Brent Council challenged by residents on its Flood Emergency Strategy - is Brent ready for the deluge and the overflow?

 

 

Coincidentally it was at the beginning of what promises to be a very wet week that ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency) made a presentation on flooding to Brent Scrutiny Committee:

 

In what one councillor described as a powerful contribution, Kaushik Bhattacharya, speaking for ACE, said:

  

There is much to comment on across all the climate documents presented tonight, but with the potential of extreme storms this winter as a result of a growing El Nino, and overall climate change, we are forced to focus on flooding . We understand that representatives from Thames Water, Environment Agency, and Affinity Water have been invited to attend this meeting but it is a shame that there won’t be a real chance for them to answer questions from our councillors, as we originally requested, due to the very limited time tonight.

 

Our initial request for a thorough scrutiny of flood risk arose from concern about inadequate progress on the Brent Local Flood Risk Management Strategies Action Plan and this remains a serious concern. The RAG rating in the Action Plan grades 4 Amber and 26 Red out of 30 actions listed, including some basic short-term actions such as ‘Collaborate with other partner RMAs to improve understanding of flood risk interactions and identify areas where flood risks could combine to exacerbate risk.’ None of the actions are rated Green. 

Click on bottom right corner of the table for a full view of the table.

  

 

The Action Plan is a click away from the main documents submitted tonight and should have been tabled separately because it is so important. Many members of this Committee will not have read it. 

 

The photos shared tonight document flooding that has occurred during flash storms over the last decade on College Road, in the Preston Ward of Brent. The latest occurred overnight earlier this summer, just before the second heatwave, and resulted in a Tesla being written off – a vehicle used by a resident for his work as a private hire car driver, resulting in a loss of his income and increased insurance premiums.

 

 

We were shocked to discover that Brent has only a single Principal Flood and Drainage Engineer with many responsibilities that according to Appendix C:

 

Whilst statutory duties continue to be met, creates limited resilience within the service and can restrict the pace at which strategic projects, investigations and improvement programmes are progressed. Periods of annual leave or staff absence can further increase these pressures and create temporary backlogs in service delivery.

 

Is a single postholder sufficient in a climate emergency?

 

The Report designates the Head of Highways as responsible for Appendix C – Flood Risk Management Strategy – that’s a huge area covering many areas of expertise other than highways. Is that fair or adequate?

 

Meanwhile the Council continues to build, build, build; gardens are paved over; more concrete covers the borough; and our green spaces are lost without the necessary alleviation increasing the flood risk.

 

You’ve declared a climate emergency so we urge this committee to table another full scrutiny meeting specifically on the Flood Emergency Strategy and Action Plan including contributions from our Flood Risk Strategy partners.

Kaushik was followed by Joy Rickman, a resident in  her area for some 40 years, speaking for the Friends of Woodcock Park, She described how her community were trying to deal with the flooding and pollution of the Wealdstone Brook in a very practical way:

  

My name is Joy Rickman and I am the Chair of Friends of Woodcock Park

 

The Wealdstone Brook bisects Woodcock Park and flows through the borough eventually meeting the River Brent. It is known as a flashy river. This is because in ordinary weather it is a gentle little stream, but in rain it becomes a raging torrent. There is a massive amount of water coming down because we are on the Brent/Harrow borders - coming down from Harrow . Often the river is running at over capacity.

 

We have witnessed many flooding events in Woodcock Park as in high storm the river flows are over capacity, and further downstream we have film footage of the river coming out of bank. 

 

We have also been subjected to many sewage events and blockages containing raw sewage, wipes, fat and soap as well as diesel and other chemicals being thrown into the river along with many lime bikes. 3 years ago we had polio in the river, as a result all the children aged 9 and under had to be re-vaccinated for polio.

 

Due to the many issues, we have experienced in the river, one member of our Friends Group instigated regular quarterly meetings with Thames Water to discuss the previously mentioned issues, to seek solutions.

