Chalkhill Estate infill at Planning Committee next week. 105 garages and car park replaced by 61 social rent homes

 

Metropolitan Housing Trust who run the Chalkhill Estate as Metropolitan Housing Thames Valley have submitted an application for the demolition of 105 garages and re-use of other space to build 61 infill homes on the 'science blocks' site on Chalkhill Road.

The estate was designed with a considerable amount of green space and there are many trees, some of which will be removed. Of the 105 garages 71 are currently unused and the application claims only 18 are used for car parking.

 

The garages are quite close to existing blocks and will be demolished and replaced by housing

 

Existing garages and car park in blue above

The planners point out that Forty Lane has been designated an 'intensification corridor' that allows for building heights of up to 5 storeys. The site is between Forty Lane and Chalkhill Road but with some buildings between the site and Forty Lane itself.

 

Building heights:

 

Terrace A - 3 storeys

Block B -3 storeys

Block C - 4 storeys

Block D - 5 storeys

Block E -3 storeys

 

There are CGIs of some of the buildings in the application papers:

Block C above

 

Plenty of trees are shown in the CGIs. There are currently 69 trees on site with 17 covered by Tree Protection orders and 10 will be removed to make way for the building of the new blocks:

 

 51 new trees will be planted to compensate for the loss but this is not sufficient to make up for the reduction in canopy cover provided by the mature trees on site that predate the estate. The developer will contribute £26,292 for mitigating the loss through new planting in the vicinity of the development.

 

£53,804 will be contributed to the carbon off-set fund. 

 

The provision of 61 new homes at social rent is positive. No intermediate product such as shared ownership is planned. As these are not generally considered affordable to local people, this is a plus. There are a number of larger family homes planned.

 

 

 B=bedrooms P=Persons

 

 There are 8 objections to the plans on the Brent Planning Portal. Behind the conflict is planners' treatment of the application as one in an urban context designated for'intensification' and residents' enjoyment of a site originally designed with plenty of light and green space. 

 

 Einstein House

 

Residents of Einstein House are particularly affected and have put in an objection. Note that a contributionof £30,000 to a CPZ is now included and a daylight assessment completed (covered in detail for each property in the Officers' Report HERE) that concludes the harm to exising residents is outweighed by the benefits of the new housing.

Einstein House Objection

 

I am writing to formally object to the above planning application, specifically the proposal to construct Block E directly behind Einstein House. My objection is based on the following planning concerns:

1. Loss of Light (Daylight and Sunlight Impact)

The proposed Block E will significantly reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received by residents in Einstein House. The block is approximately three times the height of the current garages and will be located in close proximity to habitable rooms, including bedrooms and living rooms.

During consultation, we were informed that a daylight/sunlight report was conducted. However, no such report assessing the impact on existing homes has been included in the planning documents. The only report presented appears to relate to light within the proposed new blocks. This is a critical omission, as the council must be satisfied that BRE guidelines regarding adequate light to habitable rooms are being met. The height and massing of the proposed development will cast significant shadows over Einstein House, especially during winter months, severely affecting the quality of life for residents.

2. Loss of Privacy and Overlooking

Block E will be positioned approximately 12 metres from Einstein House. This is well below the 18-21 metre standard separation distance typically recommended between directly facing windows of habitable rooms. The proposed design includes balconies and windows that will directly face into the bedrooms and living rooms of existing residents. These rooms are considered habitable spaces and therefore deserve protection from unreasonable overlooking. No mitigation measures (e.g. frosted glass, angled balconies, or screening) appear to have been proposed to reduce this impact.

3. Noise Pollution and Anti-Social Behaviour - New Footpath

The plans propose the removal of the current secure gated area at the rear of Einstein House and its replacement with a public footpath. This significantly impacts residents' privacy, safety, and wellbeing.

Opening this area to public access may encourage anti-social behaviour, especially during evenings, and will create ongoing noise and disturbance. The proposed new lighting for the path while necessary for safety will further affect residents in ground floor flats through light pollution and reduced sleep quality. There is also no detail in the application on how this new public space will be managed or maintained to ensure current resident's safety.

