Save East Lane Theatre, Wembley, from destruction. Don't delay - sign the petition today.

 

East Lane Theatre in Wembley faced with closure after a  proposed giganic rent increase by Brent Council has launched a petition:

 

We the undersigned petition the council to reconsider the rent increase of circa 5000% on the current rent of £1,500 per annum on our small, volunteer run theatre. An affordable rent for East Lane Theatre Company (ELTC), a valuable community asset, would ensure it can continue to serve the community of Brent.

 

East Lane Theatre Club (ELTC) has been in residence at the Vale Farm Tennis Pavilion since the early 1960s. ELTC have developed a theatre on the site and maintain & insure the buildings with no council funding. Although recognising the obligations on ELTC under the current lease to maintain the site on which the theatre is located, it is the theatre rather than the Council which has ensured the site remains in good order for many years.

 

ELTC were in negotiation over our lease renewal with Brent prior to their new Property Strategy being published with the Strategy having subsequently led to what the Club now feels is an unjustifiable high increase in their rental charge.

 

We the undersigned feel that Brent’s new Property Strategy should therefore make allowance for buildings that have a specific role and are used by the community also, in the case of ELTC, recognising the link to Brent’s Cultural Strategy.

 

The Club provides theatre at an affordable price, it supports its members’ wellbeing and provides a safe place to explore new skills. It entertains and supports residents unable to afford West End ticket prices or travel to the West End, with other similar local theatres in Greater London and other areas supported by their Councils.

 

We urge the Council to reconsider the way in which the Property Strategy has been applied to ELTC in order to avoid the theatre being destroyed by a rent hike it just cannot afford.

 

This ePetition runs from 09/02/2025 to 11/05/2025.

 

SIGN HERE

 

 

UPDATE: Brent Council's housing companies report tonight - positives and risks

 UPDATE: I hoped to report on the discussion of this item at last night's meeting but the live stream was not resumed for some time after a break in the meeting. The 'silent' period was when the discussion of the items below took place so I shall have to wait for the minutes to record any key points.

 

Brent Council owns two companies that act in the housing market on the Council's behalf. Tonight they report at the Standards and Audit Committee on their activities and financial position.

Elsewhere in London such companies have had financial difficulties so the Committee will be interested in their situation.

 

i4B (Investment for Brent) report:

At our last meeting in September, we raised the issue that i4B was likely to use up its remaining funding by the end of the financial year, and both then and since, received helpful signals that further funding would be available to support good acquisition prospects. Assuming that is still the case, the company will continue to look out for such prospects

 

With a profit forecast, excluding tax, for the year, the company is in a healthy cash position, so there is no risk of insufficient liquidity to carry out its normal business activities. However, if i4B Ltd is to engage in future refurbishment projects, e.g. Granville, they will require a cash injection from the London Borough of Brent  as the business plan for 2025/26 onwards shows a risk that the company’s cash position could be overdrawn.

 

As of January 2025 i4B has housed and discharged the Council’s housing duty to 504 families and 1138 children. The majority of these families were previously housed in stage one TA [Temporary Accommodation]. The number of families housed is higher than i4B’s PRS portfolio due to a number of families moving on to other accommodation, with new families moving in.

 

The main risks the company faces are detailed below:

 Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants

 High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for i4B

 High capital programme costs, including stock condition, energy efficiency and decarbonisation expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan

 Company cash flow (capital and revenue) is insufficient to manage expenditure

 i4B does not effectively manage its contract for the remote management of Home Counties properties, leading to poor performance and risk to tenant satisfaction

 Challenges in the regulatory and external environment

PRS is Private Rented Sector

I queried the figures below as they clearly do not add up but I had not had a reply from Brent before delayed publication. Possibly 4 bed+ should be 156 but that is subject to clarification. UPDATE: Brent Council confirmed today March 26th that the correct 4 bed figure is 56 making the overall figure if 465 correct.

i4B has a profit forecast of under £1m for 2024-25 compared with £1.39m  the previous year. It has a net rental income of £10.279m.

First Wave Housing has similar risks:

The main risks the company faces are detailed below:

 Poor rent collection performance due to unaffordability of rent for tenants

 High void turnaround times, costs and rent loss lead to financial losses for FWH

 High capital programme costs, including stock condition and energy efficiency expenditure, adversely affect the company business plan.

Brent Council has agreed the acquisition of 294 units of the Fulton Road development that is currently under construction. 118 of the units will be leased to First Wave subject to financial review and approval by the First Wave Board. They will be let at London Living Rent. 