 

Work with us is described in the report as an example of "successful collaboration", but we do not feel fully supported by Brent Council. We ourselves set up the meetings with Thames Water to examine pollution levels.

 

Levels of flooding used to be overseen by the Brent and Harrow Flood Working group, set up by Barry Gardiner. In the light of current flood risk this group needs to be restored. 

 

Our community members have completed very significant river projects including preventing the river flooding the area around a major roundabout. This project was subject of the Environment Agency national conference.

 

Thames Water has now asked our group to attenuate 20,000 cubic litres of water in the park. We are not sure why this responsibility has fallen on us. The council did come and help us work out where the pond should be and with volunteers we came in to hand dig it. We didn't t get very far because the clay is very heavy and difficult to manage. So we now need council approval, a digger to finish the job and funding for planting.

 

With a council grant,  we have recently created a stumpery - which is a self-sustaining eco system, and we worked with 4 local schools - with 50 children, who thoroughly enjoyed the project. This area should be planted but there is no fresh water source in our park. We can pay for a pump but have nowhere on the park to store it.

 

There is huge expertise in the community but to be honest we feel on our own. Some colleagues are giving up disillusioned, and the rest of us are tired.

 

We did investigate introducing beavers to help do the necessary work - a shame the river is too polluted.  Sometimes I feel the beavers would have been easier to deal with!!

 

Prevention is cheaper than cure when it comes to flooding. We are volunteers and we are asking for more respect for and partnership with us as the people who are actively monitoring the river.

 

The presentations meant that the first part of the Committee meeting was dominated by the flooding issue which in a way was a victory for residents keen to have their voices heard on such a vital issue. The full debate, including contributions from representatives of Thames Water and the Environment Agency, can be seen in the video above.

 

 

 

More detailed objections to Quintain’s plans for a hotel on Wembley Park’s Market Square and Samovar Space.- a space in regular use by residents, LDO visitors, football and concert fans and users of Brent Civic Centre & Wembley Library

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Pedestrians using Wembley Splay, and crossing the site of the proposed hotel.

 

Under a blog post on 16 June, “Wembley Park councillors call on the public to support the fight to keep the Samovar Space & Market Square in front of Wembley Stadium”, I added a comment saying ‘I will need time to study the application, and the previous consents, carefully but when I have done that I will submit my objections, and will share my thoughts with anyone who is interested.’ 

 

I submitted the first part of my comments to the Brent planning website for application 26/1351 in July, but never expected it to take so long for me to finish the task! For various personal reasons, and commitments that had to take priority, it was not until 16 October that I submitted the final part, and sent an illustrated document copy of my full objections to Brent Planning Officers. The application has yet to be referred to Brent’s Planning Committee (but could be at its next meeting on 11 November), so hopefully my delay is a case of “better late than never”. 

 

I will ask Martin to attach my objection comments document below, so that anyone who is interested, including any objectors who may wish to speak against the application when it does come before councillors for a decision, can read the reasons I have set out as to why the application should be refused, on proper planning grounds, in the hope that this assists in the fight to keep this site as open space for the local community and visitors to enjoy.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

The petition to retain the Market Square and Samovar Space is still live and available to sign HERE

The application (16/1351) is on the Brent Council Planning Portal where comments in support, opposition or neutral can be made HERE.  The expiry date is November 27th 2026 but comments can be made up to the eve of the Planning Committee meeting hearing which may be sooner. It has not yet been fixed.

 

Brent Cabinet greet a glorious new dawn on South Kilburn on the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer for long-term completion of the project

 

As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses. 

Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.

Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.

Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to  be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.

Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported  to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.

He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'

Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the  council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace.  It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development.  He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.

Guardian August 2026

 BBC London  September 2026

 

Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.

The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.

In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:  

We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration. 

Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.

We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.

 

Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting; 

  

I'm told that screaming at the screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn. Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.

 

As a South Kilburn resident for the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.

 

South Kilburn regeneration started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.

 

What about the new flats built under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.  This gets described as “In a small number of developments however residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much every new block.