4. Parking Pressure

There are already major parking constraints in the area. The proposed development does not include a robust parking strategy. While a small number of designated spaces appear in the plans, there is no clarity on whether new residents will be restricted from using existing street or estate parking.This will almost certainly exacerbate existing pressures, especially as no Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) or traffic management scheme is proposed. The application also appears to lack a comprehensive Transport Assessment to evaluate local capacity.

5. Poor Site Planning - Disproportionate Impact of Block E

While the wider development includes some open and green space, the positioning of Block E raises serious concerns. Unlike the other proposed blocks, Block E has been placed extremely close to existing homes in Einstein House just 12 metres away and at a height that is significantly taller than the current garages it replaces.

This placement creates an unbalanced development where one group of residents (in Einstein House) bears a disproportionate burden of the scheme's impact, including loss of light, privacy, and increased noise.

The council should require a review of the mass and siting of Block E to reduce its uniquely high impact and ensure a fairer and more sensitive design approach, especially when other blocks in the proposal do not create similar issues.

6. Lack of Transparent Consultation

Residents were not meaningfully consulted on key elements of the proposal. Several important documents such as the daylight/sunlight assessment for existing residents and detailed traffic or security plans were not shared during the consultation period.
This raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process, especially considering the significant impact this proposal will have on existing residents' lives.

7. Impact on Mental Wellbeing and Quality of Life

The combined effect of reduced daylight, increased noise, loss of privacy, and general overdevelopment will severely affect the mental wellbeing and quality of life of residents in Einstein House. These concerns should be taken seriously in line with Brent Council's Local Plan objectives and commitment to high-quality, healthy living environments.

Objections raised here fall in line with Brent's Local plan policies, London Plan policy and BRE daylight and sunlight guidelines.

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully urge Brent Council to refuse this application in its current form, or at the very least, require significant redesign and another consultation to mitigate its serious impacts on existing residents.

Einstein House Residents

The Planning Committee takes place at 6pm on Wednesday December 10th in the Conference Hall of Brent Civic Centre or can be observed online HERE.

 

Chalkhill Estate Centre (Google Earth)

 

When visiting the site I heard fears expressed that further infill proposals from Metropolitan will be made on the estate if this application is successful. Nearby on King's Drive the freeholder is consulting on infill plans for Kings Court (Kings Estate Improvement Programme) and Carmel Court and there are longer term plans for redevelopment to high rise of the ASDA, Kwik Fit, Torch corner site.

 

LETTER: TORIES PLAY BORIS JOHNSON'S WHACK-A-MOLE IN BRENT

Dear Editor,

Brent Tories have been instructed by Tory central office to re-install de-selected Kenton Ward Councillor Michael Maurice in another Brent Council ward in the Brent Council local elections in May 2026. 

Following democratically organised meetings in the selection process for Tory candidates for next year's local Brent Council elections, Cllr. Maurice, along with his fellow Kenton Ward Councillor, Cllr.Kansangra, were de-selected as candidates for the Kenton Ward. Cllr. Maurice apparently appealed and his local M.P mate, Bob Blackman, intervened and helped organise a comeback for him. 

The democratically selected Tory candidates for the Preston Ward of Brent Council are not happy bunnies, and we can expect some Christmas crackers as the deposed Tory candidates will be joining Boris Johnson's whack-a-mole and getting their revenge.

Name supplied. 

 

Two arrested after Wembley High Road murder

From the Metropolitan Police

 

Detectives investigating the murder of a 22-year-old man in Wembley have made two arrests.

At around 12:55hrs on Monday, 1 December, officers were called to High Road, Wembley, to reports of a stabbing.

A 22-year-old man was treated at the scene but later died in hospital. His next of kin have been informed and are being supported by specialist officers.

Earlier today (Tuesday, 2 December) a 22-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of murder at an address in Harrow, NW9. A woman, aged 21, was arrested at the same address on suspicion of assisting an offender. Both remain in custody.

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Waller, from the Met’s Homicide Command said: “We are grateful for the help we have already received from the local community and while we are not looking for anyone else in relation to this matter, I would encourage those who have not yet spoken to police to come forward as soon as possible.”

Detective Chief Superintendent Luke Williams, who leads policing for the area said: “We know this murder has caused shock and concern for residents and our officers are here to support those who live and work in the area. There will be an increased police presence at a number of locations – please do speak to these officers if you have any worries or issues.

