The red star marks the bowling green
Brent Council announced in the Brent and Kilburn Times that it is to grant a 10 year lease on a Brent public open space, the former bowling green in King Edward VII Park, Park Lane, Wembley. The green has not been used for more than a decade and the bowling green club pavilion has been occupied by property guardians.
Residents can make objections or representations no later than 12pm on June 5th.
I understand that the lease is for the use of a local community group that responded to a request for expressions of interest late last year. It includes the bowling green and the pavilion on the site - centre left in the image above (not the pavilion in the centre of the park ear-marked for development by Stonebridge Boxing Club - they are still seeking funding).
The name of the community group cannot be disclosed until the lease is signed.
26 comments:
“The name of the community group cannot be disclosed” - is dodgy
I would encourage objections to this. Please find a template objection email.
To:
Binita.Bhudia@brent.gov.uk
📧 Subject:
Formal Objection to Lease of Public Land – King Edward VII Park, Wembley
📩 Email Body:
Dear Ms. Bhudia,
I am writing to formally object to the proposed 10-year lease of public open space at the former bowling green and pavilion in King Edward VII Park, Park Lane, Wembley.
This space has not been used for bowling for some years — but that is due to lack of maintenance and management by the Council, not because it is no longer needed. The idea that it is “surplus” is misleading. In fact, it could serve a vital role in supporting the health, wellbeing, and environmental needs of local people — especially in Wembley, where many residents live in high-rise flats with no gardens and rely on local parks as their only green space.
Leasing this land for 10 years to a single, unnamed group with no clear public plan amounts to long-term exclusion of the wider community. It contradicts Brent’s own declaration of a Climate and Ecological Emergency, as well as key public health and planning policies.
This proposal appears to conflict with:
• London Plan Policy G4, which protects open space unless it is proven to be surplus — this has not been demonstrated;
• Brent Local Plan Policy BGI1, which only permits loss of open space where there is a clearly evidenced and inclusive public benefit;
• The Mayor of London’s Health Inequalities Strategy, which stresses that access to green space is vital for reducing health inequalities, especially in areas with poor air quality and overcrowding.
It also raises serious equality concerns. In this part of Brent, with a highly diverse population and significant levels of deprivation, fencing off public space for one group — without transparency or consultation — excludes the very people who need it most.
There has been no Equalities Impact Assessment, no environmental review, and no public engagement. A 10-year lease is excessive and could lead to long-term privatisation or loss of public access altogether.
I urge Brent Council to withdraw or rethink this proposal and instead work with local residents and park users to reimagine this space as a shared, open, and climate-positive community asset — not as land to be given away behind closed doors.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
Brent resident
[Your postcode or street, optional]
[Optional: Contact email]
This is a disgrace . Four lawn tennis courts abandoned. Two given to Park lane School . Pitch and putt course shut . Children need to pay to play tennis now . This is the nearest park to the huge development around the stadium and is packed on sunny days . Most important Mo Butt has instigated a system whereby voluntary groups in Council property must pay commercial rent . The east lane theatre faced with an increase from £ 1500 per annum to. £75000 !!!’ . Measuring the space and building in the park the rent should like for like be around £ 69000 per annum . No community group will pay this . This is giving public park space to mates !!!! A disgrace . WHO is this so called Community Group ??
This is pubic land and protected by "Fields in Trust" as of the Queen Elizaabeth Julbilee in 2012 and as such they should have been consulted with regard to anything to do with the Park. It should also be noted that it should benefit the public either by providing a Sporting facility that can be enjoyed by all or improve the public's health and wellbeing.
Who is this Community Group and why are we not being told who they are and what they represent? What have they got to hide?
I have no objection to the land being leased if it improves the facilities in the Park but I am concerned that without revealing who this Community Group is it maybe that not all the public will be able to enjoy it and only a select few or members of a particular group which goes against everything Fields in Trust stand for and Brent Council are fully aware of this since they tried to let the Welsh School lease this building 10 years ago. So I will be objecting if all is not revealed asap
If the rent for the theatre went up that high surely it’d be the same for the park? Sounds like the theatre got away with murder for years on that rent - in this economy!
The role of a council is not to charge inflated business rates, but to support and facilitate positive community environments.
what undemocratic shenanigans is this? How can we register yay or nay without knowing the true intent of this community group?
Why does the public notice say Brent Council are 'disposing' of this land??? Surely they are just renting it out for 10 years on a specific lease??? Or perhaps they plan to actually sell it for housing development by the back door as in Barham Park????
Why can't local council tax payers know who plans to rent it before the lease is signed??? Is it Mr Irvin again???
Whilst it can be fully understandable that there is all this preservation to the unknown.
The current non disclosed name of the intended user of the old bowls pavilion is surely more down to legal protocols and protective clauses implemented by the council rather than anything to do with that of the intended user being secretive about things.
It also, should be considered given the previous history of known community usage that it is unlikely whatever the intended usage for the old bowls pavilion maybe that it will not provide advantages of fully benefiting the local community alongside giving full consideration to our proud multiculturalism.
Submitting objections to the council about the leasing without the full facts is going on unfounded assumptions of what could well be something of significant benefit to the local community as a whole.
So, please before saying back to the council...
"We object" - ''Let's not be hasty.".
The Council asking for comments when there is no information on usage is problematic though isn't it? If they can;t give the name of the community group, they could give a general idea of the proposed usage (eg communal food growing area, education in nature conservation, children's activities, forest school). I have emailed the named officer asking for that infromation but have received no response.
