Refugee Week Film Programe at The Kiln, June 17th

 

What should be the Left's position on immigration? Public meeting June 17th

 

Kensal and Kilburn Better 2025 event

What Should Be the Left's Position on Immigration?

 

On Tuesday, 17 June, 7pm at St Lukes Church, Fernhead Road,  W9 3EH (Queens Park station)

 

Free tickets!

Please register for tickets on Eventbrite at link below

The Right and Far-Right are weaponising the issue of immigration. The Left too often either copies them or is silent. What are the options?

Socialists need to be unequivocal and bold in standing up for asylum seekers fleeing death and persecution. What should it say about economic migrants and what would a popular Left immigration policy look like?

Come and discuss with an excellent panel including Zoe Gardner, immigration campaigner and researcher, among others.

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/what-should-be-the-lefts-position-on-immigration-tickets-1395413402049

Brent Cabinet to close Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre on July 31st, ahead of listing decision

 

Blue marker GMH site: proposed hotel and housing Yellow marker: current Leisure Centre, proposed new centre  will be further south with Adult Learning Centre behind it

 

The twin unisys buildings
 

Artists' impression of the new leisure centre 

Brent Cabinet will be asked at the next cabinet meeting to rubber stamp the closure of Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre. This comes shortly after their eviction of a nursery from the site at short notice, as they clear the site for redevelopment.

The Leisure Centre could have stayed open for longer before the builders moved in,  but officers reject that option  because it is running at a loss and the state of the building would incur maintenance expenses.

 The closure date comes a month ahead of when the decision of the Secretary of State on the community bid to give the building listed status is expected/

Officers explain:

A plaque on the current Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre marks the achievements of the late Leonard Johnson, community activist and Chair of Harlesden Peoples Community Council, in creating this space. This will be retained and included in the new facility. The council will work with the community to ensure that this history is commemorated in the new development.

Harlesden People’s Community Council have commenced a Save Bridge Park Campaign and submitted listing applications to Historic England to place Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Technology House on the National Heritage List for England. The developer, Stonebridge Redevelopment Estate Development (SRED has also submitted Certificate of Immunity (CoI) from listed status for the same buildings and their Unisys site.

Historic England will consider the applications and compile a report for the consideration of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It is anticipated that a decision on the CoI and listing applications will be made in the summer 2025.

The main purpose of listing Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Technology House is to protect the buildings and their surroundings from changes which materially alter the buildings or their setting. Once a building is listed, listed building consent may be needed, in addition to any potential need for planning permission, for works and alterations to the buildings, and breaches of the listed building regime are subject to criminal penalties and enforcement action.

So, depending on the decisions of Historic England and the Secretary of State, it may not all be plain sailing.

Another issue is the viability of the project with General Mediterranean Holding, the international parent company, controlled by the Auchi family, expecting a return on their investment. 'Viability' raises its head, especially as the land sale to GMH is expected to  fund the new leisure centre that Brent Council will build.

The Cabinet Report notes a proposal to double the number of homes on the site from 500 to 1,000. The GMH website says it will include affordable homes but stand by for a revision of that:

 

Conditional Land Sale Agreement

In June 2017, the Cabinet approved a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with GMH and to complete the CLSA, the following conditions need to be achieved:

• Planning: For the developer to achieve outline Planning Consent for the Bridge Park Masterplan

• Financial Viability: For the developer to achieve a profit and for Brent to fund the capital construction of a new leisure centre from the land sale proceeds.

• Vacant Possession: For Brent to acquire the Car Breakers Yard, either via private treaty purchase or CPO proceedings. It should be noted that the Council purchased the Car Breakers Yard in February 2019 via private treaty purchase.

At the signing of the CLSA, the Council and GMH envisaged the delivery of a Bridge Park Masterplan, which comprised a new hotel, a modern leisure centre and approximately 500 new homes.

 In February 2019, and following public consultation, Cabinet approved proposals to optimise the development potential of the site by enhancing the leisure provision, incorporating additional community facilities, enterprise space and supported living accommodation.

Given that the new leisure provision is to be funded from the sale proceeds, GMH sought to optimise the quantum of housing that can be delivered on their part of the development site. The change to the CLSA would have provided “at least 500 apartments/townhouses.” Since the agreed change, the council and GMH have been working to maximise the site even further and the current proposals is to include:

·    Approximately 1,000 homes to meet the needs of Brent’s growing population

·      Modern flexible community facilities

·      A better environment and public realm

·      A new permanent home for Brent Start, the council’s adult education service

·      Enhanced leisure provision

·      A hotel with a restaurant.