“You can also speak directly to local ward officers by signing up to and using Met Engage.

“Our thoughts of course remain with the victim’s loved ones at this difficult time, and our specialist officers will continue to support them.”

Anyone with information can also contact 101, quoting 3333/1DEC25 or anonymously via Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

St Raph's residents win concessions over off-licence in council-owned property

 

The Lilburne Walk shoppig parade owned by Brent Council

The controversial application LINK for an off-licence at a Brent Council owned shop on St Raphael's Estate came before Brent's Alcohol and Licensing Sub-Committee yesterday. Although residents and community organisations failed to stop it completely, they did win some concessions. 

 

Three in-person objections were made at the meeting, on top of 70 objections from local residents and objections from Sufra Foodbank, An-Nisa Society, St Patrick's Church, Dar Ilm Learning Centre and St Raphs Youth Club.  Cllr Abdi Aden also objected,

 

The default committee position of granting a licence  was modified after a strong case was brought:

 

Sale of alcohol was restricted to 9am to 8pm rather than the 9am-11pm hours that applicant wanted.

 

A proposed beer fridge is to be located with other alcohol and not near the front of the shop as proposed

 

All alcohol sold must have a shop identification

The licence holder to be responsible for clearing rubbish within 5 metres of the shop front even if it is on public or private land
 
The licence holder will also be responsible for any botttles or cans found elsehwre on the estate that bear his shop identification
 
If the above conditions are breached campaigners will be able to apply for a review of te licence that could lead to it being revoked.

 

Other conditions included no spirit minatures or beers above 6.0%ABV to be stocked or sold and Challenge 25 to be adhered to.

 

Asif Zamir of St Raphael's Voice said  that on balance is was a good outcome but returned to the broader subject of residents' voices in such applications. He told Wembley Matters:

 

I will continue to push for changes to the council tender process for their own commercial assets. A resident panel must be formed for each ward and have the ability to play an advisory  role early on in the process rather that retrospectvely at a planning committee.

 

 Reviews of licenses can be requested if other attempts to improve matters fail via this LINK.

 

 

PETITION: Brent Council MUST consider the impact on residents of proposed reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre

 Urgent Treatment Centres deal with non-life threatening health issues nd relieve pressure on hosptal A&Es. With the latest CQC report on Northwick Park Hospital revealing waits of up to 12 hours the important role of the UTC at Central Middlesex is highlighred.

The NHS has proposed that the current hours at Central Middlesex Hospital  UTC (below) are reduced by 3 hours a day despite these pressures and the increase in the local populations from the new developments taking place locally. This means the UTC will close at 9pm with the last patients registered at 8pm. See LINK

 The petition below has been launched to urge Brent Council's Scrutiny Committee to consider the impact on local people of the proposal. Sign the e-petition here: 

https://tinyurl.com/protect-urgent-care

Brent Council Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee must consider proposals to reduce the opening hours of Central Middlesex Hospital Urgent Treatment Centre

We the undersigned petition Brent Council’s Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to convene an urgent meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to consider NHS proposals to cut the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital by 3 hours a day, 21 hours a week.

 

In 2014, Central Middlesex Hospital A&E Department closed following a decision from the then Conservative Heath Secretary Jeremy Hunt. At the time, we were told that the opening of an Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex hospital would mitigate the loss of the A&E department. However, in 2019, the hours of the Urgent Care Centre were reduced when the overnight Service Centre was withdrawn. Six years down the line, we are faced with yet another reduction of the renamed Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC). The Centre currently closes at midnight but, if London NW University Healthcare Trust go ahead with their proposal, it will close at 9pm.

We the undersigned are therefore firmly opposed to a further reduction of NHS services that will undoubtedly put more pressure on Northwick Park Hospital A&E and UTC and will lead to fewer people getting the required medical attention as quickly as necessary and call on the current plans to reduce the UTC hours by 3 hours each evening to form the agenda of a specially convened Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to be held as soon as possible.

We note that the 2019 proposals were considered by that Committee in July 2019 setting a precedent for the views of the Council and residents to be represented.

