is supposedly the first step, would not stand up to scrutiny on any level. Quite apart from the substantial change of purpose for what is, and always has been, a community recreational facility with a small area of grazing land and pasture which is leased for private use, the information provided is riddled with inaccuracy throughout - not least that there is no existing Riding School, (which would surely require a license, insurance and a qualified instructor, in any case).

With regard to this application specifically, though, objections are as follows;

- Shipping containers are completely out of keeping with the natural character of the park and would constitute an eye sore.

- The 'Collective' has already parked a dilapidated horse box next to the barn, which could have been used as 'storage' but is frequently occupied overnight, despite there being no sanitation facilities.

- The 'Collective' was granted a substantial amount of money over two years ago but there has been no improvement to the barn or the surrounding paddocks since then. Whilst we understand that the barn itself is now beyond repair (partly as a result of the tenant's actions), there is no reason why the paddocks could not have been cleared of the accumulated junk, the fencing repaired properly and some form of shelter for the horses with an adequate water supply provided.

- Using whatever grant remains to pay for shipping containers, which could not be used to house animals, would be a mis-use of charitable funds.

- Contrary to what is submitted in the application, there is no hard-standing for these containers to be placed on, either in the area indicated on the plan or elsewhere within the leased paddocks.

- To get two 20 foot containers into the place indicated on the plan, a long established and healthy tree would have to be removed / destroyed.

- The plan alleges that installing two containers on the land for a period of 5 years will allow time for planning and work to replace the barn to be completed. Surely there should be planning permission in place first - then they can look at the best way to achieve the work?

- 5 years is not temporary. The 'business plan' talks about further fund raising and income from activities which require the use of the barn and the other 'developments' which means that there is no viable exit strategy should that income not be forthcoming. The containers could be there forever.

- There is a well established, long standing and active community group in Kingsbury which provides volunteers with the opportunity to take part in and learn about conservation and wildlife in the park. It has a garden which offers regular community events, it has direct links with Brent Parks Department and, importantly, a properly formed constitution and committee structure. The 'Collective' has none of these.

- Photographs to show the actual condition of the area around the barn, and the inadequate fencing will be emailed separately. It is an eyesore with an accumulation of dangerous materials left where the horses, dogs and children can easily be injured. For example, broken fence posts with nails sticking out and sheets of discarded rusty metal. This does not seem to correlate with the 'Collective's rhetoric.

A further support statement with some new points:

 I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary installation of 2 shipping containers on the land at Fryent Country Park. The Bush Farm Collective have developed over the past three years a community supported plan to transform the barn for community benefit, providing facilities for local partner charities to conduct their learning and development activities. This requires renovation of the barn to be fit for purpose and use. The shipping containers are required for storage of the barn contents during construction.

The barn restoration plan has been achieved with the support of funding from Brent's You Decide grant, determined by community support. This has been matched with funding by Government's COF Grants, which has achieved the funds required to renovate the barn. The restoration will reinstate the barn for community use, with construction planned to happen in the latter part of 2025.

The Collective is made up of local volunteers, who have worked hard to make the land and barn fit for community purpose, with facilities that will enable the site to contribute to increased community benefit once the barn is reinstated. This has all been achieved with the support and knowledge of Brent Council throughout.

Without the initiative and activities of the Collective over the years, the barn, which has fallen into dereliction, would not be restored, and remain the eyesore, and unused asset that it is presently is. As a borough that is in great need of community facilities, we know that this is seen positively by the Council and many local people. Our community events have always been well attended and supported, and have been used to communicate the plans for the barn, along with extensive consultation, community surveys and letterboxing.

We understand that for some residents, who have the great fortune to live adjacent to Fryent Park, have objections to any change to the public land. We encourage them to look at the architect's plans for the barn once they are live on the planning portal, which demonstrates the transformation possible to this neglected building. We also understand that change is sometimes difficult, however advocate that the benefit to the wider community that Bush Farm Collective are proposing is a change that is worth considering with positive spirit.

LINK TO PLANNING PORTAL TO COMMENT

 

 

Roe Green Walled Garden Open Day, Kingsbury, Saturday May 17th 11am-4pm

 

Have you seen muntjac deer in Kingsbury or Wembley? Passion Pictures would like to hear from you re London wildlife documentary

 

Muntjac deer in Chalkhill Open Space (Photo:  Jay Patel)

There have been confirmed sightings of muntjac deer in the ground of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre, Birchen Grove allotments and Chalkhill Open Space LINK. There have also been unconfirmed reports in Monks Park beside the River Brent.

