Road closures and bus diversions from 1.30pm tomorrow (THURSDAY) for Guns n' Roses at Wembley Stadium

 School children and workers will be affected by tomorrow's early road closures as they try to get home.

Bring back a Housing Committee so we have effective oversight and scrutiny!

 

 

There was something rather familiar about the issues discussed at the Audit and Standards Advisory Sub-Committee and the solutions put  forward. The Sub-committee were discussing the actions being undertaken following the Council reporting itself to the Regulator of Social Housing,

In March 2016 Brent Housing Partnership  was put into Special Measures after performance failings. BHP was an arms length adjunct of Brent Council.  Some of the Council's concerns were included in a report to Cabinet in June 2016:

Eventually Brent Council decided to bring housing management back in-house and BHP was dissolved in October 2017:

 

Tenants were promised:

• More investment in up-to-date technology, such as a new smartphone app for simple transactions
• More joined up approach between housing and other council services, to provide a better customer experience for tenants and leaseholders
• A more responsive and flexible repairs service
• More and better targeted investment in estates, blocks, and houses
• Review of service standards, to ensure we are delivering what residents want 

 

Better engagement of residents in decision-making about their homes and estates.

How far those promises have been kept can be judged by the contributions to this blog by tenants on the St Raphael's and South Kilburn estates as well as the findings of the Housing Regulator.

Audit set out to ask frank and honest questions. It emerged that when Spencer Randolph became director of Housing Services some 11 months ago, he discovered the failings in the council housing service and saw no option but to report them to the Regulator.  During the meeting he remarked that he had previously held private landlords to account via the licensing scheme, and now in his role as a 'landlord' in change of Brent council housing, he had to hold the council to account. He had previously been unaware of the gravity of the situation.

Rather than going over old ground (presumably including who was to blame for the failures) he wanted to move on, and the Council will begin again to carry out assessments on all 33 of their high-rise blocks and pick up the required actions now. 

He said that the reason the fire risk assessments were not done properly was in the way they had been recorded - issues, actions taken and closed down (completed). The new system introduced two years ago should indicate when information is missing but had only been in active use since he came in 11 months ago and wanted up to date and robust information.

Cllr Malloy asked if staff had been recording that they had taken an action when they hadn't. Randolph said they didn’t know yet, that would come as a consequence of the audit that was being undertaken.

Cllr Long recognised that he had inherited the problem and asked it the issue was lack of tenant engagement and scrutiny. Randolph said it was probably lack of oversight of data management from a management perspective and inadequate training of staff. An engagement team had been brought in in March 2025 and were doing lots of engagement. In fact, the Regulator had complimented the authority on the engagement approach they were now taking.

 The audit currently taking place would take 6-8 weeks including report writing and he expected it would take a year to 18 months to achieve a C2 or C1 compliance rating.

He listed the 'Big Eight' that were being audited: fire safety, asbestos management, electricity and gas safety, water, lifts, damp, mould, smoke and Co2 detectors.  There would be a 'deep dive' into these compliance issues.

Cllr Kabir said that housing was the most important part of the council's work. Years ago, there had been a Housing Committee and personally, she though it should be brought back. Housing needs far more scrutiny and overview than it has now, given that it is of huge importance to the council. 

The councillor asked about the additional resources needed to address the issues, how much money would it cost, and where would the money come from?

Spencer Randolph said that the Regulator would want a plan in place to achieve compliance within the next 2 to 3 years. Many compliance posts had not been filled so he was recruiting to those. A new Strategic Compliance Manager had been recruited as well as an interim head of service. He would be bringing in additional posts in the Compliance Team over and above current structures. 

Cllr Smith asked about the 12,500 fire safety actions that had not been carried out, what proportion of the total were they? She agreed with Cllr Kabir over the need for a Housing Committee and asked about contractor management - Wates was often frequently the offender in complaints.  Randolph said that there were c36,000 repairs per year and wates would be named as it was the only contractor. There would now be two contractors in future with more robust management. Some of the 12,500 actions could date as much as 3 years.

Many London boroughs were in a similar position to Brent due to lack of investment in stock, ageing housing, and frozen rents. The London outlier was Newham with a C4 judgment.