An Equality Assessment demonstrates the impact of closure on current users and the local community:

Sport England’s Active Lives survey identifies a number of target groups which are underrepresented in terms of participation in sport and physical activity. The nationally identified under-represented groups are young people, women and girls, people with disabilities, over 45s and black and minority ethnic groups.

Analysis of the available data in relation to the impact on the different protected characteristic groups shows that closing the Centre may have a negative impact on Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups as a greater proportion of users are from the broad black group – Black Somali, Black Caribbean and Black African. Closing the centre may also have a negative impact on people with disabilities, as there is a targeted session for young people on a Saturday.

There may be a negative impact on the older population as they may find it more difficult to travel to alternative provision.

 Closing the centre could have a negative impact on the five faith groups who hire the Centre on a regular basis for a total of 12 hours per week. Attendance across the 5 groups varies between 217 and 339 per week.

 I estimate that if the development goes ahead, based on the timetable above the new leisure centre is unlike to open before 2028/29 at the earliest. That means unavailability for possibly 4 years or more.

Have no fear, Brent Council suggests alternatives, albeit likely to be more expensive than Bridge Park:

Whilst closure of the Centre will result in the temporary loss of this leisure service and of spaces that can be hired, alternative spaces exist nearby. These include Willesden Sports Centre, Vale Farm Sports Centre, Wembley Leisure Centre, Moberly Sports Centre, various community facilities, schools, faith facilities and private gyms. These alternative facilities are well served by public transport from the Stonebridge area.

And if you have little money:

Brent Council Public Health have a wide range of opportunities for residents to be physically active with over 70 free sessions running each week. These include Walking for Health sessions at six of our parks, instructor led sessions at 20 outdoor gyms, six weekly sessions with Sport in Mind to support mental wellbeing, Our Parks sessions in Brent parks and libraries, Steady and Stable falls prevention class for those over 50 years, Couch to 5k, parkrun, community based sessions such as Zumba and Bollywood dancing and sessions for vulnerable residents.

 The Cabinet report offers recognition of the contribution of the Black community in the new building:

The council also acknowledges that Bridge Park has played an important role in the Stonebridge community for many years. Bridge Park is an important chapter in Black British history and the community’s achievements in creating this space in the 1980’s to empower local black residents. The council recognises the importance of working with the community to ensure this history is commemorated within the new facilities. We will work closely with the Libraries, Arts and Heritage Team to explore how best to recognise the legacy and contribution that Bridge Park had in Black British History. For example, working with local groups, organisations and individuals, this might be a photo exhibition showing the development of the community centre from a bus garage through to today and a mural on the hoardings of the development site to reflect the history.

The closure will mean loss of jobs for some at least of the Bridge Park employees.

The Cabinet report notes:

There are 11 permanent employees (seven full time and four part time) and six group exercise instructors. These staff are at risk of redundancy. There will be some redundancy costs depending on the number of staff that are not redeployed. The maximum cost for redundancies will be £90k based on calculations provided by Human Resources colleagues in May 2025. There will also be Pension Strain costs of £88k for two members of staff for early release of pension.

Just a word about the companies involved. As mentioned above, General Mediterranean Holdings is an international company controlled by the Auchi family. 

Stonebridge Real Estate Development is a UK subsidiary. Mohammad Al-Miqdadi  listed on January 1st 2025 as 'a person with significant control' of SRED: These are the latest accounts  (2023) I can find:

 

Mohammed Al-Miqdadi is also a board member of the Egyptian-British Chamber of Commerce and director of Tucan Investments and Kenton Holdings Ltd.

 Brent Council provides a comparison of the offer at the current lesiure centre and the proposed new facilities:

 With new adult provision at the site, the issue of 1 Morland Gardens (Altamira) and its preservation, is an issue that has been much discussed on this blog.

The Altamira Villa, Stonebridge (Picture: Willesden Local History Society) 

Officers note:

For Morland Gardens, there was also a petition requesting that the locally listed Altamira Building should not be demolished as part of development plans for the site. 251 people had signed the petition.

 A decision on the demolition or retention of this building will be subject to a future Cabinet report after the necessary design, site investigation works and viability assessments are undertaken. 

Proposals would also be subject to a planning application which would also consider the appropriate planning and heritage considerations.