 

What else has regeneration delivered? We read “Significant investment has been made in delivering amenities and social infrastructure including a medical centre, pharmacy, affordable workspace studios. A purpose-built community facility including an enterprise hub, nursery, family wellbeing centre, community halls, community kitchen and café is being built at Granville and Carlton Centres. Sustained investment in public realm including tree planting, landscaped courtyards, pocket parks and play areas has been made across the redeveloped sites in the neighbourhood. These amenities and infrastructure are having a profound impact on community life and has been transforming the South Kilburn neighbourhood.” Perhaps the author couldn’t be bothered to refer back to what was promised at the start of the regeneration of South Kilburn – 2 new medical centres (we have one, delivered many years after it was promised), a new community centre (no sign of that, not sure why the rebuilding of the already existing Granville and Carlton centres should be seen as fulfilling that promise), a new youth centre (no sign) and – yes we do remember – “no more tower blocks”.  It fools no-one to refurbish existing facilities and then claim they are new, instead of actually providing what was promised. Even within the claimed `success' of the Granville and Carlton Centres, community space has been reduced. Green space is often behind locked gates or not maintained, what were public spaces have been privatised and new planting is not monitored. And have people forgotten the block with "poor doors", where social tenants have to use a different entrance to those who have bought their flats?

 

What else has regeneration brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks have.

 

Regeneration has also brought increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area, leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and other criminal activity.

 

Rarely., if ever, does the Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they hope we have forgotten.

 

Would all this be worth it if the regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the housing crisis.

 

An altogether laughable claim is that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement. Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored. A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running, unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.

 

Reading Council documents or watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead, we see  gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.

 

When agreeing to give the £1 billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real world intrude on Brent Council decisions.

 

 

Early Notice: Black History Month 2026 at Brent Civic Centre Friday 30th October

 

Labour's new Planning Regulations denounced as an attack on local democracy at Extraordinary Brent Council Meeting

 

 Kim Wright, Brent Chief Executive's, statement ahead of the constitution debate

The Extraordinary Council Meeting on Monday certainly lived up to its billing! The meeting followed the united opposition of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives to changes in the constitution tabled at the last Full Council. The constitutional changes were necessary as a result of the Labour Government's changes to Planning Regulations that reduces the role of councillors and residents in planning decisions. The changes are part of the government's efforts to speed up the planning process in response to the housing crisis but there are misgivings among some Labour MPs.

The council is required to make the necessary changes by Halloween so an extraordinary meeting was necessary to resolve the issue.  

Perhaps extraordinarily before the debate got underway Brent Council's CEO, Kim Wright, made an intervention in a statement outlining all the dire consequence for the authority if councillors failed to adopt the required changes. (See video above)

Addressing the concerns of councillors that they could no longer call-in applications she drew attention to a change in the original proposal LINK (in bold):  

5.12 Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible.

Local authorities are required to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of delegation.

However, it is recognised that at the Full Council meeting on 14 September 2026 and the All Member Briefing on 1 October 2026 Members expressed concerns about these changes. In response, paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Planning Committee has, so far as possible, been reinstated but with necessary modifications (see Appendices). In outline, this will allow three or more Brent councillors (irrespective of political group membership) to request that certain applications be considered for referral to the Planning Committee

An indication that the unity at Full Council was broken  was quickly evidenced when the Tories abstained on a Liberal Democrat amendment allowing Labour to have a narrow majority over the Lib Dems and Greens. 

For the record this is the proposal from the Liberal Democrats that was not debated as  result of this vote.

NEW PLANNING REGULATIONS

We note that the new Regulations imposed by the Labour Government undermine the role of locally elected Representatives and remove our abilityto effectively represent the interests of local people and our community.

In response to the new Regulations and the reduction of the role and powers of local Councillors we confirm the need to amend the Council constitution and resolve to include the following additions/changes:

1.  To reduce the size of the Planning Committee to 5 members made up of Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Conservative and 1 Green.