The latter would require deer to use the tunnel beneath the railway line between North End Road and Brent River Trail.

You may not have seen then but heard them 'barking' LINK.

Passion Films have been in contact with Wembley Matters:  

We are Passion Pictures - an award-winning documentary film making company based here in London. We're making a film for BBC1 focusing on all the amazing wildlife and biodiversity that we can still see in the London area. 

I am aware you have seen muntjac deer in your area of Wembly - I would love to find out more about this!

How frequently you are seeing them and in what sorts of numbers.

Ideally we're looking for somewhere they are spotted regularly to film and ideally with some kind of urban back drop.

If you have seen muntjac in your area please give details in comments below or email:

nancyl@passion-pictures.com

 

Launch of new public art paying tribute to the history of the Welsh Harp reservoir. May 26th - Booking essential

 

Wembley Matters has reported on the history of the Welsh Harp AKA Brent Reservoir in a series of illustrated articles by local historian Philip Grant. See LINK

 

Now there is a chance for local people to attend an event that reflects that history. Attendance is limited so it is important to book in advance. LINK

 

 BOOK HERE

 

This striking new sculpture, created using historic pulley wheels from the original dam, offers a powerful tribute to the reservoir's industrial past and its continuing importance in our community.

Please arrive between 2:30- 3 pm for a prompt 3 pm start.

The event includes:

 🔹 A chance to meet and hear from the artist behind the sculpture

🔹 Light refreshments and a moment to connect with fellow local history and art enthusiasts

Whether you're a history buff, art lover, or just curious, this will be a memorable and meaningful afternoon by the reservoir.

 

'Man Shed - a safe place for men to come and talk opens in Willesden on May 15th

 

 

With issues around 'toxic masculinity' very much in the news and knowing that men often find it hard to talk about problems that they are experiencing, I was pleased to see that Willesden hair stylist, Michael Roberts, had taken a positive initiative in setting up a Men's Space.

Michel told Wembley Matters:

I have set up this non profit man shed in my salon in Willesden  for men to come and talk and have a safe place.

 

Why did I think of this?

 

I felt that men needed  a place like this and being from Brent and working in Brent, I know there are so many people with mental health and men going through  life issues  who  don't have a voice or a place to release.

 

Willesden Green Station book swap to return

 

I am sharing this news received via Facebook. After a campaign led by local residents LINK the surface level station book swaps will return.

Message from TfL:

Community book swap libraries will start to return to surface level London Underground stations in May after London Fire Brigade (LFB) and Transport for London (TfL) worked in partnership to agree the use of a suitable fire-proof storage solution.

New cabinets will be introduced at a number of stations, starting with High Barnet and enabling the valuable community assets of book swap libraries to be re-established in those locations.

The cabinets, from a third-party supplier, are both compliant with fire safety regulations and meet the unique requirements for the London Underground in terms of fire safety, accessibility, and network security.

 

Locations where book swap libraries will be re-introduced from May are:

Acton Town
Cockfosters
Ealing Common
East Finchley
Hammersmith
High Barnet
Kew Gardens
Kilburn
Morden
Northfields
Oakwood
Ravenscourt Park
Stamford Brook
Totteridge & Whetstone
Willesden Green

TfL and LFB are continuing working together on the issue of book swap libraries at sub-surface London Underground stations, which are subject to more stringent regulations.

 

At these locations, finding a solution that is compliant with fire safety regulations is currently not possible.

However, we will be exploring with the Government whether the regulations could be reviewed, which could potentially allow for the return of these community assets with appropriate risk assessment and mitigations in the future.

 

I appreciate that there has been some uncertainty related to book swaps, but I do hope this good news addresses any questions in relation to the recent safety issues with the book swaps.

 

Should Brent data on Afro-Caribbean Boys' attainment gap be made public?

50 years ago I was involved in a grassroots group called the Westminster Group for  Multiracial Education. The group arose from community concerns about education in North Paddington and involved parents, teachers, school students, social workers, workers from the local Commission for Racial Equality and a young lawyer from the nearby Law Centre who went on to become the MP for Brent East.

