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 

 

Books of condolence for victims of the India air crash opened in Brent. Prayer meeting at 5pm today.

 

The impact of the air crash in India is being deeply felt across the Gujerati community in Brent and Harrow.

The Brent Indian Association (BIA) has opened a condolence book at the front of their headquarters (116 Ealing Rd, Wembley HA0 4TH). The BIA has also organised a prayer meeting on Saturday, 14 June, from 5pm to 7pm to honour the lives lost and support those left behind.

The council has also opened books of condolences at its libraries in Brent Civic Centre and on Ealing Road and Kingsbury.

For those seeking assistance or information please call the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office: 020 7008 5000.

Nearly 100 years ago plans were put forward for a 'Super Cinema' in Wembley: The Wembley's Majestic Cinema Story - Part 1

Local History Post by Tony Royden and Philip Grant.

1.The Majestic’s front elevation drawing, from the 1928 planning application.

 

Today there are multiple ways we can view films; at the cinema, on free-to-air television, blu-ray, DVD or the many streaming platforms which we can even watch on our smartphones. But 100 years ago it was a very different story. The cinema was the only place for the public to go, which they did in their thousands to see the latest releases. Back then, the cinema (or ‘Picture House’, which popularised the colloquial expression “going to the pictures”), would have shown black-and-white silent movies, accompanied by incidental music being played live on a piano, or sometimes by a small orchestra.

 

Wembley got its first cinema in 1915, when a former roller-skating rink at the corner of the High Road and Cecil Avenue was roofed over and converted to the Wembley Hall Cinematograph Theatre. It had around 500 seats and offered continuous showing of “animated pictures” in the evenings, with matinees on Wednesday (the early closing day for Wembley’s shops) and Saturday afternoons.

 

2.Wembley Hall Cinema advert and postcard, both from c.1920.

 

By the 1920s, Wembley was a fast-growing suburb of London, thanks to the British Empire Exhibition (which brought in millions of visitors) and an attractive “Metroland” marketing campaign encouraging people to make it their home – a far cry from the crowded and dirty centre of the capital. Residents were looking forward to having a cinema with more than the very basic facilities of the Wembley Hall, and when a large cinema chain put up a signboard in 1926, on a piece of land at the corner of the High Road and Park Lane, promising that a ‘super cinema’ would be built there, it seemed that they would soon have one.

 

3.Looking west along Wembley High Road in the 1920s. (Brent Archives – Wembley History Society Colln.)

 

Two years passed, and despite the signboard still being displayed, no building work had begun. Thankfully, two Wembley men were chatting on the pavement, and one declared: ‘If they are not going to build a cinema, it’s about time we had one.’ That man was R.H. Powis, a County Councillor and public works contractor with offices at 12 Neeld Parade (Wembley Triangle). Powis’ vision of a Super Cinema was one that incorporated shops, café and ballroom and he wasted no time in gathering a group of local businessmen together, to form a company that would actually undertake the work to build it.

 

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

 

Powis was no stranger to championing large entertainment projects, as he had been a leading figure in organising Wembley’s staging of an Elizabethan scene, involving over 2,000 local residents, for the Pageant of Empire at the British Empire Exhibition in 1924 (taking a starring role himself, as Sir Francis Drake!). He became the Chairman, and other investor/directors included Charles Aldridge, who had a confectionery shop at 5 Neeld Parade, and E.C. Mitchell, whose bakery business was at 112-114 High Road. With a formidable local team assembled they named the company The Wembley Majestic Theatre Ltd (because their vision was for a super theatre of grandeur that would be nothing short of majestic), and the ball was rolling.

 

First, they needed a site on which to build the cinema, and again local contacts were useful. Another leading supporter of Wembley’s part in the Pageant of Empire was the district’s Medical Officer, Dr Charles Goddard. He was currently raising money for the new Wembley Hospital, and was a trustee of the charity which owned the original Cottage Hospital, built with money donated by Anne Copland in 1871. This Victorian building, which had become a private house called “Elmwood”, was located on the High Road, next door to the then recently-built Post Office (currently “The Robin” gastropub). It had been rented to a local builder, James Comben, of Comben & Wakeling Ltd, but now it was vacant and available to buy!