First Wave  has an operating surplus of £0.508m and a net rental income of £3.41m. 

 

I asked about the 'Settled Homes' category above and was told that:

Settled Homes are a form of long-term temporary accommodation. They are let on assured shorthold tenancies, and have a target rent of the affordable rent level (80% of market rent).

So very few of the homes above are at social rent and none at council rent.

 

 

 

 

 

Do you bit for wildlife! Hedge Planting at Bush Farm, Kingsbury this weekend Noon to 4pm

 

From Bush Farm Collective

 

COME ALONG TO BUSH FARM 

On the 22nd and 23rd of March in-between 12 and 4pm
For our community planting project
All ages welcome!

This will be our 1st project of the year and certainly a special one as it will provide new homes for our beloved wildlife.

Get to know what's coming up this year and how you can get involved!! Community is the key!

Cakes and refreshments on site 

Don't forget your wellies, we can supply spades but they are limited so please feel free to bring your own.

We advise walking or getting public transport, 302 or 83 bus.

We look forward to planting and meeting you! 

 

Purple pin marks the path into Fryent Country Park and Bush Farm. Bus stops on Church Lane, NW9.

 

 

Greens: London’s housing market is broken. It’s designed for the wealthy to profit while Londoners suffer. Overseas investment makes it worse.

During today’s Mayor’s Question Time (MQT), Zoë Garbett, Green Party London Assembly Member, raised concerns about the Mayor’s London Growth Plan – published last month – specifically highlighting his heavy reliance on overseas investment to address the city’s housing crisis. Zoë told the Mayor that this would only continue to exacerbate the issue of housing inequality in the city. 

In response, the Mayor defended his position, saying, “we do want foreign investment for the simple reason that there has not been enough investment from the Government.”

Reflecting on the Mayor’s response, Zoë Garbett AM says: 

London’s housing market is broken. It’s designed for the wealthy to profit while Londoners suffer. Overseas investment is not a solution to the housing crisis – in fact, it’s made the situation worse.

It’s telling that the Mayor has admitted he’s forced to rely on overseas investment while the Labour government refuses to provide essential public funds for housing. What kind of message does that send about priorities? Londoners deserve better than to be left at the mercy of speculative overseas money.

With 40% of Londoners’ wages going to rent, 60,000 families stuck in temporary accommodation, social housing waiting lists at a ten year high and 300,000 homes approved but not built, it’s clear the current system is not working.

Sky-high rents and the cost of living crisis are leaving schools struggling to stay open and driving families out of the city they call home. 

Without a meaningful shift in government policy and funding, London’s housing market will continue to serve the interests of a wealthy few.

 

Union Park North beginning to take shape in Wembley Park

 

I had a peek at Union Park North currently under construction in Wembley Park this morning. It is claimed to take inspiration from Humprey Repton who created the landscape around Barn Hill from around 1793.

At this stage there appears to be too much concrete to my taste and a natural pond/lake would be more in the Barn Hill tradition but of course it is early days. Some tree planting has already taken place and  plans include 'a community centre, public art, a dedicated area for pets to enjoy some ‘pet time’ off their lead and a new bandstand for free music and entertainment year-round.'

Quintain claim that there are two aspects to the name 'Union Park' one aspect is bringing together a new community and the other a tribute to  Walter Citrine, the first Baron of Wembley and 'one of the leading British and international trade unionists in the 20th century. Baron Citrine was widely credited for providing the Trades Union Congress with the administrative backbone it needed to become the respected lobbying organisation it is today.'

It will be interesting to see what is planned to explain his contribution in the new park.

 

The south section of Union Park has been open for some time. It is reviewed HERE.

Petition to reclaim Barham Park from developers

 

The four houses proposed for Barham Park

 

A petition to safeguard Barham Park from development ends on April 15th 2025. The text below is self explanatory. If you wish to sign the petition got to the Brent Council website HERE.

We the undersigned petition the council to listen to local residents, users and supporters of Barham Park and for the Barham Park Trust and Brent Council to respect the wishes of Titus Barham who gifted his home and gardens for our recreation, by upholding the Covenant which prevents the building of extra houses on the site of 776/778 Harrow Road and to continue to refuse any attempts to modify or discharge the restrictive covenants to increase the numbers of homes on the site of 776/778 Harrow Road. The two cottages were built for the purpose of housing park keepers (gardeners and other staff) working in the Park and not to provide general housing. As the existing houses have not been used for that purpose for years we the undersigned feel there is a valid argument for their removal and for the park land to be reinstated with no valid justification to expand the number of houses from 2 to 4. 