Concerns included racism in schools, racist remarks by teachers, low expectations of Black pupils and discrimination in their access to examination streams,  the lack of books and other resources relevant to Black people and their history, and the disproportionate number of Black pupils labelled ESN* (Educationally Sub-normal in the language of the times.) More widely the impact of the SUS law (Stop and Search on Suspicion) and immigration laws on young people was a big issue locally.

In nearby Brent Council adopted a Policy Statement on Multicultural Education on October 21st 1981. the statement recognised and welcomed the community as multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-lingual and stated:

The Council is committed to a fundamental and significant change to a multi-cultural education based on a concept of cultural pluralism. The recongition that all people and cultures are inherently equal must be a constant from which all educational practices will be developed. 

The education system must be one which affords equality of opportunity to all children. we shall develop a plan and strategy to make the means of achievement consistent with the aims.

Reflecting community concerns Brent Council asked the Black educationalist Jocelyn Barrow to head an inquiry into the pattern of secondary school examination results that showed schools in the south of the borough 'performing markedly less well than the north'.  They were to:

1. Assess the standards achieved in secondary schools

2. Assess parental concerns

3. Assess whether these concerns were justified

4. To advise on remedial action

There was opposition from some teachers to the inquiry and schools were often reluctant to release data. The inquiry was accused of usurping the role of the school inspectorate. 

The report was published as 'Two Kingdoms: Standards and Concerns, Parents and Schools. An Independent Investigation into Secondary Schools in Brent 1981-1984'

Following the report Brent Council set up the Development Programme for Education, Attainment and Racial Equality (DPEARE) that sent advisory techers into schools to address achievement issues. A Daily Mail article denounced the teachers as 'Race spies' causing considerable conflict.  Brent Community Relations Council reacted with a statement:

The allegation that DPEARE teachers are merely 'race spies' is beneath contempt. They are quality and experienced professionals seeking to bring about a process of educational change that will help to raise the attainment of all children. 

The HMI reporting in Spring 1988 concluded:

The programme is developing satisfactorily and most work is of sound quality and adddresses the needs of Ethnic Minority pupils within the normal curriculum.

The importance of statistics (data) was underlined by the Home Office DPEARE Monitoring Panel:

 A Queen's Park Community School Staff Newsletter reports a positive visit by the Monitoring team.

 

In 2005 the issues were revisited in a collection of essays in 'Tell it like it is: How our schools fail black children' was published with a launch discussion at Harlesden Library.

An Institute of Race Relations (IRR) review includes the following:

According to Brian Richardson, the editor of Tell it Like it is, ‘Black kids may not be labelled as “educationally subnormal” these days, but they are disproportionately excluded from school, dumped in pupil referral units and sent into the world with fewer qualifications than their peers.’

In 2004, Black boys were three times as likely to be excluded from school as White boys and the percentage of Black Caribbean pupils getting five or more grades A* to C at GCSE and equivalent was 36 per cent compared to 52.3 per cent of White children.

And, in 2005, the cocktail of excuses served up to wash down such unpalatable facts is still of the 1970s flavour. Both major parties and the mainstream media still focus on the supposed shortcomings within the Black community: the lack of ‘academic focus’; the supposed dearth of strong and positive role models created by living in fragmented families and now the influence of ‘ghetto fabulous’ culture. Despite the evidence accumulated over the last three decades which highlights the institutional racism at the heart of ‘underachievement’, there are still plenty of schemes addressing cultural confusion, negative self-esteem, alienation and bad behaviour among Caribbean youth and their parents.

 

Fast forward to yesterday evening's Scrutiny Committee (Video) where I made the following presentation:

The problem of under-achievement, particularly of boys of Black Caribbean heritage has persisted. In 2018 the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee expressed concern at the gap between Black Caribbean boys and other groups.

The 2018 standards report had shown that at the end of Key Stage 2 the attainment of boys of Black Caribbean heritage had increased by four percentage points but the gap with the national average for all pupils had widened to 23 points below the national average.

A Specialist Centre for Black Caribbean Boys’Achievement  headed by Chalkhill Primary School was set up with  Black Caribbean Boys Achievement champions in each school.

Detailed analysis of ethnic achievement data was provided to the Schools Forum and some schools’ reluctance to provide details on Black Caribbean Boys was noted. That data is still on the Council website LINK but hasn’t been updated.

Now we come to this evening’s report:

3.12.6 notes:

 The previous focus to improve the attainment of Boys of Black Caribbean Heritage continues to be monitored. However, this data is not in the public domain and is therefore provided as a confidential attachment.