2.  To resolve that the Chair of the Planning Committee will be a member of one of the opposition parties until May 2030 when the position will be reviewed.

3. To reflect the reduced role of the Planning Committee by reducing the SRA for the Chair of the Planning Committee to £7,500.

Specifically in relation of regulation 5(3) of the 2026 Regulations we resolve:

1. To set up an Advisory Board made up of 3 members of the Planning Committee or their alternates who will advise/inform the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer on whether a ‘qualifying’ application should be referred to the Planning Committee.

2. To ensure that when information/publicity about a planning application is issued by the Council it states

a. That the specific application will be determined by Planning Officers under delegated powers or

b. That the application falls within the defined areas of Regulation 5(3) and where a decision to refer it to the Planning Committee is possible

​ a clear explanation is provided on how and who makes the decision  to refer the application to Committee – and if so referred explain the  process the Planning Committee has to follow.

c. In all cases publish the Planning Officer Report relating to each Planning Application and the decision made and any conditions imposed.

 The debate on whether to accept the changes to the constitution contained many defences of local democracy and allegations that central government was undermining the role of local councillors in representing the views of residents through planning committees. The Tories strongly condemned the Labour Government with stirring speeches that can be heard in the video below - but as you will see in the final minutes said, with something of a whimper, that they had no option but to comply and abstained - again giving Labour a majority over Liberal Democrats and Greens:

 

Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green Group Leader, said that the changes were borne out of the reality of the housing crisis, a crisis Greens recognised and believe requires radical solution, but the changes would further erode public trust in the planning system and strengthen the perception that the planning system is rigged in favour of those who have power and know best how to play the system.  She advocated the plans of Green-led Lewisham Council to bring planning closer to local communities while also meeting housing need.

Cllr Muhammed Butt emphasised that this was not something of the council's doing: ''If there was any other way, we would have found the way.'  He remained open to further discussion.

The constitutional changes were adopted by a small Labour majority over the Greens and Liberal Democrats when the Tories abstained. 

Cllr Anton Georgiou, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he could see that some Labour councillors were uncomfortable and warned them that they would have to defend themselves when residents came to complain that they had no say in planning applications.

The planning system will now hand over most decision-making to council officers as illustrated in the Brent  Council document below:

 

Brent Climate Roadshow TONIGHT: Seeds Hub , Empire Way 6.30-8.30pm

 

Wembley road closures, bus diversion etc for Jacksonville Jaguars at Wembley Stadium Sunday 18th October following yesterday morning's disruption

 

These were the bus diversion for last Sunday's morning ASICS LDNX 10K run through the area:

 

Brent Council tenants & leaseholders a chance to speak directly to council teams Open Day Tuesday 27th October, 4pm-7pm Tuesday 27th October

 

Date and time
Tuesday, 27 October 2026
15:00 - 19:00

Location
Grand Hall, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley,
HA9 0FJ

From Brent Council

  

Tenant and Leaseholder open day 

 

Join us for our fifth Tenant and Leaseholder open day. This open day is a great opportunity to connect with us, ask questions, get support with housing issues and speak directly with our teams.

 

On the day, you will be able to:

• meet your Area Tenancy Manager
• report repairs, damp, or mould issues
• discuss your rent or service charges
• learn about the steps we are taking to keep your building safe
• find out how to get involved in your community and resident engagement activities. 

 

There will also be information stalls and presentations from a range of council teams. Family-friendly activities will be available for children, and our team will be on hand throughout the event to answer your questions and provide support.

 

You can register your interest to help us plan ahead, or simply come along on the day.

Is your street liable to flooding? Do you know how to protect your property? How should you prepare for an emergency? Brent Civic Centre. Wednesday 14th October Noon-3pm

 

From Brent Council

  

Brent flood awareness event

Join us for a free community event to learn more about flood risks in your area and the simple steps you can take to prepare for and respond to flooding. Whether you're a resident, business owner, volunteer or part of a local community group, this event is a great opportunity to get practical advice and speak to experts.