 

5.“Elmwood” in the 1920s. (Both images from the “Wembley News” supplement)

 

By coincidence, “Elmwood” was directly across the road from where the original ‘super cinema’ signboard was placed on derelict land two years previously and where the cinema chain had promised to build their cinema – the location of which was to play a significant role for what was about to happen.

  

6.The Majestic Cinema site location plan, from an original planning application drawing.
(Brent Archives – Wembley plans microfilm 3474)

 

Next, Powis and his fellow directors needed architects for the new building, and as the cinema was being built with local money, they chose two local men for this assignment. J. Field and H.J. Stewart were a firm practicing from a private house at 2 Christchurch Avenue, near Ealing Road. They submitted their plans to Wembley Urban District Council on 6 February 1928, and these were approved by the Council’s Surveyor two days later!

 

7.J. Field and H.J. Stewart, the Majestic Cinema’s architects. (From the “Wembley News” supplement)

 

8.Field and Stewart’s main drawing for the cinema. (Brent Archives – Wembley plans microfilm 3474)

 

The contract for building the cinema was put out to tender, and the directors received thirty bids. They gave the work to W.E. Greenwood & Son Ltd, who had offered the second lowest price, on condition that they began work the following morning (which they did). This company was quite local (based at Mordaunt Road in Harlesden), and had the advantage that W.E. Greenwood himself was a specialist in interior design, which was to be a feature of the cinema.

9.Work in progress on the Majestic Cinema, around June 1928. (From the “Wembley News” supplement)

 

Work went ahead at pace, and by the middle of 1928 the people of Wembley could see their new “super cinema” rising from behind the hoardings, opposite the southern end of Park Lane. Meanwhile, across the road, bricks had arrived on the derelict land for the original two-year promised ‘super cinema’ to commence their construction. Worrying times for Mr Powis and the company’s directors, but they were not deterred. They stepped up construction, working day and night, determined to win the race for Wembley’s first super cinema. But an unforeseen delay was just around the corner.

 

10.Looking out from inside the future auditorium towards the back of the cinema site, around August 1928.
(From the “Wembley News” supplement)

 

Beyond the elegant frontage, the Majestic’s auditorium had a lightweight steel structured roof, covered with roofing felt fixed to wooden sheets. On a hot Monday afternoon, 20 August 1928, while this was being installed, the roof suddenly caught fire. Luckily Wembley’s volunteer fire brigade, with its fire station located nearby on St John’s Road, just behind the Town Hall, was quickly on the scene, just two minutes after the alarm was raised, to extinguish the flames before the fire had caused any damage to the steelwork.

 

11.The fire on the roof of the Majestic Cinema, August 1928, with the Post Office building on the right.
(Brent Archives)

 

The fire was a minor setback and although there was £200 worth of damage (which is approximately £11,000 in today’s money) it did not delay the work on the cinema. By the autumn people passing the site could see the front of the building taking shape.  At street level there were three shops available for letting and stretching across the whole width of the first floor were the windows of an imposing ballroom. But what they couldn’t see was the spectacular interior of the cinema itself, which was being skilfully crafted by decorative artist, John Bull, to W.E. Greenwood’s designs … they would have to wait until the Majestic Cinema opened to the public in January 1929 for the big reveal.

 

12.The front of the Majestic Cinema nearing completion. (From the “Wembley News” supplement)

 

You will only have to wait until next weekend, for Part 2, to see pictures of the Majestic’s interior, so join us then! We can assure you that it is worth waiting for.

Tony Royden and Philip Grant.

 

 

 

Wembley Housing Zone – Estate Management Company and The Pages. Will the arrangement leave Brent Council at risk?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Work in progress on the Cecil Avenue site (aka The Pages Wembley), 9 June 2025.

 

I was in the High Road on Monday, and discovered that the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development at Cecil Avenue is now being marketed as “The Pages Wembley”. More on that later, but Cecil Avenue is also on the agenda for next week’s Brent Cabinet meeting, over an Estate Management Company.

 

Readers may remember that although Brent Council owns the Cecil Avenue site, and received full planning consent for the development there in February 2021, it was not until March 2023 that it entered into a WHZ partnership agreement with Wates. Work did not actually start on site until February 2024, and by that time I’d found out (through a Freedom of Information Act request) that under this “partnership”, 150 of the 237 homes would be for Wates to sell, and of the 87 Brent Council homes, only 56 (half of them family size units) would be for letting at London Affordable Rent level. Of the other Brent Council “affordable” homes, 28 would be for shared ownership and 3 would be sold at a discount from market price.