 Cllr Malloy asked about the money needed for all the above and whether it would have to be funded from the Housing Revenue Account (HRA),

It is worth recording Randolph's reply for future reference:

Our business as a landlord is based upon our rents and how much it costs to run our business. So, we will need to make sure we are very stringent on where we can make savings elsewhere, better contract management, making sure we are maximising our rental income, maximising the payments we're getting from leaseholders and works we're carrying out there. These are all changes we’ve got in our Business Plan. 

Responding to Cllr Patel he said:

We can't kick this can down the road. If money needs to be spent to make people's houses safe, we can't keep putting it off and putting it off. If the root causality [of the failure] is that we find it was put off because we didn't want to spend the money, then that's not a good position to be in. 

I think that with proven financial management and a realistic timetable then things can be budgeted for within our existing HRA budget.

Spencer Randolph did not think that the Regulator's judgement would impct on the councils housing projects but another member of the corporate team said it was still a risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wembley’s Majestic Cinema – Part 2

Part 2 of Local History Post by Tony Royden and Philip Grant:

1.The Exterior of the Majestic Cinema, just before its opening, in original black & white and colourised.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

Welcome back to the second part of the Majestic Cinema’s story. If you missed Part 1, you can find it HERE. In this article, some of the original black and white photographs have been colourised, using AI, to help show the splendour of this ‘super cinema’.

 

By December 1928, the builder’s hoardings had been removed and Wembley’s new super cinema was in full resplendent view. Passers-by would stop in awe at the new “majestic” building: The architects, Field and Stewart, had erected a handsome frontage constructed of Luton grey facing bricks and Atlas white stone dressings. At the heart of the structure, rising elegantly to the top of the building, was a gleaming copper dome, held aloft by a drum of Atlas stone columns, inset with stylish bay windows. Extended over the main entrance was a striking bronze canopy, shining warmly under carefully crafted lighting. At sunset, the entire façade could be seen bathed in floodlights. The intricate frieze, the sweeping cornice and decorative pillars were highlighted by a subtle, yet dazzling light effect – it was a sight to behold.

 

On 14 December the “Wembley News” carried a half-page advertisement, announcing: ‘In a few weeks’ time the Wembley Majestic will be opened, and the public will be able to visit this veritable Wonder Cinema, where they will be provided with absolutely the most up-to-date and best that can be offered in the world of entertainment.’

 

2.From a full-page advertisement in the “Wembley News”, 11 January 1929.
(Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Four weeks later, on the morning of the Majestic’s grand opening, a full-page advertisement appeared in the Wembley News, which carried the headline ‘A Real Cinema for Wembley at last’. We can only speculate what the owners of the existing Wembley Hall Cinema, and the Elite Cinema (located in the former British Empire Exhibition Conference Hall in Raglan Gardens - now Empire Way – which had only opened in March 1928), thought about that headline! But they would soon have a chance to find out how popular their new competitor was.

 

What happened regarding the cinema chain which had plans to open own their ‘super cinema’ directly across the road from the Majestic? We know planning permission was granted and bricks were delivered onsite to start construction ... but they were simply too slow. The Majestic’s lightning pace from conception to completion, in just 12 months, won the race and it’s safe to assume that the cinema chain must have got cold feet and abandoned their plans. The derelict land where they had intended to build (at the corner of the High Road and Park Lane) went on to become high street shops, with a bank on the corner itself.

 

The Majestic’s opening night, on Friday 11 January 1929, was by invitation only, but enough invitations had been sent out to fill its 2,000 seats. The guest of honour was Isodore Salmon, the Conservative M.P. for the Harrow Division of Middlesex (which included Wembley), who was also Managing Director of his family’s catering business, J. Lyons & Co. He and his wife sat alongside another leading local figure, Titus Barham, accompanied by his wife, Florence. Other invitees included all the members of Wembley Urban District Council and many of the local clergy.

 

3.Photo of Mrs R.H. Powis from the 18 January 1929 “Wembley News” supplement. (Brent Archives)

 

After the playing of the National Anthem, the lights lowered and the evening’s programme commenced with a showing of a pre-recorded film. Appearing on screen was Mrs R.H. Powis (wife of the Chairman) arriving by car outside the Majestic, where she was presented with a key to unlock the ornamental bronze doors. On entering, the film cut to inside the auditorium and to Mrs Powis on stage, declaring the Majestic Cinema open. At that moment, the screen went up, the stage lights came on and there was Mrs Powis in person to finish her opening address (wearing the same attire that she had worn in the film). This was met by rapturous applause from the audience who marvelled at this piece of technical showmanship – and it may have been enjoyed even more than anticipated as the film had, perhaps by accident, been shown at double speed, so that it resembled a slapstick comedy!