What's on offer?

• flood presentation from the London Fire Brigade
• advice on how to prepare for flooding
• information about local flood risks
• practical ways to help protect your property from flooding
• guidance on emergency planning
• meet local resilience and emergency planning professionals.

Everyone is welcome. Come along to learn how to be better prepared and help keep your community safe.

 

Event details

Date and time
Wednesday, 14 October 2026
12:00 - 15:00

Location
The Atrium, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley,
HA9 0FJ

 

 

Sunday's Lady Rose talk at Preston Community Library cancelled

 From Preston Community Library

We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel this event.

We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. We very much hope that we can reschedule the talk from Lady Rose for another date in the near future. 

Demolition of historic Mason's Arms, Kensal Green: community consultation closes October 23rd 2026

 

Mason's Arms as it was (Picture: pubwiki.co.uk)

 

 As pictured by the applicant in 2025 after closure

 

 

Latest proposal by the applicant

Kensal Green has another development battle underway following that over the  Harriet Tubman community centre in Hazel Road. This time it is  over the nearby Victorian Mason's Arms that closed down in 2024. 

The application is for:

Demolition of existing public house and construction of new six-storey building comprising public house (Sui Generis) on ground floor and 26 residential units (Use Class C3) on upper floors, cycle parking, private amenity space, refuse and recycling stores and servicing as well as the relocation of the listed trough and repair of the listed boundary wall. 665 Harrow Road, London, NW10 5NU

The proposal that has no affordable housing after a viability assessment is still open for community consultation LINK:

 This proposal has the support of the Kensal Triangle Residents' Association:   

After careful consideration Kensal Triangle Resident's Association (KTRA) would like to conditionally support the LJ Developments scheme for the former Masons Arms public house Development, Harrow Road.

After extensive discussion with our members and having studied the proposed scheme, we would like to be included in the final plans, as the heritage aspect of this development is important to the wider community.

'Creating Heritage for the Future'

Not only will the new building make this part of the Harrow Road more desirable, but the developers' intention to improve the Hazel Road open space will enhance this community asset. 

Having met with the developers, we believe their intentions are well placed.Despite the inevitable disruption the demolition and rebuilding will cause, we believe this project to be sound.

It was with a heavy heart that we came to this conclusion, as a great many of our members used the the Masons Arms, but feel creating heritage for the future is the way forward. 

It also creates much-needed new housing, and the scheme looks very well thought out.
The old building is in such a poor state was also noted, as there was little point in renovating such a compromised older space.

The fact that the developer seeks to have a pub/restaurant/amenities space on the ground floor also adds to the appeal of the scheme.

 

The proposed demolition of the original Victorian building is opposed by CAMRA:

  

Objection from Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch


Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) North London branch strongly object to the planning application to demolish the Masons Arms public house, Kensal Green NW10. The Masons Arms is an historic public house that has served the Kensal Green community for well over a century. Its long-standing presence, architectural character, and relationship with nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II listed horse trough and the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery wall, give it clear historic and townscape value. Although the building itself is not listed, national planning policy recognises that non-designated heritage assets can still hold local historic significance, and their loss must be taken into account in the planning balance.


The proposed pub area is much smaller, at 256.5 sq m, compared with 630 sq m in the current public house, resulting in a clear reduction in community floorspace, which is a material planning consideration. This is not an equivalent replacement and therefore conflicts with both the London Plan Policy HC7 and Brent Local Plan Policy DMP21, which requires that any redevelopment of a public house must provide a facility of comparable or improved size, layout. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable and unjustified loss of a public house that has community value and which contributes to the economy and in particular the nighttime economy of the borough.


The proposed six storey development is excessively bulky and out of scale with the surrounding streetscape, its height, massing, and overall visual dominance would create an overbearing presence that disrupts the established character of the area. This is a material planning consideration, as national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan all require new development to respect local context, respond positively to existing townscape, and avoid harm to the character and appearance of the area.