 

 

A threat to the patchwork of small green spaces in Metroland?

 

Purple marks the green space. Note greenery opposite 

 Part of the green space and the side wall of 125 Preston Road

 

The proposed house on the corner of Preston Road and Pellatt Road

 

The proposed house from Pellat Road

 Preston is a Wembley area of 1930s semi-detached houses benefitting from many small green spaces: verges, corner plots and roundabouts. This gives the well laid out roads a unique character.

The alarm is being raised by residents that such spaces could be threatened if a planning application to build on one, lodged with Brent Council, succeeds.

The wide grass verge on the corner of Preston Road and Pellat Road has somehow ended up in private hands and the owner wants to build a 3 bedroomed house there.

I am not sure how to interpret the following extract from the deeds of 125 Preston Road and whether it contains any protections for the adjoining land. The residents of 125 Preston Road are opposing the application.

 

Objection from 125 Preston Road:

I write to object in the strongest terms to planning application 25/1246 for the proposed construction of a two-storey, three-bedroom dwelling directly adjoining my house 125 Preston Road. I submit this objection based on the following material planning considerations:

Overdevelopment and Inappropriate Layout

The proposed scheme represents an excessive and over-intensive use of a narrow and constrained wedge-shaped corner plot. It stretches the full depth of the site and includes a 6m rear projection along the boundary with 125 Preston Road-double the allowance permitted under Brent's Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD for semi-detached properties.

This fundamentally alters the spatial relationship of the existing pair of semis by eliminating the gap and unbalancing the pair. It converts No. 125 into an end-of-terrace structure in a location dominated by semi-detached homes with generous spacing. The resulting layout is cramped, disruptive to the established suburban rhythm, and incompatible with the original form and character of Preston Road.

Scale, Height, Visual Intrusion, and Daylight Impact

The scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling-particularly its flat, monolithic two-storey form and oversized rear element-are disproportionate to neighbouring properties. The massing extends beyond typical building lines and introduces visual intrusion from the street and adjacent homes. It severely impacts daylight, sunlight, and the open outlook from No. 125, and would dominate rear garden views.

The proposed development also breaches the 45-degree rule in relation to a ground-floor habitable window on the rear/side elevation of 125 Preston Road, which sits directly adjacent to the boundary where the 6-metre rear extension of the proposed dwelling is planned. Although only a single storey in height, the scale, depth, and proximity of this extension would severely restrict daylight to the affected window and create a pronounced sense of enclosure. The extension falls well within the 45-degree sightline, which is a standard Brent Council uses-under SPD1 and the Residential Extensions & Alterations SPD-to assess daylight and outlook impacts. The lack of a daylight/sunlight assessment to justify this massing is a notable omission and reinforces non-compliance with Policy DMP1, which requires protection of neighbouring amenity. This extension would result in material harm to the light, aspect, and enjoyment of No. 125.

Most of the comments on Brent Planning Portal are against the proposal but one person supports:

I do agree the green is nice but we need more housing in local communities and not high rise buildings taking over. 

There are plenty of parks around to enjoy the green of nature.

It seems to be an East facing house, guessing this wouldn't block the sunlight too much.

Overall I like the front garden proposal and generally the house has a new type of concept which am willing to adapt to.

I would say it is an improvement to seeing just a flat side of a house.

 Another respondent states:

If the land is part of the adjoining house, I have no objection but if the land is an empty green space, I strongly object to all these areas being snapped up for building projects.

Someobe suggests a Council investigation:

I was horrified when I saw this planning application. I know the site and it is no greater than a grass verge, originally the public walkway to some fields and now to some housing. How could one build on a grass verge in a corner as it is not even a real parcel of land? It will restrict access to parents with children and people needing support when disabled. When did this public walkway become a personal property and what due diligence was there for its sale? This beggars belief and the Council should investigate this transaction.

Furthermore, this area of Wembley has a unique character with housing in keeping with its community feel. This uncharacteristic new building will be a carbuncle and completely out of touch with the local aesthetic.

 This contribution sums up the issues:

 

Although I am not a direct neighbour, I am concerned about the broader implications this proposal may have on Brent's townscape, the integrity of local planning policies, and the overall quality of development in such a prominent and visible location. My objections are based on the following points:

1. Prominent and Sensitive Location 

This site occupies a highly visible corner at the intersection of Preston Road and Pellatt Road, a gateway route frequently used by residents, visitors, and tourists heading to Wembley Stadium. The existing green space here provides a valuable visual break in an otherwise densely built environment. Replacing it with a bulky, flat-roofed building would permanently alter the character of this area for the worse.