 

 

4.Mr and Mrs Powis and the stage party at the opening of the Majestic Cinema, 11 January 1929.
(From the “Wembley News” supplement, 18 January 1929, at Brent Archives)

 

With the audience in the palm of her hand, Mrs Powis spoke enthusiastically about the immense local support there had been for the Majestic Cinema project and what an honour it had been for her personally to have opened it. She invited the audience to absorb the splendour of the surroundings, expressing that it was a building they could be proud of. She hoped the residents of Wembley would appreciate all that had been done for them, and trusted that they too would come and patronise the theatre when the doors opened to the public.

 

Mrs Powis then introduced her husband (Chairman of the Majestic Cinema) who delivered a much longer speech. He started by praising the enterprise of his ten fellow directors (also present on stage) who had been willing to risk their money in this local cinema venture. The building, of which they were immensely proud, had cost around £100,000 (approximately £5.5million in today’s money), and no expense had been spared in its making (although, by way of contradiction, he said that he ‘had to be the drag to prevent them from spending too much money’). Also appearing on stage were the two local architects, Messrs Field and Stewart, happy to take a bow when introduced, for they had designed a building which truly did live up to the ‘Majestic’ name. Mr Powis then praised the builders, W.E. Greenwood and Son, who had worked tirelessly, and had engaged seventy-five percent of the labour locally. The beautiful scheme of decoration throughout the auditorium, which engulfed the audience, was Mr Greenwood’s concept, with the work carried out to his designs.

 

5.Two views of the Majestic Cinema’s interior designs, one of which has been colourised.
(From the “Wembley News” supplement, 18 January 1929)

 

6.Another colourised view of the cinema’s interior designs.
(“Kinematograph Weekly supplement”, 2 May1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

In an article published in the “Kinematograph Weekly” on 17 January 1929, there was lavish praise for Mr Greenwood’s ‘unique’ and ‘beautiful decorative scheme’. The décor was described as being ‘upon atmospheric lines’ and ‘in the Italian renaissance style’. It continued by saying: ‘The patron looks out onto a beautiful Italian garden. The rich colour-scheme employed is at once restful and pleasing to the eye. The views of mountains, trees and temples on the side walls are in relief, and their application is remarkable for the sense of real depth conveyed to the patron. The various effects achieved by Mr. Greenwood called for much ingenuity and imagination. The whole of the ceiling is made to represent an Italian sky, and is unbroken by ventilating grids or lighting fixtures.’ The Majestic was hailed as being 'the most satisfactory form of the "atmospheric" type of picture theatre yet erected in England. '

 

7.Colourised view of the Majestic’s auditorium, as viewed from the stage.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

Most of the auditorium’s lighting was provided from the front of the balcony, as described in “The Bioscope”, 12th June 1929: ‘The floodlights employed were concealed under the auditorium balcony. The front of the balcony was divided into 16 different sections, each section being glazed with specially diffusing glass panels.’ A remarkable feature of the lighting was that there were no notable shadows.

  

Another innovative design was used for ventilation: ‘Air is introduced into the building by a series of louvres, which are practically invisible behind decorative features which harmonise with the surroundings, and is extracted through thousands of minute holes in the barrel roof, which are also invisible.’ The painted plasterwork bushes of the Italian garden theme also hid the grilles through which music from the cinema’s John Compton Kinestra organ was played.

 

8.A 1929 advertisement for the John Compton Kinestra organ. (Image from the internet)

 

As part of the opening night’s entertainment, the audience were treated to an organ recital, “In a Monastery Garden”, played by Mr Davies on a Kinestra organ like the one pictured above. There were also performances by a number of variety acts including; The Six Ninette Girls, The Plaza Boys, Jade Winton and The Famous Australs – all backed by the wonderful music of the Majestic orchestra, conducted by J. Samehtini. After a showing of a current newsreel, the evening concluded with a screening of the 1928 British-made detective film, “Mademoiselle Parley Voo”.  The opening ceremony was declared a huge success by all who attended.