The application removes the existing function room, a space that has historically supported community meetings, funeral wakes, weddings, birthdays, and local group activities. Its loss would permanently diminish the pub's role as a multi functional community venue, further undermining the policy requirement to retain or enhance community value.


No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the existing pub is unviable or that it has been properly marketed, as required by Brent's planning policies. Without such evidence, the demolition, or change of use of the Masons Arms cannot be justified. The proposal therefore fails to meet the tests set out in national policy, the London Plan, and Brent's Local Plan for the protection of public houses. The lost of pub's garden, which was sold off and permission granted for change of use, means having a function room will be important to aid the long term viability of the pub.


CAMRA also notes the frequent risk that promised replacement pubs are delayed or never delivered once residential units are occupied. To prevent this outcome, and to ensure compliance with policy, it is essential that if permission is granted, Brent Council imposes a condition requiring that the new public house is fully fitted out, let to an operator, and open for trading before any residential units are occupied. Without such a condition, the community asset is at risk of being lost in practice even if nominally replaced on paper.

 

The proposed development would harm the setting of the Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery boundary wall, which runs directly behind the site. As a Grade I listed structure, it is of exceptional national importance, and national planning policy requires that great weight be given to its conservation. The existing Masons Arms forms part of the traditional low rise townscape that frames and supports the historic character of the cemetery wall. Replacing it with a six storey building would introduce an intrusive and disproportionate mass that would dominate views, disrupt the historic scale of the street, and erode the legibility of the cemetery wall as a heritage asset. The development would harm the setting of the Grade II listed horse trough located immediately outside the Masons Arms. This heritage asset derives its significance not only from its physical form but from its historic relationship with the surrounding streetscape and long established public house. Demolishing the existing building and replacing it with a six storey structure would fundamentally alter the scale, character, and visual context of the trough, diminishing its historic setting and eroding its legibility as part of the area's traditional streetscene. This impact is a material planning consideration and is contrary to national policy on heritage protection, which requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and their settings. If permission is granted, the developer should submit a plan for storage of the Grade II listed horse trough, so it does not get damaged during redevelopment of the site, the Brent Conservation Officer should oversee the plans for the trough, to endure it is not harmed by the new development. Original bricks should be used where possible in the repair of the listed boundary way, overseen by the Brent Conservation Officer.


A further material planning consideration is the significantly higher carbon footprint of demolition compared with retrofitting. National planning policy requires decision makers to support development that moves towards a low carbon future and to give substantial weight to reducing embodied carbon. Demolishing the existing Masons Arms and constructing a new six storey building would generate a far greater volume of embodied carbon than refurbishing and upgrading the existing structure. Brent Council's own climate emergency commitments, all of which expect applicants to demonstrate that demolition is the least carbon option. No such justification has been provided, and the application fails to show that demolition is necessary or environmentally responsible.


The proposal is contrary to National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which recognises public houses as essential community facilities and expects local authorities to guard against their unnecessary loss. It is also contrary to London Plan 2021 Policy HC7, which requires boroughs to protect public houses and resist proposals that would lead to the loss of their community, cultural, or economic value.


For these reasons, CAMRA North London Branch objects to the application and urges Brent Council to refuse planning permission

 Because of its history of hosting drinks after Kensal Green Cemetery funerals, the comments come from further afield than usual:

 

Firstly I know I am not a local to The Masons Arms and this objection maybe sentimental but The Masons has been part of my family history since before WW2. My family grew up in Earlsmead Rd and we were a very big family. 28 members lived in five different houses and in Greyhound rd. My uncle would play the piano in the pub, my nan played the accordion and was the cleaner for the pub. In the 60's when I would visit my nan we would go to the Masons Arms and it was always a pub for the family to meet up. Fifty years later we still visit as a family and have get togethers even for my dad's 85th birthday. It is a special place where family can meet as well as visit passed family members in the cemetery.