I ask Why not in the public domain?

3.12.8  notes:

The Brent Schools Race Equality Programme was launched on December 6th, 2024. It is a free offer available to all Brent schools. Only 29 out of 63 primary schools have taken it up)

One of its aims is to:

 To significantly increase the attainment of underperforming ethnic groups

7.4 notes that disappointing outcomes for Black Caribbean Boys persist and says:. Brent  continue to implement plans to mitigate these outcomes the data indicates that there it more collaborative work required to improve outcomes and ensure this cohort does not continue to be left behind.

So Brent Council is stating that the data shows that there is a problem but the public, the community concerned, parents and others interested people are not allowed to see the data and assess the extent of the problem and success of the initiatives. This is not accountability and transparency and could give rise to the lack of trust in the system found by Jocelyn Barrow back in the 1980s.  There is of course a need to assess value for money.

 

I ask that the Committee recommend that the data referred to in 3.12.6 be made public.

 

A further concern is that not all Brent school age children are in school and thus not included in the data.  So there is missing context.

I ask that the Committee make request for ethnic information on the following  issues.

Absence Rates

Exclusions

Number of pupils being home-schooled

The extent (if any) of off-rolling **

Impact of Covid

The number of NEETs (Not in Education, Employment or Training) in the borough

 

Responding, Shirley Parks,  Director of Education Partnerships and Strategy said;

With regards to Martin's point about the data being publicly available.  The DfE does not publish the data to this level of granularity so we have access to that to use internally, but we can't publish the national comparators. We would obviously also want to talk to schools [to see] if they are happy for us to publish our data alone. That would not make so much sense unless we could publish national comparators, which is why we are treating it as confidential data.

The fundamental trend which is what Martin actually covered was that we've known for years this cohort of children has not performed as well as we would want them to, which is why we've had a number of initiatives including the previous project that included champions in each school and also the current work that we are doing with the Race Equality programme. We've done three different initiatives to support this cohort of children....This year we are taking that  one step further and we are funding an anti-racist programme working with the Leeds Becket University around an anti-racist kite mark award for schools to again make sure were are doing all we possibly can. 

Ms Parks said the trend had gone up and down with different age cohorts but 'we're still not achieving what we want to achieve.' She pointed out that the LA was not doing as well as they would hope but 'we are making achievements as children go through the system.'

Cllr Kathleen Fraser (Chalkhill ward) said:

I'm listening to everybody thinking, nothing has really changed siince I was young and particularly when I was on the Council 1986-90 when we introduced anti-racist strategies and all sorts. I  myself was the product of one intervention with regards to setting up courses for black people to get into higher education. It was successful but a pity that we had to do it...

I follow what Cllr Clinton was saying: with everything you say is happening, it just seems nothing is improving as regards to Afro-Caribbean young people... I'm not saying that there isn't some good stuff going on but we sat here last year and we didn't have certain figures. This year we've got them and we are glad, but how does SEND and Pupil Premium factor in? We talk about disadvantage, the pandemic, we can go on and on, but still we're failing certain children. Certain children are failing because we haven't grasped what exactly is going on.

Cllr Fraser in a further intervention at the end of the agenda item said: 

We need to do more of a deep dive into this so we are not sitting in this situation next year with regard to standards. With the gap widening rather than reducing with regard to the Attainment of young people from Black Adrican Caribbean and Somali communities. I think with the resources that are being pumped in, we owe it to our residents to take a deep dive into this. Perhaps we can set up a Task Group to look at it.

The Committee did not adopt either of my requests. 

 * ‘How the West Indian Child is made Educationally Subnormal in the British School System’ was first published in 1971. Written by Bernard Coard, a Grenadian, who worked in southeast and east London as teacher and youth worker during the 1960s, the book aimed to expose the endemic levels of racism in Britain’s education system and to rally communities to resist.

 ** Off-rolling is the practice of removing a pupil from the school roll without using a permanent exclusion, when the removal is primarily in the best interests of the school, rather than the the best interests of the pupil. This includes pressuring a parent to remove their child from the school roll (Ofsted):

 

 

Opposition builds to Willesden Green Adult Gaming Centre

Oppositon is building to the new application to convert the Lloyd's Bank buidling at 1 Walm Lane, Willesden Green into an Adult Gaming Centre. See Wembley Matters story HERE.