 

So what did the Majestic have to offer? From the early days of its conception, the Chairman and his fellow directors wanted to be able to bring live West End performances to Wembley (along with the latest film releases) and they were now set to accommodate the grandest of stage productions. The Majestic was built with a 50-foot-wide fully equipped stage, twelve dressing rooms for the artistes (six on either side of the stage – female on one side, male on the other), a musical director's room, a boardroom and an orchestra pit in front of the stage.

 

9.The original Ground Floor plan for the Majestic Cinema. (Brent Archives – Wembley plans microfilm 3474)

 

In the original planning application, the floor plans show the main auditorium was to have 1192 seats, with a further 432 seats located in the “Grand Tier” (or balcony) making a total of 1624 – but with subsequent applications, this was increased to near 2000, making it substantially larger than many West End theatres. The whole of the seating and furnishing had been carried out by Maples & Co, a long-established and successful company, expert in cinema work. The seats were comfortable and every seat gave a perfect view of the stage and screen.

 

The High Road entrance to the Majestic led to an octagonal lobby that was known as a “Crush Hall”. This had an imposing dome above it (not to be confused with the roof dome visible from the outside), which was expertly painted with light, airy clouds and cleverly illuminated by concealed lights. The hall included a pay-box, chocolate kiosk and a side-entrance to a 120-seat café (with the café’s main entrance from the High Road). The hall extended into a large foyer where two ‘handsome staircases leading to the balcony’ could be found, along with the entrance into the auditorium.

 

10.The Majestic Cinema’s café.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – image courtesy of the British Library)

 

 

On the first floor, above the café and shops, was the Majestic Ballroom: Measuring 107 ft. long and 30 ft. wide, it could comfortably accommodate 500 dancers. In an article published in the “Kinematograph Weekly” on 17 January 1929, the ballroom was praised for being ‘one of the finest apartments of its kind in the provinces’. Its decorative treatment was carried out on classical lines and its comfortable ‘"Pollodium" cane furniture was manufactured by Edward Light & Company Ltd. The ballroom was self-contained, with its own lounge, retiring room and dressing rooms.

 

11.A colourised view of the Majestic Cinema’s ballroom.
(“Kinematograph Weekly”, 17 January 1929 – original image courtesy of the British Library)

 

As well as having all the amenities of a classic movie theatre, the Majestic also had a second floor, known as the “Mezzanine Floor”, where a luxurious lounge could be found – directly under the roof's dome. Natural light would have permeated from the circle of bay windows beneath the dome and we can only imagine how spectacular the views must have been (especially as Wembley was not as built-up an area at that time, and there would still be some open fields and countryside to observe).

 

At the end of the opening night’s extravaganza, around one thousand of the cinema’s guests, who had remained until the entertainment programme finished at 11pm, were invited to a reception in the ballroom. They were treated to a banquet of food and drink, and there was dancing to the music of Mr Samehtini’s cinema orchestra. An exhibition was also given of “Modern Ballroom Dancing” (as described in his 1927 book of that name by Victor Silvester, whose father, the Vicar of St John the Evangelist Church at the other end of the High Road, had been a guest that evening). The celebration of the Majestic’s first night went on until 1am on the Saturday morning.

 

Wembley’s Majestic Cinema had opened, but would it be a success, and why can’t we see it now in the High Road? To find out the answers, join us next weekend for the final part of our story!

 

Tony Royden and Philip Grant.

Tenants hit back regarding 'serious failings' of Brent Council Housing management

The judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing on Brent Housing Management has not received as much pubicity as it deserved. Below residents from St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn voice their concerns.

 

Letter to Kim Wright, Brent Council CEO:

Urgent Concerns Regarding the Safety and Condition of Homes on St. Raphael's Estate

Dear Kim

We, the residents of St. Raphael's Estate, are writing to express our profound and urgent concerns regarding the safety and overall condition of our homes. These concerns have been significantly heightened by the recent findings from Brent Council's self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH), which have brought to light serious inadequacies in the management of housing safety.