I am a huge history buff and to find out that the horse trough was the first in London proves how important the area has been for many years. The cemetery is one of the finest Victorian Great 7 and people who visit for funerals often need somewhere to stop for refreshments after. I know many pubs are being closed but there is so much more that can be done to help the pub survive. Our local pub has different music nights, art classes, sip and paint, craft afternoons and so much more. It should be a community pub and not be turned into flats. The whole atmosphere will change in the area as there are no other pubs close by. It was said that it had encouraged anti social behaviour but whilst the pub is boarded up it will only get worse. I was there one day when the garden was open which was beautiful and there was a regular barbecue. Having the garden reopened will encourage family visits.

I can see along the Harrow Rd there are many apartments which take away the community feel to Kensal Green. I am absolutely sure that many people will object to the Mason's being demolished. Why in this country do we rush to remove our architectural heritage. The coffin carrier is also a piece of architectural heritage. Do not destroy the pub. Please!

 

However, some locals support the application:     

 

I strongly support this application. I have lived here for 26 years and often enjoyed the Masons Arms as a local pub. However, since the garden closed, the pub has struggled to be viable.


For the past few years, the Masons has been empty most days, apart from post-funeral gatherings, which became increasingly rare. It now stands derelict and is a fire hazard, attracting antisocial behaviour.


Just 500 metres down the road, the William IV pub has also closed, which also struggled with footfall over the past years, despite being refurbished into a pub/hotel and imaginative party nights, pub quizzes and excellent food. All of which suggests to me that the footfall along this part of the Harrow Road is not sufficient to support one, let alone two, large local pubs.


The need for affordable housing in this area far outweighs the protection of a derelict, unusable pub building, which cannot be financially viable. What's the point of having a beautifully refurbished Victorian pub if there are no young people who can afford to live in the local area to populate it?


I think the proposed design, which mirrors the Holland & Holland factory almost opposite, is a very clever method of linking the new building with the existing environment. The size and composition of the frontage is in keeping with the H&H building, also a well-respected landmark of Kensal Green.


The local environment will also benefit from the redevelopment of the park and playground opposite the Mason's Arms, which will again reduce antisocial behaviour and result in a leisure space that the local community can enjoy.


I strongly support this proposal and urge Brent Planning to approve this application to benefit the local area and its citizens.

 

Other locals are opposed: 

      

As a resident of the Kensal area for 7 years I strongly object to the plans to demolish the Masons Arms. So many of the historic buildings in this area - such as many pubs, the Manor House and Lodge, Tavistock House, the stonemasons workshops, etc - have now gone to be replaced with ugly blocks of flats and very little of the original 'Kensal Green' remains.

Of course, I recognise that new homes are needed in London but why does it always come with the destruction of our history? Ideally, it would remain a pub but if that is really not viable, then why not retain and convert the existing building into flats? I am sure not everyone wants to live in a boring new-build and would jump at the chance to live somewhere with a bit of history and character.

Also as a member of the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery, I know that the pub has many connections to the cemetery, and that unique history would be lost if the pub was demolished. I also fear the impact of the 6 storey block looming over the cemetery - currently with another threat of a development to the south of the cemetery.

The Masons Arms is a beautiful, historic building which still retains many of its Victorian interiors and fittings - and the destruction of it would be a terrible loss to the local community. I also sincerely request that whatever happens, if the developers are not going to keep/use the unique wooden coffin display case, that they donate it to either the Friends of Kensal Green Cemetery or the General Cemetery Company.

I ask you to reconsider this development and the wanton destruction of yet another piece of the last remnants of our local history.

 

 

  

I strongly object to application 26/0807 for the demolition of the Masons Arms public house and construction of the proposed six-storey development at 665 Harrow Road.

With Harriet Tubman House in Hazel Road also under threat, it would be a profound loss for Kensal Green to lose two significant Victorian landmark buildings simultaneously. The Masons Arms is an important historic public house dating from before 1865, making it one of the oldest surviving buildings in Kensal Green, with strong historical connections to the world-famous Grade I listed Kensal Green Cemetery immediately behind it.