 

The original Covenant was put in place by the Barham Park Trust Committee in 2011 (when the two cottages were being sold with the aim of generating match funding for a National Lottery Heritage Grant) with the clear intention of protecting Barham by NOT allowing the building of more houses or extensions on the existing site. The buyer of the two houses was fully aware of this and willingly signed and entered into the Restrictive Covenant. Any attempts by the appointed Trustees to modify or discharge the restrictive covenant will go against the original aim in seeking to protect the site for the benefit of local people as opposed to the enrichment of a selected individual/family.

The Kingsbury Swimming Pool Story – free talk at Kingsbury Library on Monday 31 March (+ an Ace Café talk on 21 March)

  Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

Lining up for a schools swimming race in the 1960s.

 

If you haven’t lived in the Wembley area for more than 35 years, you may not be aware that there was once a public swimming pool in Kingsbury’s Roe Green Park. The full story of this popular local “lido” from the 1930s, which even hosted some international competitions, will be shared in an illustrated talk at a free Kingsbury Library “coffee morning”, from 11am to 12noon on Monday 31 March (tea, coffee and biscuits available from 10.45am).

 

As can be seen from the photograph above, Kingsbury’s pool was an outdoor one. It was built by Wembley Borough Council. After that became part of the London Borough of Brent in 1965 there were plans (several times!) to build an indoor pool alongside it. This extract from a Council document shows one of the proposals. 

 

Extract from a Brent Council report in 1966.

 

Despite the ‘modern thinking’, Kingsbury not only failed to get an indoor pool, it eventually lost the swimming pool it already had! You can find out how this came about, and what replaced the pool, in my talk. As well as some nostalgia (and there will be time at the end for those who wish to share their memories of the pool), the talk reflects some of the 20^th century’s social history. You will be very welcome if you wish to come along (see poster below), and you can reserve your free place here.

 

Poster for the talk, showing a few more of the many illustrations.

 

Another example of local social history is the Ace Café, by the North Circular Road at Stonebridge. Its story will be celebrated at Wembley History Society on Friday 21 March, from 7.30 to 9pm, when Mark Wilsmore, who resurrected and runs this iconic venue, will be giving a talk on “Ace Times Then & Now – A Cafe and a Culture”. The meeting is at St Andrew’s Church Hall, Church Lane, Kingsbury, NW9 8RZ, and visitors are welcome (a donation of £3 towards costs is requested).

 

I look forward to seeing you at one, or both, of these local history talks!

Philip Grant.

Time to work with Affinity on issues around water supply to the thousands of new homes planned for Wembley, Alperton and Northwick Park

There was some confusion at this week's Planning Committee when councillors discussed the Atlip, Alperton planning application. Cllr Saqib Butt asked about concerns raised by Thames Water over a previous application on the site. He was puzzled that they had raised no concerns over the revised application which was double the size of the original.

 

I went back to the recording to try and clarify what was said. It appear that the reference to Thames Water is about foul water capacity and the officer's reply merely says that there must have been some work on capacity in the meantime. 

In the north of Brent water is supplied by Affinity Water and dispersal of foul water by Thames.

The Committee papers show no consultation with Affinity as the suppliers on water  supply capacity and no assurance that they have to capacity to supply such a large development.

This is obviously crucial and can be set against the works on Watford Road that Affinity is currently undertaking to improve supply.

 Brent Council has confirmed that the works are essential to deliver the required water for the growth of development in Wembley and Alperton consisting of large blocks of flats and apartment which are built rapidly.

Currently there are 2,293 properties under construction and Affinity are aware of 3,905 proposed future developments. I am not sure if this includes the regeneration underway in Northwick Park.

Without the reinforcement works taking place immediately it has been modelled that an estimated 2,916 properties could experience periods without water and 5,084 with poor presssure within the Wembley area.

Some areas in the north of the borough already experience low pressure so it seems essential that Affinity are consulted at the planning stage of new developments and perhaps invited to Scrutiny to clarify the issues as Thames Water was in the past.

 

Another Scrutiny Call-in over Barham Park Trust Commitee decisions - scheduled for Thursday April 3rd, 2025

Persistence is the name of the game regarding the much-questioned decisions of the Barham Park Trust following the meeting on Monday 24th February where applications by councillors and public to speak were refused.

Now a combination of opposition councillors has submitted a detailed Call-in for an additional meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee that has been approved. It covers the restricted covenants of 776 and 778 Harrow Road that the Trust is seeking to remove after a payment by developer and funfair owner,  George Irvin, as well as other operational issues.