We understand that Brent Council proactively referred itself to the Regulator of Social Housing in April 2025, specifically concerning the quality and accuracy of its fire safety data. While we acknowledge the council's transparency in making this self-referral, the subsequent findings by the RSH are deeply troubling. The Regulator has issued a C3 grading, signifying "serious failings" in meeting consumer standards, particularly the Safety and Quality Standard, and has mandated "significant improvement."

Of particular alarm are the RSH's findings that:

Data for critical safety areas, including fire safety, smoke and carbon monoxide safety, asbestos management, and water safety, "could not be reconciled." This raises serious questions about the council's ability to accurately track and manage essential health and safety risks within its housing stock.

The council is currently "not able to determine which legally required checks and assessments have been completed," which is a fundamental requirement for ensuring tenant safety.

Despite the council reporting that it holds stock condition data for 95% of its properties, the RSH's engagement revealed that "almost half of its homes have not had a recorded survey." This significant gap means that the council lacks a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the condition of a substantial portion of its housing, making it difficult to assure residents that their homes meet the required standards.

These deficiencies, as highlighted by the Regulator, have directly "negatively affected service outcomes for tenants." For residents of St. Raphael's Estate, this translates into real anxiety about the safety and structural integrity of our homes. The lack of reliable data and recent surveys creates an environment of uncertainty, undermining our confidence in the council's ability to fulfil its responsibilities as a landlord.

We acknowledge the public apology from Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, Cabinet Member for Housing and Resident Services, and her commitment that the council is "determined to improve the quality of council homes." However, we urge you to translate these words into swift and demonstrable action, particularly for estates like St. Raphael's.

 

We request a clear and comprehensive plan outlining the specific steps Brent Council will take to address these critical issues on St. Raphael's Estate, including:

Immediate verification and rectification of all outstanding fire, health, and safety actions for properties on our estate.

Expedited completion of recorded surveys for all homes on St. Raphael's Estate that currently lack them, ensuring a full and accurate understanding of their condition.

Improved communication channels with residents regarding ongoing safety works and the progress made in addressing the RSH's findings.

Assurance that robust data management systems are in place and functioning effectively to prevent similar issues in the future.

The safety and well-being of the residents of St. Raphael's Estate are paramount. We look forward to your prompt response and a clear commitment to resolving these serious concerns to ensure that all our homes are safe, decent, and well-maintained.

Yours sincerely,

Asif Zamir

 

Letter to Kilburn Times LINK from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association (South Kilburn)

 

I’m surprised 2 weeks have passed and you still haven’t published anything on the Regulator of Social Housings’ damning judgement on Brent Council. I would have thought this an important issue for a local paper to cover, especially as you have reported on individual cases of neglect by Brent in the past. This report shows that the problem goes much deeper than individual cases. Their report concludes “Our judgement is that there are serious failings in the landlord [i.e. Brent] delivering the outcomes of the consumer standards and significant improvement is needed.”

 

Brent tries to excuse itself by pointing out it referred itself to the regulator, admitting failings. But Brent is itself unaware of the extent of its own failings. Or perhaps, as with so much else, in denial.  Council tenants are aware of these failings, so when Brent claims it carries out electrical checks in homes every 5 years, many tenants know this doesn’t happen. While tenants have annual gas checks, Brent carries out no checks on leaseholder dwellings in Council blocks, rather undermining the point of the checks which do happen. Council Officers not knowing the layout of buildings where they hold safety meetings doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.

 

Around the same time, the Housing Ombudsman reported that complaints by social housing tenants about shabby repairs have risen by 474% over the last 5 years. While that figure is national, Brent tenants are all too familiar with that problem too. Delays and botched repairs are par for the course. Brent’s own surveys of satisfaction among tenants reflect this.

 

When Brent’s lead member for housing, Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, says “we will continue to work proactively, positively and in an open and transparent way with our residents and with the Regulator to fix the issues identified. Council tenants are at the heart of this improvement work through the new Housing Management Advisory Board. By listening to their experiences and ideas, we can make better decisions and build a housing service that residents can trust”, Council tenants are aware of how little openness and transparency there is in Brent housing, and how Council officers rarely work positively with tenants and their representatives, often the opposite.

 

While these reports vindicate what tenants have been saying for years, and Brent has denied, we would much prefer if Brent had got its act together in the first place. Brent has said it has new procedures in place to rectify the problems. We hope so, but excuse us if we don’t hold our breath, we have heard such claims many times before.