Cllr Saqlain Choudry took to Next Door to urge local residents to object:

Willesden Green does not need another gambling establishment or betting premise. I strongly object to the proposed adult gaming centre (formerly Lloyds bank). Our community deserves investment in spaces that promote positive activities for all ages — not venues that could encourage addiction. Please make your voices heard and comment by emailing the planning department at Brent Council or commenting on the planning application portal. LINK

The letter asks the council Planning Department to reject the application rather than councillor members of the Planning Committee,

 

Another ward councillor writes;

 I strongly object to this proposal.

There would be five gambling premises in a short stretch of road - 2 Ladbrokes, Paddy Power, the new site, and the current adult gaming centre.

This is too much and the combined effect is hollowing out our High Street.

As a local Councillor I am profoundly concerned by this.

I am even more concerned that this application turns a bingo hall into an adult gaming centre. The lack of change to he floor plan shows that the initial application was made on a morally fraudulent basis, and insult to the integrity of the committee and its members.

Adult gaming centres replace social gambling with highly individualised and algorithmically driven forms of gambling, which seek to spur addiction and take advantage of vulnerable clients. It allows higher stakes than bingo, and because of the non-social nature increases the risk of localised antisocial behaviour, directly outside the site of two recent ASB related stabbings.

This application should not be looked upon kindly and should not be allowed to proceed. The committee should do everything in its legal powers to prevent its progress.

Many thanks to those who will consider this objection. I would encourage them to also take into account the volume of feeling against this from local residents.

 

In all so far there are  37 objections (one is wrongly classified as 'Supports'). This objection may strike a chord with many residents:

 I am writing as a local resident to strongly object to the proposed conversion of the former bank premises in Willesden Green into a casino or bingo hall. As a young woman living nearby, I am deeply concerned about the implications this type of venue will have on the safety, wellbeing, and character of our community.

Over the past few months, I have already noticed a troubling rise in antisocial behaviour in the area. There has been an observable increase in public drunkenness, drug use, and drug dealing in and around Willesden Green, including on my own street. This has made me-and many others-feel significantly less safe walking alone, particularly at night. I have experienced and witnessed incidents of sexual harassment in broad daylight, and these occurrences are becoming more frequent. The addition of a gambling venue with late-night operating hours will only exacerbate these issues.

Casinos and similar gambling establishments are well-documented in their association with increased rates of crime and antisocial behaviour. Numerous studies and case histories from other parts of the UK indicate that areas surrounding such venues often see spikes in petty crime, drug-related offences, loitering, and harassment. This type of environment poses a very real threat to residents, especially women and young people. I already avoid walking alone past certain areas in the evening-bringing in a venue that typically attracts intoxicated and vulnerable individuals late into the night will only make this worse.

Beyond safety, the proposed development raises major concerns about the character and future of Willesden Green. Our area is home to a vibrant and diverse community of families, small business owners, elderly residents, and working professionals. What Willesden Green needs are services and spaces that support this community: affordable housing, youth services, libraries, childcare, green spaces, and accessible cultural or educational venues. A gambling outlet offers none of this. Instead, it threatens to erode the fabric of our high street, attracting predatory business models and potentially displacing more beneficial local services.

Moreover, venues like casinos and bingo halls often prey on the most economically vulnerable in society. In a borough like Brent, where many residents are already living with financial precarity, allowing a gambling outlet to operate in the heart of Willesden Green sends entirely the wrong message. Rather than investing in social support and community enrichment, it risks fuelling addiction, debt, and mental health problems-all of which ultimately place further pressure on local services, healthcare, and policing.

This proposal also runs counter to the council's stated commitments to equality, public health, and inclusive neighbourhood development. If Brent is serious about building safe, resilient, and inclusive communities, this application should be firmly rejected.

Finally, there is the issue of planning precedent. There is already a similar establishment a few doors away from the proposed new development, as well as numerous similar gambling businesses in Cricklewood. The presence of yet another gambling venue in such a small geographical area may dissuade other, more community-oriented businesses from investing in the area. It could also have a negative impact on nearby property values and the perception of Willesden Green as a welcoming and safe neighbourhood.

In summary, I strongly urge you to reject this application on the following grounds:

- **Increased crime and antisocial behaviour** associated with gambling venues;

- **Public safety concerns**, particularly for women and vulnerable residents;

- **Recent local rise in harassment, drug use, and intoxication** that such a venue will likely worsen;

- **Negative impact on the area's social and economic fabric**, including risks to mental health, wellbeing, and community cohesion;

- **Contradiction of Brent Council's wider social and urban development goals**.

