Philip Grant posted a copy of his objection to Brent Cuncil's disposal of the Northwick Park Gold open space as a comment on the recent article about the Northwick Community Garden's appeal. I asked that he allow me to share more prominently. Here it is as a Guest Blog Post. Philip writes in a personal capacity.
'Dear Brent Property and Asset Management,
Further to your Notice dated 17 March 2026 in the "Brent & Kilburn
Times", I am writing to object to the proposed disposal of open space land
known as Northwick Park Golf at 280 Watford Road.
This land was acquired jointly by Middlesex County Council and Wembley Urban
District Council (from October 1937 the Borough of Wembley) around 1936/37,
under policies designed to ensure sufficient public open space in the rapidly
expanding London suburban areas. The money borrowed from the Treasury for such
purchases in the 1930s had to be approved by the then Ministry of Health, and
one of the conditions for their consent was that the land should always remain
as public open space.
The book "Middlesex", published by Middlesex County Council in 1939
to celebrate the Council's Golden Jubilee, and written by C.W. Radcliffe, Clerk
and Solicitor to the County Council, records that the County Council's
resolution to acquire the open space at Watford Road in Wembley was approved in
1936. Such acquisitions were usually funded 75% by the County Council and 25%
by the local Council, and the book states:
'In June 1935 it was definitely decided that, in all future cases in which the
County Council agreed to make a contribution of 50 per cent or more of the cost
involved, the freehold of the land should be conveyed to the County Council. In
such cases the general practice is for the land to be leased to the borough or
district council in whose area it is situated, on a 999 years' lease at a
nominal rent. The procedure has the advantage of enabling the County Council to
exercise greater control of the open spaces than would otherwise be the case
and the County Council is in a stronger position in preventing any unauthorized
dealing with the land.'
Such 'unauthorized dealing' would include the use of the land for any purpose
other than open space available for the public to use for recreational
purposes. Under the local government reorganisation in 1965, Middlesex County
Council ceased to exist, and the freehold interest in the land, as well as the
leasehold interest held by the Borough of Wembley, passed to the new London
Borough of Brent.
But as well as the freehold passing, so did the responsibility for ensuring
that the successor to Middlesex County Council retained the freehold in that
land, to ensure that it could only be used, for the rest of the 999 years, as
open space available for public use. That is why Brent Council should not
dispose of the freehold.
New urban developments now are much denser than they were in the 1930s, so
maintaining existing open space is even more important. That is particularly so
on this site, because of the high density housing development currently taking
place next door to it in the grounds of Northwick Park Hospital. I trust that
my objection, and those of others which I am aware of, will be upheld, and that
Brent Council will not dispose of the freehold of this open space land.
Yours faithfully,
Philip Grant
16 comments:
I agree this is an important issue and that public land should remain free and open for public use.
But I am confused about the description "land adjoining Watford road and barn hill open space".
The golf course does not adjoin barn hill. There is a train line and two housing developments in between, built prior to 1936.
And BigShots/Playscape golf course is not exactly open to public use as it stands, there appears to be a right to use a designated footpath but not general rights to roam the course. Isn't that also an existing breach of the policy?
Also, if the freehold is sold, that doesn't mean the use of the land can automatically be changed, that would require planning permission too, which may be prohibited by these restrictions (or are they covenants) right?
Not intending to critical, I'm just hoping for clarity.
Theres also the huge development that's going yo be built on the Mumbai Junction/old John Lyon pub site increasing population in the area.
Anon 22.37 April3 - I too was puzzled by that but doubt if anyone who made that statement is srill around to answer our query.
Barn Hill itself was a golf course until 1920.
Dear Anonymous (3 April at 22:37), thank you for your comment. You have asked for clarity on several of the points in my comment>post above, and I will try to provide it.
First, the 'Land adjoining Watford Road and Barn Hill Open Space' is almost certainly two separate areas of land in Wembley, but where the Middlesex County Council agreement to contribute some of the funding for the acquisitions was included in the same resolution.
I don't have easy access to the Middlesex County Council minutes, and have not had time (yet) to check the minutes of Wembley Urban District Council's Parks, Open Spaces and Burial Grounds Committee, which are held at Brent Archives, but I think that is what the records will show.
Wembley U.D.C. had bought about 50 acres of land at the top of Barn Hill in 1927, to create the Barn Hill Open Space. In early 1936, Middlesex C.C. made a compulsory purchase order to acquire about 100 acres of land on the north side of Barn Hill from the developers, Wimpey, to prevent that land from having houses built all over it. That will be part of the 365.4 acres listed in the illustration above.
That leaves around 265 acres of land adjoining Watford Road which Middlesex C.C. agreed to help fund the acquisition of in 1936, which I am assuming included the land which Brent proposes to sell the freehold of. That is a large area, and most probably includes Northwick Park as well (some of which was also a golf course then!).
Just because they agreed to its purchase as open space then is no guarantee that the purchase actually occurred in 1936. I don't currently have information to confirm that (although I know, for example, that the 5.5 acres of additional land at Roe Green Park, approved in 1936, did not actually take place until 1938).
I agree that the Golf Driving Range is not exactly 'public open space', and I seem to remember that there were arguments at Brent over that when the Council proposed to give a lease for that purpose.