 

I, along with hundreds of others, took part in the Silent Walk for Grenfell on Saturday, 8 years after the terrible fire which killed 72 people. One of the many lessons of Grenfell is that the local authority did not listen to warnings from tenants and their representatives. A lesson that Brent should learn too.

 

Pete Firmin,

 

Chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

BREAKING: Brent Deputy Mayor suspended as previous Deputy Mayor re-admitted to Labour Group

 

Results of search for Barnhill councillors

Sharp eyed readers may have spotted that Cllr Kathleen Fraser's party designation has changed overnight from Labour to Independent.

Cllr Fraser, like her predecessor, Cllr Diana Connolly, has also been removed from her role as  Deputy Mayor  and membership of committees.

She continues as a member of Full Council, albeit as an Independent rather than a member of the Labour Group.

Cllr Fraser was a popular choice as Deputy Mayor, with her experience and deep community roots seen as complementing the youth and comparative inexperience of the Mayor, Cllr Ryan Hack.

Hokey-Cokey style, Cllr  Diana Collymore, in the wake of a formal warning by a Labour NEC Panel at the conclusion of disciplinary proceures, was yesterday readmitted to the Labour Group.

Labour sources are unable to give further details of the reason for Cllr Fraser's adminstrative suspension as the investigation is ongoing and confidential to Cllr Fraser herself and the Labour Group.

This latest news undermines Labour Party members who wanted to challenge the London Region's decision to remove rank and file members from having a say in selecting candidates to fight  the 2026 council election. 

Instead, selection will be be made by assessors from outside the borough and imposed candidates are expected to be in place by the end of July. See an account on Labour Hub Brent Labour members denied the right to choose candidates as Partyapparatus takes control of council selections

 

Dua Lipa Concerts tomorrow and Saturday - road closures from 3pm. Parking restrictions 8am to midnight on main roads and 10am to midnight on residential roads

 From Brent Council 

Wembley Stadium will be hosting Dua Lipa concerts on Friday 20 June and Saturday 21 June.

Please read below to see how this might affect you.

Timings

 

- Dua Lipa Concerts on 20 June and 21 June start at 7pm and road closures will be in place from 3.00pm.

We expect the area around Wembley Stadium to be very busy before and after this event so please avoid the area if you can, unless you have a ticket for the event.

Event day parking

Event day parking restrictions will be in place from 8am to midnight on main roads and from 10am to midnight on residential roads on Friday 20 June and Saturday 21 June.

If you have a paper permit, please make sure you clearly display it in your vehicle. If you have an electronic permit, you do not need to display this.

'No to austerity 2' Chalkhill Community Centre, Wednesday 18th June 7pm

 

Cabinet ratifies temporary closure of Bridge Park Leisure Centre

 

 Brent Cabinet yesterday made the decision to close the Bridge Park Leisure Centre pending its redevelopment. Although tribute was paid to the young people from the Black community of Harlesden and Stnebridge who started the centre in the 1980s it was  clear that the Cabinet wanted to close this chapter. Cllr Butt said that a new centre was needed for 'our changing community'.

The meeting was notable for a very long speech by Cllr Nerva who seized on a comment from a speaker from London Roller Derby about the flooding and heating in Bridge Park to justify demolition and rebuild, forgetting perhaps that Brent Council was the landlord that let this happen.

No start will be made on the site until Historic England has made a decision on a community bid to give Bridge Park heritage status because of its genesis.

A plaque was promised by the Council commemorating the contribution of the late Leonard Johnson to the founding of the centre.

Brent Council to pause delivery of social rent schemes on grounds of financial viability

In a statement on Brent Council's website today the Council announces that the July 28th Cabinet will pause the social housing programme:

Issue Details: New Council Homes Programme Update 

 

To agree to pause delivery of social rent schemes due to the financial viability of these projects. In addition, to delegate authority to the Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property, to enter into a Deed of Variation for the GLA Affordable Housing Programme 2021,26 and agree pre-tender considerations and subsequent contract award for construction contracts relating to the delivery of the Edgware Road Scheme.

The announcement anticipates that information will be restricted  as 

'relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)'

The announcement is of particular significance for South Kilburn where the council has been seeking a single developer to complete the regeneration. Doubts have been raised whether any would take on the risk in the present climate without changing the expected tenure to include a larger proportion of private housing to make the project financially viable.