Please act to protect the wellbeing of residents and preserve the integrity of our neighbourhood by rejecting this proposal.

 

Note that if you submit  a comment by email only your address and whether you Object or Support appears on the Planning Portal. If you submit via the portal HERE your full comment appears so enabling other residents to read it.

 

 

How many affordable homes did Brent deliver in 2024/25? The Council's response. Judge for yourself who was right.

  

From Philip Grant's original post. Read it HERE

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

As I had written a guest post critical of the Brent Council claim to have delivered 530 affordable homes in 2024/25, when the number delivered by the Council itself was only 26, I felt it only fair to send a copy of the article to Brent's Chief Executive, Kim Wright, and offer her a right of reply. She has taken up that offer, and the full and unedited text of her reply is set out below. 

Readers can judge for themselves which version of the facts, and their interpretation, they choose to accept, those in my original article, or the Council's:-

Dear Mr Grant

 

I hope you are well and had a good Easter. Thank you for giving me the right of reply here.

The figures in the council tax leaflet were correct at the time of printing, based on projected housing completions for the last and current financial year. 

 

At the time of publishing the council tax booklet we were on track to oversee the delivery of 530 affordable homes in 2024-25. Construction projects are rarely straightforward and some of these homes will now be completed slightly later. Due to construction delays, 434 new affordable homes ended up being delivered and the remaining 96 are all due to be completed shortly. While the leaflet was due to be delivered at the end of the financial year, the lead-in times for printing and distribution meant that the artwork was finalised and sent to print on 20 February so the team had to rely on projections.

 

It is true that the council directly delivered 26 affordable homes (the figure you quote from the FOI response) in 2024-25. However, the infographic in the council tax leaflet was an attempt to give a very high-level summary of the breadth and depth of what the council has delivered in the past financial year on just two pages, and to describe these services and outcomes in ways that are accessible to everyone. In the process, ‘oversee the delivery of’ was simplified to ‘delivered’. I accept that this is an oversimplification where the language could have been clearer and we will bear this in mind, being more careful in the future. Making communications more accessible sometimes means using less precise, less technical language and this simplification was certainly not an attempt to mislead but was about better accessibility.

 

The article you have shared states that, since the council did not directly deliver many of these homes, they should not have been included in a summary of how residents’ council tax was spent – in fact, officers are actively involved in the delivery of these homes in all sorts of ways, from planning officers and others who negotiate with applicants to increase the percentage of affordable homes that form part of regeneration schemes across the borough, to housing colleagues who work with registered providers and residents on our housing waiting list, so council tax was used to get these homes delivered in the form of officer time.

 

All of these homes meet the definition of affordable housing under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Greater London Authority (GLA) guidelines. 

 

Regarding the 1,000 new council homes scheduled for completion this year, delays mean the projection has been adjusted to 899, with the remaining homes to follow. We're delighted our development in Church End with 99 new council homes, is on track to be completed soon. In a housing crisis, councils need to use all methods at their disposal to increase the supply of homes - buying homes from developers is standard practice and local people then benefit from genuinely affordable rents. Whether built by a registered provider, directly by the council or acquired through planning agreements, these homes form part of our commitment to increasing affordable housing.

 

Brent has one of the best records in London for housebuilding, we were one of only three London boroughs to exceed our housing delivery target last year and approved a total of 3,266 new homes, making us the second highest borough for housing approvals overall.

 

In relation to the ‘Your Brent’ magazine and the Council Tax leaflets, we ensure that the content complies with the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, and this is,  in fact, included within Brent’s constitution.

 

The principles contained within the Code specifically refer to the need for such publications to be lawful, cost effective, objective, even-handed, appropriate, have regard to equality and diversity and ensuring that publications are issued with care during periods of heightened sensitivity.

 

The content contained within the magazine and the Council Tax leaflet is factual. Officers obtain quotes from members acting as the official council spokesperson for the topics covered. The council does not routinely state what political party members represent (unless reporting on election results e.g. page 7 of the spring Your Brent Magazine reports on the Alperton by-election result) and care is taken to ensure that the issues covered are topics that are important to the people in the Borough.

 

Best wishes to you

Kim

Kim Wright (she/her)

Chief Executive

London Borough of Brent