 People who live, work or study in Brent can sign the petition here: 

https://tinyurl.com/protect-urgent-care

CQC Report on Northwick Park Hospital Urgent & Emergency services - overall requires improvement but some good areas

 

 

Northwick Park hospital and Urgent Treatment Centre

 

From Care Quality Commission  Report

 

We carried out an unannounced assessment of Northwick Park Hospital on 15 and 16 July 2025 in line with our assessment priorities. We assessed the following assessment service group.

Urgent and emergency care

Overall, the service was rated as Requires Improvement.

The emergency department (ED) had previously been inspected in November 2019. At this inspection the urgent treatment centre (UTC) was operated by a different provider. This was the first inspection of the service that included both the emergency department and UTC as a service provided by this trust. At our last inspection the emergency department was rated as requires improvement.

The department had different areas where patients were treated including, urgent treatment centre, majors, minors, resuscitation, rapid assessment unit, and paediatric emergency department. The department was open 24 hours a day 7 days a week to both walk in patients and those arriving by ambulance.

People could not always access care, support and treatment when they needed it with some patients waiting over 12 hours in the department.

Some patients were seen and assessed in temporary escalation areas where there was no privacy, and patients did not have access to call bells should they need assistance and staff were not always visible in the areas we visited.

The service didn’t always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. Staff did not always wash their hands between patients.

Not all staff had completed safeguarding training, and several staff groups fell below the trust target completion rate of 90%.

Children were not streamed by a paediatric nurse when they arrived in the department, leading to some patients being streamed differently with similar injuries, placing them at risk of not receiving timely treatment.

The service had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion and engagement. However, not all staff were aware of the vision, and it was unclear if this had been developed in collaboration with staff.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, however, in some areas their privacy and dignity was not always respected. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Read the latest assessment report for Northwick Park Hospital - HTML

Published 26 November 2025

Church of the Ascension WINTER FAIR Saturday 29th November 11am-3pm

 

Brent' Council's efforts to address the local manifestation of the national SEND crisis

 

This image from the House of Commons Education Committee Report 'SOLVING THE SEND CRISIS' Easy Read sums up the issue faced national and in Brent in providing for the rising number of children with special needs and disabilities.

The report states:

The evidence shows a lack of standardisation in both ordinarily available provision and Special Educational Needs (SEN) support, with no clear, consistent understanding of what these should involve in practice. We heard from parents and carers that this inconsistency leads to variable quality of provision, which in turn is driving more families to seek support through specialist placements or by securing an EHC plan. It is unacceptable that aclear definition of inclusive education is still lacking.

The numbers are striking:

Since the introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of children and young people identified with special educational needs (SEN) has surged from 1.3 million to 1.7 million.1 Today over 1.2 million children and young people receive SEN support, and nearly half a million have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. Behind these numbers are families navigating a system that too often feels adversarial, fragmented and under-resourced.

In Brent LINK the numbers  have increased significanty leading to the need for additional  provision and the Council paying for places in other boroughs and in the private sector:

As of August 2025, there are 4025 children and young people living in Brent aged 0-25 with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Of these, 2414 are statutory school age, or 5.5% of the school population (similar to national levels, which currently sit at 5.3%). 12% of pupils are identified with additional needs that can be met at SEN support where a need is identified but does not meet threshold for an EHCP (compared to 14.2% nationally).

In the last year, the number of EHCPs has increased across all age groups, but not consistently.

The age groups with the highest increases in EHCP numbers were the 5-10 and 16-19 age groups, which saw increases of 8.2% and 7.4% respectively. Table 19, below, gives the EHCP % increases between 2024 and 2025 broken down by age group. It should be noted, though, that in 2024, EHCNAs for children aged 0-5 accounted for 41.3% of all new requests to assess, children aged 5-10 accounted for 39% of new requests and children/young people aged 11- 25 accounted for the remaining 19.7%.

 

The national pattern of need  is indicated by this chart from the House of Commons Report:

 

The Brent report just lists EHC Plan pupils (Blue in the above  national chart)

Communication and interaction (Including autism spectrum condition) 58.33%*

Cognitive and Leaning needs 24.06%

Social, Emotional and Mental Health 10.34%

Senseory and/or physical needs 6.73%

Other needs 0.55% 

* This has increased by 2% in just one year.