 

These are the main recommendations in the Report to Brent’s Cabinet, and the “Cabinet Member Foreword”, which gives the Council Officers’ “spin” on why they want our top elected councillors to agree the recommendations they have made:

 

 

 

All of the WHZ Council flats in Ujima House and the Council’s London Affordable Rent homes at Cecil Avenue will come under Brent’s Housing Revenue Account, but the Estate Management Company (“EMC”) will also require payment of service charges from tenants living on that site. As the services provided by the EMC are quite broad, and it appears that it will hire a managing agent to carry out some or all of those services, tenants at the Cecil Avenue site are likely to face quite high service charges on top of their “genuinely affordable” rent.

 

 

As ‘Wates have experience of setting up similar companies’, Brent will let them take the lead on setting up this EMC, but once Wates have sold all 150 of the 237 homes at Cecil Avenue (which our Council allowed them to have under the 2023 partnership agreement) they will walk away from the EMC. ‘Brent Council will then have full control, ownership and responsibility for the Company’, which in turn means that the Council will have full responsibility ‘for repair and maintenance of the structure’.

 

I may be a pessimist and a cynic, but I can’t help feeling that this will leave Brent Council, through its by then wholly-owned EMC subsidiary, at risk of a situation similar to that experienced when it had to bail out its First Wave Housing subsidiary over Granville New Homes. Those homes had been built through a partnership between Brent and the developer, Higgins. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Wates workmanship is on the same level as that of Higgins on that 2009 South Kilburn project!)

 

 

Turning to “The Pages”, when I was in the High Road, trying to take photographs of the Cecil Avenue site hoardings across the street (through the traffic tailed back from road works at the Ealing Road junction!), a visitor to Wembley asked me if I knew why the development had been given that name. Was it because it used to be a printing works, or something like that? I said it was the first time I had seen “The Pages Wembley” name, that there used to be a school on the site, and my guess was that it might be a reference to the Page family, who were major landowners in the area several centuries ago.

 

Sure enough, when I searched for "The Pages Wembley” online, I found that: ‘The name is a nod to the Page family, who became major landowners in Wembley in the 16th century.’ I also found that Savills are already marketing the private homes here on their website. This is a small sample of what is on offer:

 

Composite of images from a Savills video and Savills sales website.

 

It is interesting that the top image, from the video, shows that it was issued by Savills International Realty Limited, and the black letters under the Savills name in their logo appear to be in Chinese characters! Echoes of Brent’s “partnership” development at Willesden Green Library? The video showcases Wembley as a “world class location”, and most of its filming appears to have been done at Quintain’s Wembley Park development, with just a handful of CGI pictures of what “The Pages” is meant to look like when it is completed, which should be in late Summer or Autumn 2026 (not March/April 2026, as implied in the video)!

 

The opening line of Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”. (Image from the internet)

 

I can’t help thinking that the link between Brent Council’s development at Cecil Avenue and the Page family is ironic. The last of the wealthy Wembley Pages were four brothers, who were contemporaries of Jane Austen (the 250^th anniversary of whose birth is being celebrated by the BBC at the moment). As I showed in Part 2 of The Wembley Park Story, in 2020, they seemed to have overlooked the important truth that rich families needed to produce an heir, to pass on their wealth to. The will signed by the final Page brother left all of the family’s wealth to his solicitor (or so the solicitor claimed – he went on to live in one of their mansions in Sudbury, and became a governor of Harrow School). 

 

It is a truth (almost) universally acknowledged that a London Borough has thousands of people in want of an affordable home to rent. And if you look at some of the signs on the hoardings outside “The Pages” in the High Road, that is what you would think Brent Council was building there.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet made its formal decision on the WHZ development in August 2021, they knew what the borough’s housing needs were. These had been spelt out in the Brent Poverty Commission report, whose recommendations (including borrowing when interest rates were low to build more Council homes, especially those for social rent level, which was all that many local people could afford) the Cabinet had accepted less than a year before. 

So what was ‘the Wembley Housing Zone Vision’ which they were delivering? I think that the deal they signed with Wates has “swindled” many Brent residents in housing need out of a home that they could have had (and could have had by 2024, if the Council had not gone down the “developer partner” route). What do you think?

Philip Grant.