I fully concur with Martin's reply comments.
The Council's secret squirrel policy for no reasonable transparency just causes unnecessary speculation when it could have easily been avoided with disclosure information of the intended usage.
That way, objections (if any) can be submitted back to the council with full knowledge and not made up from assumptions.
And then people complain that the council’s unable to put money towards local infrastructure. You can’t have it both ways.
I fully concur with Martin's reply comments.
The Council's secret squirrel policy for no reasonable transparency just causes potential unnecessary speculation and tensions between the 'perspective' user of the old bowls pavilion and the local community, when it could have easily been avoided with disclosure information of the 'intended' usage.
At least this way, objections (if any) or, approvals can be submitted back to the council with a better knowledge and not inconclusively drawn up.
Oh absolutely. Let’s all sit quietly and clap while the council gifts public space to a mystery entity we’re not allowed to know about. Nothing shady about that at all.
I mean, who needs transparency when we have “legal protocols” and “protective clauses”? Those always work out great for the little people, right?
And how dare the public make assumptions when we’re given absolutely no information. The nerve of people wanting a say in how their own community space is used. So impatient. So irrational. So… democratic.
But don’t worry. We’re told the secret deal will probably be great. Maybe even multicultural. Maybe even magical. So just sit tight, say thank you, and don’t forget to bow politely when they unveil the surprise tenant like it’s a royal baby.
“Let’s not be hasty”? No thanks. We’ve seen how that play ends.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
What public space is been gifted by the council to a mystery entity exactly?
The old bowls pavilion was advertised for lease and placed out to tender through the council last year around October 2024.
Whomever, the community organisation that has now been accepted must have been the one that was considered the most suitable for intended community usage from those who may have applied to the councils advertisement.
From the previously advertised properties the council have put up for leasing, it is usually expected of any potential tenant to provide detailed information of their intended usage.
It is doubtful this particular application would be any different to that of any other submitted.
The constant digs made towards the successful community organisation (whomever they maybe) are not truly justified when it is obviously not a secretly done deal, that has been supposedly signed, sealed and delivered into their laps from behind closed doors by the council but, was through their legitimate expression of interest and submission of all the required paperwork expected to meet the criteria for community usage of the old bowling pavilion.
Let us be somewhat realistic here, at the end of all of these uncertainties that are being bought up here.
Whom should the actual blame lie to the lack of resourceful information being provided currently?
It is certainly not from the accepted community organisation being secretive to locals as, they would merely be adhering to what is outlined by their potential landlord (the council) about not legally disclosing more detailed information of themselves or, what is their precise intended community usage for the old bowls pavilion at this given stage.
We were told all about the boxing group who were getting the lease for the sports pavilions and despite objections they got the lease so why exactly aren't we bring told who us seeking to get the lease on the bowling club/green??? Surely the potential lease holder would want to engage with our local community re their plans and how they would enhance our local park?
For this to be so secretive is concerning - there must be a legal requirement for the potential lease holder to be named??? If there's nothing to hide why hide it?
Yes, the Council asked for expressions of interest, but that does not replace transparency. The public still has a right to know who is getting public land, what they plan to do with it, and whether it serves everyone fairly. So far, none of that has been explained.
Brent has declared a climate emergency. We are also one of the most densely populated and unequal boroughs in London. In Wembley, many people live in flats with no gardens and rely on our parks for fresh air and green space. Any decision to give part of that park over to one group for a decade needs to be justified with a proper environmental and equalities assessment.
No one is blaming the group involved. We don’t even know who they are. It is an unacceptable situation whoever they are. The concern is with the Council making long-term decisions about public land without open discussion. This should be about shared use, transparency and protecting green space for the whole community.
The council tax paying public should know the details of everyone that declared an interest in taking on the lease - how do we know that the council has accepted the best candidates without bias???
We also need to know the terms of the proposed lease, hours of use etc so that park users, local residents and park wildlife are not disturbed excessively including early mornings and late evenings.
How is this allowed? Can the secrecy be challenged?
Unfortunately, if you ask Brent Council for the information, which they should disclose voluntarily, they will tell you that they can't, because it's commercially sensitive!
Dear Anonymous (31 May at 08:18),
Every time a new development starts building in Brent (and there have been plenty of those in Wembley in recent years) the Council receives a payment from the developer called a Community Infrastructure Levy. The larger the development, the bigger the CIL amount.
That is the money which the Council has to pay for local infrastructure, and at one time Brent had around £200m in CIL money sitting unspent in its bank account. I don't know what the current figure is.
LATEST: The lease is for the bowling green and its pavilion. The operators’ vision is to hold community and recreational activities indoors and outdoors.
Community and recreational activoties for the whole community??? If this is true why the secrecy re who the applicant is??? Makes no sense.
Judging by Martin's picture highlighted the red star the land is being leased by someone from North Korea. We live in a diverse society so why should our friends from North Korea not be able to enjoy a bit of beautiful piece of a historic British Park. By all accounts people in the socialist republic of North Korea are used to a Dictatorship so why be surprised if the Labour run Bent Council wishes to imitate it?
“The operators’ vision is to hold community and recreational activities indoors and outdoors”
Could still be anyone doing anything!
Bet it's Irvin with his funfair as the residents of the new homes he's building in Barham Park (thanks a very poor decision by Barham Park Trust to remove the restrictive covenant there) to will surely complain about the noise disturbance, flashing lights and fumes from the generators of all the funfair rides right by their houses for weeks on end each year!
Post a Comment