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 However, in 2019, the hours of the Urgent Care Centre were reduced when the overnight Service Centre was withdrawn.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.

 

 

BRENT NEU members strike at Local Schools Trust they claim is intent on cutting staff pay while top executives maintain their own pay

 

The picket line outside Woodfield School  (Credit: Brent NEU)

From Brent branch of the National Education Union 

NEU members at Woodfield School- a special school catering for children and young people with complex needs and autism - are striking in a fight to retain their pay, resulting in the school being closed.

Hardworking learning support assistants at the school, which is run by Compass Learning Partnership face pay cuts resulting from a forced change in hours.  The local trust faced three days of strikes at their other school last term. The current changes were decided as part of a restructure which retained high levels of pay for top executives.

 

The NEU has reached out to the trust and to Brent council to try to resolve the pay and funding issues but there is no resolution at the time of writing.

  

Jenny Cooper, local branch secretary, has stated:

 

This school and trust cannot operate without our members- they are the frontline workforce behind a company that generates generous salaries for its top executives. We do not see why staff in the classroom should see cuts to their pay when it is already so low.

Brent warns of potentially noisy night roadworks and closure in Sudbury December 15th to 17th

 

From Brent Council

 

Carriageway Resurfacing – East Lane Wembley (Pasture Road-Oldborough Road) --- Night Work

I am writing to inform you of planned carriageway resurfacing works in East Lane Wembley between Pasture Road and Oldborough Road. This work has been programmed to commence on Monday 15th December 2025 and be completed by Wednesday 17th December 2025, between the hours of 8.00 pm and 5.00 am weather permitting.

Works will be carried out by our contractor O’Hara Bros Surfacing Ltd on behalf of the London Borough of Brent.

Please see above map showing the extent of work highlighted in red. The road will be closed during the period of this work. Traffic marshals will be on site to assist residents.

We ask that you please ensure no vehicle or other obstructions are left on the road during the period of the resurfacing. Any vehicles that have not been moved and are stopping the works from taking place will be carefully relocated to a street nearby by a tow truck.

If your vehicle has been removed and relocated to another street whilst the resurfacing works are in progress, please telephone 0208 8689997.

Due to the nature of the work, it is likely that there will be higher levels of noise, but we will do our best to keep the disruption to a minimum and complete the works as swiftly as possible.

If you have any questions, would like more information about the planned works, or you have a disability and require this information in another format, please email Public Liaison Officer N.purkiss@oharabros.co.uk or call 020 84242220

Thank you in advance for your patience and co-operation. We hope these changes will make a real difference to you and your street.

Meeting to support Willesden Green Access Group's bid for escalators/lift at the station TONIGHT Pakistani Community Centre 7-9pm

 

Improve Accessibility at Willesden Green Underground Station. Join the meeting tomorrow!

Willesden Green Access Group (WGAG) are holding a meeting with key stakeholders and the community to discuss plans to improve accessibility (by installing lifts/escalators) at Willesden Green station.

 

Transport for London (TfL) recently announced that Willesden Green has been shortlisted, amongst 17 other London Underground stations, to receive a feasibility study for accessibility installations. After this study just 2 stations will be selected to receive accessibility installations from TfL - such as lifts and escalators. 

 

WGAG volunteers have been working on this proposal since 2018, and they need your help at this next phase. Please join the meeting tomorrow to lend your support.

Register to join the meeting: 

 

When: Tomorrow Monday 24th November 2025,

At: 7:00-9:00pm

Where: Pakistani Community Centre, Marley Walk (off Station Parade), NW24PU

 

Please register via Eventbrite (below) and email to confirm your attendance: WGAG Chairperson Sajidah Kazmi at WillesdenGreenAccessGroup@outlook.com

Once registered , a Zoom Link can be sent to those who are unable to attend in person.

 

Eventbrite Link to register attendance:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/.../willesden-green-access...

Altamira and the Morland Gardens delay – Brent Council’s response.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From Brent Council’s adopted Local Plan Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Last week Martin published a guest post with the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Director of Property and Assets (Morland Gardens – (Happy?) Anniversary Brent! Why the delay?). I promised to let readers know what the Council said in reply, and here is the full text of the email I received on 18 November, with the names of Council Officers replaced by their job titles.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

RE: New Service Request: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - What are Council Officers' recommendations and when will they be published?  

 

Thank you for your open letter dated 10 November 2025, and note that [the Director of Property and Assets] has asked me to respond on the queries raised:

 

1. Please let me know the date by which Council Officers intend to make their detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens.

 

As you state in your open letter dated 10 November 2025, Cabinet approved the facility mix at Morland Gardens for affordable homes and youth facilities in June 2025. Please note that establishing the youth provisions/requirements is a crucial enabler to bringing forward a vision for the site that aligns with the Cabinet approved facility mix. The Council has therefore been liaising with a range of youth service providers to better understand what/how they would seek to use the building/site to meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough.