2. Poor Design and Incongruous Materials 

The proposed design is at odds with the surrounding Metroland-style housing. While neighbouring properties feature red brick, white render, pitched tiled roofs, and traditional detailing, this proposal introduces pale bricks, lime slurry coating, and an angular minimalist design with a flat roof. This stark contrast undermines Brent's design guidance, notably SPD1 and Policy BD1 of the Local Plan, which stress the importance of sensitive, high-quality design that complements its context.

3. Non-compliance with Key Planning Policies 

This application appears to breach several local and regional planning policies:

* Brent Local Plan Policy BD1: The proposal fails to reinforce local character.
* Policy DMP1: The development does not sufficiently protect neighbour amenity or respond appropriately to its setting.
* SPD1: This policy discourages "terracing" on corner plots and calls for new buildings to respect traditional roof forms, materials, and building lines.
* London Plan Policy D4: The design fails to integrate effectively with its surroundings, introducing an out-of-place structure in a highly visible location.

4. Risk of Setting a Harmful Precedent 

If approved, this application could set a disastrous precedent for similar developments on corner plots throughout Brent, particularly those that compromise garden space, architectural harmony, and the overall character of the area.

In conclusion, this proposal represents a poorly conceived design that does not respect the local character of the area, violates several planning policies, and risks undermining the quality of development in Brent. I strongly urge the Council to reject application 25/1246 in the interest of maintaining good design principles and preserving the borough's urban integrity.

The application has not yet been tabled at Planning Committee and could be delegated to a planning officer if there are few objections fom residents or councillors. 

 

 

On the third strike day The Village School strikers claim victory as all their demands met by Academy Trust

 

Undaunted and solid in their unity - today's picket line

NEU members at The Village School,  Kingsbury declared victory today as negotiations with the Academy Trust on the third day of the strike brought concessions from the Academy Trust that runs the school.

The union claims that they have won:

• Original leave of absence policy restored and uploaded 
• Reimbursement for all staff who lost money through the operation of the rogue policy
• Written agreement to operate in accordance with trust scheme of delegation which means 12 policies can only be changed by going through a six stage process which now requires mutual agreement first between trust and union reps at JCC
• Pledge in writing to honour our trade union recognition agreement and links to this placed on policy and trust websites
•  Email to staff clarifying that our position was correct 

Twenty new members joined the NEU during the strike and there were three days of picket lines of more than 60 people. More than 100 staff were on strike on each of the three days, leading to the school being shut. As this is an SEND (special school)  the majority of strukers were support staff. There were multiple messages of support from parents during the strike action and backing from Brent Trades Council and retired NEU members.

Jenny Cooper, on of the school NEU reps said:

When all else fails, don't despair: STRIKES WORK

 

 

 

 

 

Carpenders Park graves reinstated following Islamophobic attack

 From Brent Council

A memorial service took place yesterday for the families of loved ones whose graves were desecrated in a hate crime attack.

Councillors paid their respects, honouring the families’ loved ones, during the memorial ceremony. Brent Council owns Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery in Watford where 61 children’s graves were vandalised back in April. Police investigated the incident as a hate crime.

Cllr Harbi Farah, Cabinet Member for Safer Communities, Jobs and Skills, said: 

We promised that we would do everything we could to support the families. Today, we were able to honour and respect them and their loved ones by reinstating the graves and signs.

We are continuing to work with the police and the community to ensure that Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery is a safe burial ground for those who are laid to rest here.

Brent is working with the police to increase security measures at the cemetery.

Three Rivers Chief Inspector, Kio Bozorgi, said: 

It is important that we continue to do everything we can to listen to and understand the needs of our Muslim community; we want them to have the confidence to approach the police directly to report hate crimes or incidents when they occur.

We continue to work closely with Brent Council, which owns the cemetery site, to offer recommendations on how to increase security in the area and prevent a terrible crime like this from happening again.

 

Development of Willesden Green police houses and police station at Planning Committee next week

 

The present police houses and police station (concealed by tree)

 

The proposal
 

A revised planning application for the ex-police houses and police station in Willesden High Road will be heard at Brent Planning Committee next week (Wednesday June 11th 6pm).