Historically, the pub provided accommodation for stone masons and craftsmen from across Europe employed at the cemetery during the nineteenth century. The grade II listed horse trough was used by dray-horses until the 1930s and perhaps even later. The building therefore forms part of the social and architectural history of Kensal Green and the Harrow Road corridor.

Its distinctive Dutch-style gable is one of the most recognisable architectural features along the seven-mile stretch of Harrow Road between Paddington and Harrow-on-the-Hill, giving the building considerable local landmark value and contributing positively to the character of the streetscape. It is an oversight that it was never listed along with the Grade I cemetery behind it.

The pub also retains rare and unusual historic interior features, including a unique coffin stand associated with funeral wakes connected to the cemetery, where coffins were historically passed through a hatch into the bar area. These features form part of the cultural and historic significance of the building and should not be lost.

The current situation presents residents with a false binary choice between a neglected, boarded-up building and total demolition. The present condition of the property should not be used to justify the destruction of a historic local landmark, particularly when the deterioration appears to have been allowed, and the developers have made no attempt to remove the graffiti despite requests from residents.

With imagination and sensitive design, the building could be successfully repurposed to accommodate residential units while retaining the elegant and historically important Victorian façade and core structure, as has already been achieved with other historic public houses along Harrow Road, including the former College Park Hotel at 873 Harrow Road and the former Flora public house at 525 Harrow Road.

It is particularly disappointing that the scheme proposes demolishing the existing historic public house only to incorporate a replacement bar within the new development. A more sensitive and sustainable approach would be to retain and incorporate the original Victorian ground-floor public house itself, preserving an increasingly rare type of traditional London pub interior that future generations are likely to value even more highly, and one that Sir Paul McCartney chose to use when seeking a traditional London pub of character.
The proposed six-storey building would also be excessively tall and wide, and overbearing in this location. At approximately one-and-a-half storeys higher than the adjoining hostel building, the development would appear architecturally dominant and visually jarring within a predominantly low-rise section of Harrow Road, and overshadow Hazel Road Open Space and the gardens on the South side of Hazel Road.

The scale and massing of the proposal would harm the character of Kensal Green and Kensal Rise, creating an over-developed and overly urban appearance inconsistent with the existing townscape. The development would additionally reduce sunlight and outlook to Hazel Road Open Space and to the rear gardens of properties on the south side of Hazel Road, adversely affecting residential amenity.

For these reasons, including the substantial heritage loss, inappropriate scale and massing, and harmful impact on local character and amenity, I respectfully urge Brent Council to refuse this application and instead encourage a scheme that retains and sensitively repurposes this important historic building.

 

For balance I include a submission in favour by a young local but do follow the LINK and review all the comments.

  

I strongly support this development.

This development brings the potential for a new, functioning pub/bar and deli, which the local community would appreciate. The desire for the existing (and now derelict) Masons Arms pub to reopen underscores the demand and therefore, I believe, the future commercial success of the new Masons Arms. As a young person living locally, I am very keen for a local pub to not just operate but to thrive too.

The current state of the Masons Arms has led to squatters, fly tipped rubbish and fires being lit. This is not conducive to Kensal Green being a save and liveable area. The inside of the building, I have been told, has several severe structural defects which would render the renovation of the existing building unviable.

There is not enough housing stock at a national level, and this area is no exception. The flats the development will bring will mean more people can make Kensal Green their home and subsequently stimulate the local economy with additional disposable income. Local businesses are suffering from a lack of footfall on Harrow Road and I believe this would go a long way to rectifying that.

I believe that the developers have listened to local concerns and the amended planning application (regarding the historic trough, height of the building, etc) reflects this.

The regeneration of the Hazel Road green space is sorely needed, and will allow, in particular, women and families in the area to feel safer at night and enjoy the space more during the day.

I encourage the council to approve the application and allow the project to proceed.

 

The Victorian interior of the pub was valued by many customers but  I have not been able to take any photographs inside the boarded up building but go to this London CAMRA website for an appreciation and pictures. LINK