 

In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in with regards to increased borrowing costs, construction inflation, and compliance with new/enhanced building safety standards. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has recently issued its new Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 – 2036 and the Council will be reviewing this funding prospectus to see if it can provide the Council a viable route to bring forward affordable housing schemes on sites such as Morland Gardens. The SAHP funding window opens in February 2026 and closes in April 2026, so the Council will be able to confirm after this date if a grant bid for Morland Gardens has been included.

 

With the work currently being undertaken, the Council cannot confirm a date by which officers intend to make detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens until we are able to lock in the proposed youth service provisions for the site and the affordable homes funding opportunities through the SAHP.

 

2. Please also let me know (as some decision on this point must surely have been reached after two years of review) whether those recommendations will include retaining the heritage Victorian villa building, Altamira, as requested in the Willesden Local History Society petition which was presented to September's Full Council meeting, and supported then by councillors from across all three political parties.

 

As per the response to the petition from the Willesden Local History Society, no decision has been made on the retention or not of the Altamira building. Any decision will be based on the outcome of the above (youth provision identification, housing scheme requirements) for Cabinet to make a considered decision.

 

Thank you once again for your open letter, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

The response says why Brent is not currently building many new homes, and these words in the answer to point 1 are of more general interest: ‘In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in ….’ The reference to ‘social rent tenure’ is another example of the misrepresentation of “social housing” terms frequently coming from the Council’s Officers and members.

 

The only new genuine Social Rent level homes which Brent Council provides go to existing tenants who are moved to new homes because the Council wants to demolish their existing home. If you want to understand the different types of affordable housing, please read my November 2022 guest post Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply.

 

Illustration from Brent’s March 2025 Council Tax leaflet.

 

While I’m on the subject of the Council’s misleading information about affordable housing, you may remember my guest post from last April: How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26? It was in a leaflet sent to every Council Taxpayer in the borough, including a letter to residents from the Council Leader saying how well they had done. And the answer to the question of how many affordable homes Brent Council had actually delivered itself in 2024/25 was 26, not the 530 they wanted us to believe!

 

You will also notice from the response above that the proposed affordable housing at Morland Gardens may well depend on Brent getting financial help from the GLA’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-2036. But I can’t help wondering - what happened to the £107m of funding which Brent trumpeted that it had been promised from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026? 

 

From the GLA’s affordable homes website.

 

How much of that promised £107m was spent by Brent Council, and how many new affordable homes were built with that money? Wasn’t it meant to be helping to fund the regeneration of St Raphael’s Estate (see this June 2021 post: Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?)? How many new homes have been built so far as part of the long-promised St Raphael’s regeneration? (I don’t know – perhaps someone can give the answer in a comment below, please.)

 

Brent’s original 2020 Morland Gardens scheme was meant to use £6.5m in funding from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2021 (extended to 2023, because of Covid). That money was lost, but it could have been used instead for a Council redevelopment at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent before Morland Gardens in 2020, and would have provided 67 affordable homes. That project could not go ahead because of the flawed Cabinet decision to move Brent Start to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe on that site. You can read the details in my October 2021 guest post: 1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged.

 

It was hard not to get distracted by some of the contents of the Council’s response above, but I must get back to the main point of this guest post. Should I just accept what the Council Officer was saying, or should I reply? I chose the second option, and this is what I wrote:

 

‘Dear [Head of Capital Delivery},

 

Thank you for your email, in response to my open email of 10 November to [the Director of Property and Assets]. As the text of my open email was made public, both online and in the "Brent & Kilburn Times" (see below), I will seek to make the text of your reply, on behalf of Brent Council, publicly available.

 

The information given at point 1 is helpful in understanding the continuing delay, although this will mean another winter when the empty property can suffer further weather damage. That is not good stewardship of a valuable heritage building!

 

I am disappointed with the response to point 2, because it suggests that the only factors which will be taken into account in deciding whether Officers should recommend either retaining or demolishing the heritage building will be what is required for the proposed youth provision and housing scheme. That approach ignores the requirements of Brent Council's heritage planning policy BHC1, and its adopted Historic Environment Strategy, which both signal the importance of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in proposed developments affecting them.

 

I have referred to the section on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" before, but these words from it need repeating:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.'

 

The historic value of "Altamira" is huge. This was the landmark building at the entrance to an 1870s estate named Stonebridge Park. It was in at the birth of that district of our borough, and with its distinctive belvedere tower, it was one of the few original Victorian villas left standing when most of the street called Stonebridge Park was demolished to make way for the 1970s Stonebridge Park Brent Council estate.

 

Many of those 1970s buildings were demolished after less than 30 years, but "Altamira" is now 150 years old, and still in good structural condition, as well as being a beautiful example of Italianate architecture. It will be part of the Morland Gardens regeneration site, and it can be used for place-making purposes, helping to share the story of Stonebridge Park with young people, and the wider community, now and for future generations. That is why it should be retained, and why you and other Council Officers involved should decide to recommend its retention as part of your detailed submission to Cabinet.

 

Please keep me updated on progress with your review, and let me know if you need support from me (and the wider local history community) for an SAHP funding bid which includes retaining the heritage building. Best wishes,’

 

 

Philip Grant.