Today at Cabinet, Cllr Grahl, told her colleagues that Cllr Kelcher, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, would be pressing for 50%  of the proposed 1,000 homes on the Bridge Park -Unisys regeneration site to be affordable.

The slippery concept of 'affordable' has been much discussed on Wembley Matters  (See:  Call for Brent Council to deliver more council homes for social tenants and end confusion over their use of the term 'affordable')

Given the current housing crisis and doubts over shared ownership, leasehold problems and housing associations moving into the private market, the need is clearly for council homes. 

Will the Labour Government grasp the nettle with one of its own councils declaring the suspension of its social homes programme?

The Quarter 4 Borough Plan Dashboard shows just 26 new council homes completed:

 

Brent Vigil for Indian air crash victims. Wednesday, Brent Civic Centre, 6pm-7.30pm

 

Brent Licensing Sub-Committee turn down police request for suspension of Carlton Lounge (Tiger Bay) licence in wake of murder outside after incident allegedly started in the premises. Instead small reduction in opening hours and additional conditions.

 Despite the police call for 'an immediate suspension of Carlton Lounge’s premises licence pending a full review due the level of seriousness of the incident,' the Kingsbury premises which includes Tiger Bay, has got away with a reduction in hours and some additional conditions. The Committee decided that a licence suspension was 'not appropriate;' despite the loss of life after an incident at the venue.

Interestingly, what appears to be a late police submission document on the Brent website, is actually blank. LINK

 

 

I have asked Brent Licensing for an explanation.

According to the Kilburn Times:

The bar will now close at 2am on Sundays to Thursdays rather than its usual 3.30am, with no entry after 1.30am

On Fridays and Saturdays, it will close at 3.30am – rather than its usual 4.30am - with no entry after 2.30am.

Other conditions include ensuring clear CCTV covers all people entering and leaving the venue, all publicly accessible internal and external areas and that a new camera is installed on the front of the premises.

 An earlier submission by the police said:

1) Police were called at 03:31 hours on Sunday 18th May 2025 by LAS - which had in turn received a 999 call from a man reporting a stabbing at Tiger Bay. On police and medic arrival, no casualty was present.

At 03:40 police had a call from a nurse at Northwick Park Hospital to report a man had come in with stab wounds.

2) CCTV shows a large-scale disorder immediately outside the venue from about 03:25 to 03:30, during which the victim received a stab wound and collapsed at the scene. He was taken to hospital by other people, before emergency services arrived. Estimated 20-25 people involved in the disorder.

3) There was no call from the venue staff or management to reports of the disorder, or anything else. Staff were present and witnessing events, and security personnel were involved in the disorder, in apparent attempts to separate people.

 

4) The suspect can be seen entering the venue at 02:00am, with others. There is no search of any of them, frisk, metal detector, wand or otherwise.

 

5) The suspect is later seen outside with a large knife, which was used in the disorder and appears to have been used to stab the victim, ultimately killing him (subject to pathology confirmation on cause of death).

 

6) Appears likely that the knife was in the suspect’s possession inside the venue.

 

7) Police body worn video (BWV) shows a manager telling an attending CID officer that the groups involved in the disorder had not been inside Tiger Bay before the disorder. This was untrue, as they had been and indeed most, if not all, of the people had come from inside Tiger Bay, some having been specifically ejected by the staff/security.

 

8) Police BWV shows the manager saying he thinks a bottle/bottles were involved. A customer approaches and says a knife was used and had been pulled out inside the venue. He was promptly ushered away by another manager/member of staff.

 

9) House to house enquiries revealed local residents complain there is frequently noisy anti-social behaviour from the venue.

 

Summary

 

This incident on 18 May 2025, constitutes serious crime and disorder, which has triggered this review. The Metropolitan Police have serious concerns that the premises management and staff members demonstrated a lack of control and failing to undertake pro-active searches. The staff initially indicated that the incident did not start in the venue and later retracted their statement, admitting that both groups were in fact inside the venue, where the altercation started.

 

94 documents were tabled for the sub-committee to consider. One was a 127 page report by a specialist consultant submitted on behalf of the premises owners: LINK