The meeting will take place at 6pm on Thursday April 3rd in the Grand Hall at Brent Civic Centre.   

The Call-in Details:

 

 

Letter: Paddington Old Cemetery-why we think Brent is acting in an opaque and undemocratic manner

 Dear Editor

 

I writing to share our bitter disappointment in Brent Council’s decision to instruct dog owners to keep their dogs on a lead in Paddington Old Cemetery (POC) and our belief that Brent is acting in an opaque and undemocratic manner, justifying their decisions with 'fake news’.

The consultation was a fiasco from the outset, with biased questions including options like ‘do you agree/disagree that dogs should be allowed to defecate on graves?’

 

We engaged with the process and contributed to the consultation, but it has been ignored, and POC’s PSOP exemption allowing off lead walking has now been removed.  

 

Brent claim that:

- Complaints have increased to 74 last year but they refuse to tell us how many individuals this includes. For example, through an FOI request we know that when there were 65 complaints, in November 2024, 11 were individual complainants making multiple complaints

 

- They claim they are working for the community yet even in their own consultation, the majority of respondents wanted to keep off-lead walking (61% vs not 39% see chart below) and they have ignored the survey evidence that we make POC safer because of the daily, year-round, rain or shine, presence of dog walkers. We were supported by the local school (Salusbury Primary School whose green space is in POC) because a thriving dog walking community has made the space safer for children.  We have also shown that women walking alone feel safer because it’s alway busy with people enjoying the space  from the local community  (unlike all the other cemeteries in Brent where there are  hardly any people walking around).

 

 

- They are also ignoring the fact that people will be forced to drive to other places to exercise their dogs. Their two alternatives are not realistic - Tiverton Green is very small with multiple open gates, and Paddington Recreation Ground is already busy enough. 

- They have rejected the idea that the poo on graves could possibly be from foxes on the basis that there is ‘no evidence’ for that despite it being more in keeping with fox behaviour to poo on an actual grave.

 

Brent is offering to consult on a fenced off off-lead walking area, but this could cause more problems for the homeowners on Tennyson Road where they are thinking of doing this. And could have more negative impacts on dog behaviour. They are also offering to set up a 'Paddington Old Cemetery Liaison Committee' which will include DOPOC (Dogs of Paddington old Cemetery). We have been asking for engagement from the very beginning and they have ignored us. That’s why we think this might be performative.  

 

They are simply not being honest with the community. Peter Gadsdon (Head of Cemeteries) who has just retired took control of POC in 2022 when it was taken away from ‘Parks’ with a ‘dig baby dig’ plan agreed with Mo Butt. 

 

There is no more than c.125 available burial sites left at POC so the only way they can achieve this is by building multiple new mounds even though they have many other cemeteries in Brent which do not serve the wider community and the local school like POC. These are traditional cemeteries with few visitors beyond funerals and a handful of mourners a week. Is this  Brent's real pan for POC?

 

 In doing so they are taking away a valuable green community space in a very built-up area. They simply do not see the community and environmental value in all this. They have never understood POC or care that by destroying this precious green space it will have an enormous negative impact  on the whole community - not dogs.

 

Chair, DOPOC (Dogs of Paddington Old Cemetery)

 

UPDATE WITH GLA LINK: 885 units in towers up to 29 storey high in Alperton approved by Brent Council Planning Committee. Randall Avenue application pulled.

 

The crowded Atlip access road car park yesterday - 885 homes to come on the site

The application to build  885 housing units on the Atlip Centre site, Alperton, was approved yesterday as expected, despite opposition. The development will consist of 2, 8,10, 20, 23 and 29 storey buildings on a relatively small site. Planning officers recommended approval.

Unusually a long-time Alperton resident spoke in support describing the run-down nature of the site and the opportunities provided by a creative zone as well as the need for housing. Newly elected Liberal Democrat councillor Charlie Clinton spoke against with concerns about over-crowding of the area due to the density of the proposal and concern that assumptions about a car-free development were not realistic given the size of the project in terms of housing and commercial units.

There was a long discussion on the Committee with issues around failure to meet affordable housing targets and the affect of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties (deemed tolerable by planning officers as weighed against the benefits of the scheme), and of course parking - quite a issue on Ealing Road at the best of times.

There was concern about the loss of the Clay Oven Banqueting Hall with the developer claiming that there was no interest in continuing the facility from present and potential businesses. They conceded that there was a possibility of someone applying to run a similar business from one of the commercial units or facilities at the proposed community centre.

The loss of the current gym on the site was also a concern and there was discussion about using revenue from the development for the provision of an outdoor gym. 