The responsibility on local councils for keeping land as open space permanently, when it has been acquired for that purpose, was set out at Section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1910 (relevant wording only):
'A local authority who have acquired any interest or estate in ... any open space ... under this Act shall ... hold and administer the open space ... in trust to allow, and with a view to, the enjoyment thereof by the public as an open space within the meaning of this Act ... and for no other purpose....'
However, as Brent Council proposes to dispose of the freehold under Section 123, Local Government Act 1972, subsection (2B) states (relevant wording only):
'Where ... a council dispose of land which is held ... in accordance with section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906 ... the land shall by virtue of the disposal be freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of its being land held in trust for enjoyment by the public in accordance with the said ... section 10.'
So, its protection as open space land would be lost if Brent Council disposes of the freehold.
The public are/were able to roam the golf course freely as it is/was Public Open Space. The operator trying to keep the public out is doing so illegally.
They changed the Council Constitution so that the developer could meet the planning committee privately. Interestingly, this happened after the fact when it was pointed out that the meeting broke the rules. The London Borough of B ent
Perhaps they meant The land adjoing watford Road, and additionally Barn Hill? That's how I read it.
Mr Grant is a legend
The Barnhill Open Space (old golf course) was acquired in around 1933. The 1936 purchases may simply be pieces of additional land and described together on one line as clearly not as large purchase as the original.
Dear Anonymous (4 April at 19:08), thank you for your comment.
I think 'legend' is probably an exaggeration, but it is true that since 2012, when I got involved in the battle to save the remaining section of the Victorian library building at Willesden Green from demolition, I have tried to keep Brent Council "on the straight and narrow", and "to do the right thing", on a fairly regular basis.
Much of the time I've had little success in my efforts, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't try your best to stick up for what you believe to be right.
Hopefully, next month's local elections will produce a Council which is far more balanced, and not just dominated by one man, who has had too much power for 14 years.
We all know that the council will try and get all covenants overturned like they are trying to do with Barham Park
Really is time for an entire Brent fully up-to date Public Rights of Way Map and Statement. Green spaces strongest protection too, as Brent car-free C21 towers itself into otherness. Development Infrastructure Denial Brent bad growth continuity post May 7 is all too predictable on the present trajec-TORY.
Since this loss of Public Open space issue has come up, Brent Council through their councillors have been saying, “don't worry the golf course is protected by it's designation as Metropolitan Open Land.” Councillors have even gone so far as to say residents are lying about what could happen if the golf course loses its status as Public Open Space.
Well, if you read the Mayor of London’s policy document Towards a new London Plan which was out for consultation until 9th May 2025, it is quite specific on golf courses on Metropolitan Open Land that are not Public Open Space.
2.11 Metropolitan Open Land
London relies heavily on its designated open spaces to create a liveable city. Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is the strategic level of open space, designated with specific criteria in mind. Unlike green belt purposes, MOL criteria does involve environmental considerations.
The Mayor will continue to give protection to MOL given its vital role for Londoners and providing a liveable city as London grows. *However, some areas of MOL, such as certain golf courses are not accessible to the wider public and have limited biodiversity value. This undermines the purpose of the designation. These areas could be assessed to understand whether they should be released from MOL. They may be able to help to meet London’s housing and accessible open space provision (for example opening up strategic new open spaces accessible to Londoners alongside new homes)*. At the same time, they could improve biodiversity through landscape-led redevelopment. Clearly there are key issues to explore. For example, could golf courses with Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) designations be released (with compensatory biodiversity uplift), and if so, in what circumstances.
Yes, the important bit was *However, some areas of MOL, such as certain golf courses are not accessible to the wider public and have limited biodiversity value. This undermines the purpose of the designation. These areas could be assessed to understand whether they should be released from MOL. They may be able to help to meet London’s housing and accessible open space provision (for example opening up strategic new open spaces accessible to Londoners alongside new homes)*
Removing the Public Open Space designation, just as Brent Council are doing. The golf course will be able to be described as “golf courses are not accessible to the wider public and have limited biodiversity value. This undermines the purpose of the designation.
So, the outcome, if the land is sold now that the Public Open Space designation is being removed, it will be one of the golf courses that is being considered for development. There it is, clearly laid out in the plan “*They may be able to help to meet London’s housing*” under section 2.11
Interestingly, the Leader of Brent Council is aware of what the plan says, having joked about it with a resident only 6 months ago.
Thank you for your well-researched comment Anonymous (9 April at 11:33).
Quite clearly the "Metropolitan Open Land" smokescreen which is apparently being shared by Brent Labour councillors, on behalf of their Leader, should not be trusted.
The Council has a duty to fully consider the objections which were submitted by the 2 April deadline. There will need to be a Report by Officers to whichever Committee will make the final decision on whether to sell the freehold. Objectors must be vigilant, to ensure that the Report and the decision on it are not sneaked through before the local elections on 7 May.
This is another issue which needs to be brought to the attention of electors by candidates opposed to the sell-off of Brent's open space assets, and not just in Northwick Park Ward. Perhaps the Parties at the Nature Hustings on 14 April should be asked to state their position on this issue!
You do the work of 14 councillors
Post a Comment