An appeal by the developer was turned down by the Planning Inspectorate on various grounds but the developer now claims that these have been addressed in the new application. In their report to the Planning Committee, Brent planning officers concur but 60 objectors to the proposal strongly disagree.

 

 

The proposal is for  demolition of the police house and some outbuildings and replacement with a 4 storey building that wraps around the police station. There would be 25 flats and a commercial space in the retained police station.  The landmark sycamore tree would stay but have its crown reduced.

The garden area has come in for criticism as it contains something called a Mound but with no specifics on size and height. 

 

Perhaps it is an aspect that the developer will happily remove to assuage the objectors - not a hill that they would want to die on!

After revision of the Viability Assessment four social homes are proposed out of the 25 planned but that provision could be replaced by a contribution of £1.1m to be used for social housing elsewhere.

Trees have a high profile at present as the council has launched its new Strategy for consultation. This application serves as an example of how trees on a development site are currently treated by Brent planning officers:

A total of 7 trees (T6 to T12) and one group of trees (G13) are proposed to be removed from the site to accommodate the development. These have all been categorised as C trees (Trees of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years, or young trees with a stem diameter below 150mm) and not of sufficient quality to present a constraint to development 

 

The submitted report notes that G13 are low quality shrub like planting located within the current front garden. Brent’s Principal Tree Officer was satisfied with their removal subject to their replacement as part of the landscaping scheme. The scheme proposes 9 new trees within the site, 7 of which are located within the communal garden and 2 within the frontage on High Road.

 

To facilitate the development works are proposed to two of the retained trees, T1 Sycamore and T3 Birch. T3 Birch would also require minor access facilitation pruning to allow erection of protective fencing and site hoarding. This is not considered to be a major issue.. It is proposed to further construct walls and patio areas within the RPA of T1 which is the Sycamore Tree located to the frontage on High Road, Willesden. It is proposed to Crown Reduce the Sycamore tree (T1).

 

The bulk and density of the new building and its impact on the character of the area are two of the main concerns of objectors. Cllr Maurice (Kenton ward) and Cllr Long (Willesden Green ward) have objected to the scheme.

One objector uses refreshingly straight forward language that contrasts with the dry language of the officers' report:

 

I Strongly object to this nonsense.

A mound? A bloody Mound?! This is Willesden, not the Peak District. What a cynical, disingenuous ruse by the developers to pretend it is for amenity and play space. They are too cheap to get rid of their demolition debris properly and respectfully and so propose to bury it. It would effectively be a slag heap - a waste tip - an invasion of privacy and amenity and an insult to intelligence. This cannot be a serious suggestion - the developers haven't even bothered with size or scale (a molehill would not require permission, so how big a mountain do they want?). Please do not allow this precedent to be set. To paraphrase the Basques, 'If you tolerate this, then your garden will be next.'

The ignominy does not stop there:

The developers are proposing to inflict on the immediate neighbours (and new residents) 5m2 balconies directly overlooking gardens and bay windows into bedrooms and living rooms (where is the privacy, also, for the balcony users and pedestrians?) There is no precedent for this in any of the surrounding streets.

Why propose siting a loading bay on a quiet residential road, when one already exists on the High Road around the corner (a far more suitable space)?

Why pretend (again!) that the view from the window of the nearest house is just of a brick wall? The Inspectorate specifically stated that, despite being told that by the developers, she went into the room and saw for herself it was not true. Why are they perpetuating that same untruth and continuing to suggest blocking the same precious light?

Why are the developers plans and documents so shoddily put together that they take an age and numerous attempts to navigate?

Brent Planning Committee. No, please. Just no.

The planning officers' report uses the familiar argument that the benefits of the scheme outweigh any negatives including the scheme not meeting natural light and amenity space guidelines and recommend that the Planning Committee approve the application:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, having regard to all material planning considerations, and that the application should be approved subject to conditions and a Section106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations.

 The assessment has given significant weight to the appeal decision as a material consideration, and it is considered that this scheme has overcome the previous reasons for the dismissed appeal.

 The proposal would deliver 25 new homes towards Brent’s housing targets, of which 28% would be family sized which would contribute to an identified need in the borough.

 Whilst the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the Willesden Green Conservation Area, such harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. Furthermore, the retention of part of the non-designated heritage asset, along with the delivery of an appropriate commercial town centre use (which has the potential to be employment generating) in a sustainable location is considered to outweigh the absence of securing an employment use as outlined in the site allocation and the and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits.

LINK TO AGENDA ITEM