 

Brent note The predominance of Communication and Interactions as the most commonly occurring primary need in Brent’s EHCP cohort looks set to continue with the Early Years SEND team reporting 75-85% of their referrals over a 12-year period being for concerns regarding CI development. This is a national trend and is not unique to Brent.

 

London Borough of Brent provision 

 

You will notice that with the exception of The Phoenix Arch all the special schools are academies. It is significant that there is a strike over reduced wages for learning support assistants at Woodfield School currently following last year's strike at The Village School.

Wembley Manor, part of the Rise Academy Trust, a new school in London Road, Wembley has staggered its entry, not rising to its full capacity until September 2027.

In addition to the schools above there is additional provision in some other schools, often in spaces freed up by a reduction in primary pupil numbers:

Expansion of some schools is planned for 2025-2027 including on the Strathcona site in South Kenton that was once suggested as the site fro Islamia Primary, now moving to the Leopold Brentfield road site.:
 

Extracts from the Brent School Place Planning Document

 

Ongoing targeted work to support schools and settings to better meet the needs of children with SEND has seen an increase in the number of children remaining within mainstream education in Brent. However, despite increasing confidence in the mainstream sector to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND, and significant investment by Brent to increase the capacity within special educational settings and ARPs in the borough, additional special school places are required. Key numbers are as follows:

 

 48% of all children with an EHCP in Brent attend a mainstream school provision. This is an increase of 1% since this time last year.

 However, in terms of age-groups, 37% of primary aged children and 49% of secondary aged children with an EHCP require a special school place. Numerically this is expressed as 634 and 587 children respectively.

 Communication and Interaction is the area of need most strongly correlated with placement in special for both primary and secondary aged children with an EHCP in Brent, followed by Cognition and Learning for both age groups.

 

Manstream school pupils waiting for a special school place 

 

Brent currently has 136 children in mainstream schools awaiting a place in special (an increase of 16% since this time last year). Of these 136, 128 are primary age and 8 are secondary age.

 

Additionally, Brent currently has 16 children unplaced and receiving home tuition whilst a placement is sought (a 6% decrease since this time last year). Of these 16, 8 are primary aged and 8 are secondary aged. The primary need of the majority of these children is communication and interaction (most commonly ASC), accompanied by cognition and learning needs. 

 

The cost of out-of-borough and private provision is c£23m

 

199 Brent pupils with EHCPs attend out-of-borough maintained special schools (an increase of 2% since this time last year), at a cost of £5.6m per annum. This represents 8% of Brent’s school age children with an EHCP. Additionally, 197 children attend independent schools (an increase of 1.5% since last year), at a cost of £11.9m per annum. This also represents 8% of Brent’s school age children with an EHCP. The use of independent places has increased along with the cost of each place meaning that cost pressures associated with independent places have increased disproportionately to the percentage increase in places used. The transport costs for Brent children with an EHCP attending out of borough and independent provisions is circa. £6m per annum.

 

Total places requirement

 

Given the above, if all Brent children were to access a place at a maintained, in-borough special school, Brent would require a total of 1221 places (634 primary and 587 secondary), with the majority of these places being for children who have either communication and interaction or cognition and learning as their primary area of need. Brent currently has 480 places in primary age special school classes and 497 places in secondary age special school places. Of these places, 12% are occupied by children from other boroughs, leaving 422 primary places available and 437 secondary places available. Given this, Brent has a current shortfall of 212 primary places in special and 150 secondary places in special. 

 

As outlined above, to prevent Brent children with EHCP being unplaced, the independent sector, home tuition, out of borough schools and the mainstream sector are all currently being utilised.

 

The number of forecast primary special places required is similar to last year’s predictions. The latest forecasts for secondary special places are, however, higher than last year’s predictions by 50 places. This means that additional secondary places may be required sooner than previously anticipated due to increased demand:

 In August 2024, 42% of secondary age pupils were described as requiring a place in a special school. In August 2025, that percentage has risen 7% to 49%, representing a difference of circa. 41 children. 

 The increase in secondary aged children requiring a place in special is attributed to rising levels of need in Brent’s younger children as they reach secondary age. 

 Permanent exclusions in the last academic have had a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, reflecting pressures in capacity and mainstream schools’ ability to meet pupil’s needs.

The reasons for the increase in special need applications are still being debated and include better diagnosis, the impact of Covid and the school closures, and less communication between parent/carers and children in an age of mobile phone. Another article would be need to fully explore this.