Assurances were sought that the co-living units would not be used as student accommodation. Comparisons were made with HMOs but the developer insisted that they were an alternative to one bedroomed flats for young people and had additional shared facilities compared with HMOs. They would be professionally run.

Eventually the application was approved unanimously by the Committee.

UPDATE: The application now goes to the GLA for Stage 2 consideration and residents can make a comment on their website. Register for updates and to make a comment here HERE.

At the beginning of the meeting the controversial Randall Avenue, Dollis Hill, application was withdrawn from the agenda on officers' recommendation as discrepancies in the drawings for the development had been found. I understand that legal issues were also raised. The decision was made against the background of changes in  planning staff dealing with the application.

 

Roots of Brent Video: Don't let climate change affect our young people

 

 

A brilliant  youth-led documentary produced by Nadia Khan, Climate Action Partnerships Manager at Brent Council, is now available on YouTube and shows a wide range of inspiring community action on climate change in the borough:

Roots of Brent – A youth-led climate documentary. Young people in Brent take the spotlight in the fight against climate change with "Roots of Brent", a powerful documentary showcasing their experiences and local climate action. Premiered at the Brent Climate Showcase (20 Feb 2025), this film highlights the incredible efforts shaping a greener future. 

 

Supported by Brent Council’s climate action programme & sponsored by FM Conway

UPDATE: Bookshare facility removed from Willesden Green and other stations due to alleged fire risk

 

Users of the bookshare at Willesden Green tube station are reported to have gathered to try and reinstate it following removal due to alleged fire risk.

As spokeswoman for the voluntary Cricklewood  Library told Wembley Matters:

Cricklewood Library set up the Willesden Green book share around 2017. It was maintained by campaigners and was immediately well received. When books are on the shelves Based on a conservative estimate of five people visiting the shelves over eight hours a day, approximately 15,000 visits to the shelves are made. This is a significant number. 

 

Since the library opened in 2021 Cricklewood Library hasn't had the capacity to formally support the bookshare and it's taken on its own momentum. Donated books do get sent there if they aren't suitable for the library. The reason Friends of Cricklewood Library don't formally support the bookshare is that we are stretched to keep the library open for four days a week.

The issue of fire and safety in relation to the bookshare has been mentioned before and the books and shelves removed. However this was due to an individual with mental health problems and the shelves were reinstated.

You may have seen the article in the Standard LINK which talks about fire hazards. Willesden Green Station is not sub-surface and there are two exits. The bookshare shelves have suffered from damp and the books too, so they don't appear to be an obvious fire risk.

We are sad to see the well-established and well-loved bookshare dismantled with no notice to the community. 

The official reasons for the removal have been published on Facebook:

The London Fire Brigade said legal regulations required TfL to remove book libraries from any subsurface Tube stations. It added non-subsurface stations had been asked to remove their libraries from public display until “correct fire safety plans” were in place.

TfL said it was working to see if the libraries could make a return to non-subsurface Tube stations in future, which would be allowed if measures to mitigate fire risks are taken.

All book libraries must be withdrawn from the premises and the contents removed from the station- they do not have any approvals from our Fire Safety Unit and our regulator the LFB, this means that currently they breach the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and the Fire Precautions (Sub-surface Railways stations)(England) Regulations 2009, for example Article 7 (1) states

All parts of the station premises must be kept clear of combustible refuse or other combustible material

by failing to do this is likely to result in enforcement action from the LFB.

In addition to the above, I would add some safety justification behind the RRO and PRSSR statutory requirements.

• Combustible materials present a fire risk in a public space that is used as the means of escape in the stations.
• The fire risk mitigations that are in place to reduce fire and smoke spread in other rooms of the station are installed to provide safe evacuation for the occupants and are not present for the book libraries.
• The reason that detection, suppression and compartmentation isn’t mandated is that the public areas are to remain sterile and materials controlled to a strict standard.
• The books and the wooden cabinets are combustible and result in fire developing at a quick rate.

  There does seem to be some hope that the bookshare could be restored to Willesden Green Station after review as it is a non-subsurface station, as the Cricklewood Library spokeswoman pointed out, and has two entrances.

After all, environmentally and educationally, it is much better to share and reuse books, rather than have them dumped in landfill, burned or left on the streets as flytipping.  

UPDATE: Cllr Tariq Dar is contacting the station to make sure the remover property is safe, the London Mayor is taking up with TfL and there is a petition you can sign in support of the bookswap at Newcare Pharmacy across Station Parade from the station.