There are now no local authority secondary schools in Brent. They are all stand alone academies, part of an academy chain or free schools. Anecdotally, some are more reluctant to take SEND pupils than others. 

The variety of provision, some seemingly quite ad hoc, its privatised aspects, and its cost, all have led to  Brent Council's plans to provide more in-borough provision. The privatisation and profit-making entering the arena are also reflected in very expensive private provision Child Social Care.

The National Education Union has set out is demands regarding SEND:

The NEU wants the Government to address these 5 immediate challenges on inclusion:

• Needs led funding – for SEND support, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and local SEND and mental health services. 
• A strategy to reduce Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) workload. 
• Support staff numbers must be maintained and increased. 
• Time for staff planning, family liaison and CPD. 
• DFE must support knowledge exchange and professional skills around inclusion across all curriculum subjects.  

The following goals can build positive experiences for learners with SEND:

• Every child/young person attends a school/college with an inclusive ethos. 
• Every student is assessed early and regularly for learning and social and emotional needs and appropriate support can be provided. 
• Every child/young person has a strong relationship with a trusted adult in school/college. 
• Parents/carers are engaged partner

 

The question of what is truly inclusive mainstream provision is one considered by the House of Commons Education Committee:

It would be really usesul to have a meeting or conference  in Brent open to young people, parents and educators to discuss the current SEND crisis and solutions. 

  

Is there ANYONE in favour of a pedestrian bridge across the Welsh Harp reservoir? No information on primary provision at Environmental Study Centre

 

 

The Wesh Harp Joint Consultative Committee is usually a fairly mild affair but it livened up considerably last night when a resident suggested that Barnet Council were happy to let volunteers do the work  needed to maintain the Welsh Harp but brushed aside any criticism. The Brent Council chair of the Committee, Cllr Krupa Sheth, had refused to allow 'one issue' to dominate proceedings.

 

The bridge access is just visible on Barratt's publicity

 

The resident wanted to discuss the fact that current West Hendon residents had no knowledge of the proposed bridge across the Welsh Harp  at the Silk Stream first suggested in the original planning application in 2013 LINK.  Having found out about it they were furious, particularly as they would be expected to pay for its maintenance, in addition to that for the Cool Oak Pedestrian Bridge, through their service charges.

The planning approval had involved a different group of residents and needed to be revisited. The bridge had originally been proposed when a primary school was to be built  on the West Hendon site and would have given the pupils a short cut to extensive proposed sports facilities on the opposite bank.

The primary school proposal had been dropped and the facilities drastically reduced so it was claimed the bridge was not necessary and a 'bridge to nowhere'.

Ben Watt of the Cool Oak group.  had long opposed the bridge because of its detrimental impact on the SSSI  and disturbance to wild life, as well as doubts over its construction given the silty nature of the site. He was also concerned with the safety of anyone crossing the bridge. He sets out his case under Any Other Business in the above clip.

Barnet councillors were hard put to justify the bridge, claiming it had been secured under a Section 106 agreement with Barratt, and Barratts wanted to build it. It was a private bridge for public use. There were counter claims that Barratts had told residents that Barnet Council wanted to build it, although Labour who form the current administration, opposed it in 2013.  Has it become a Labour vanity project?

 

Proposals for 16+ provision at the previous Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre remained vague with any continuation of the primary environmental provision apparently not part of plans. I will ask for more information regarding the appointment mentioned in the last paragraph.

 

Welsh Harp Centre:

 

The Centre is expected to provide opportunities for young people aged 16+ with SEND during curriculum time, with provision for community use at other times. The provision for young people with SEND will focus on developing vocational skills, such as skills in horticulture, as well as offering opportunities to better prepare Brent’s young people with SEND for adulthood.

 

In respect of the building programme the stage 2 design has now been approved. The Council’s project team has a pre-planning application meeting scheduled in November with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to outline the current design and obtain feedback. The LPA feedback and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders will influence the next stage of spatial design.

 

In terms of provision, Brent Council’s, Children, Young People & Community Development team are currently recruiting a staff member who will have oversight of the Welsh Harp Centre including curriculum development and liaison with community groups. It is expected that the post holder will start in January 2026.