WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
Cllr Shama Shilesh Tatler was introduced and took the oath in the House of Lords on Tuesday having been created Baronness Shah of Wembley. She was supported by Lord Evans of Sealand and Lord Katz (formerly Mike Katz and now Baron Katz of Fortune Green.)
The full list of Cabinet and Committee changes has been published ahead of tonight's Extraordinary General Meeting of Brent Full Council. The changes follow the creation of a Green Group when 5 former Labour councillors made the positive choice to transfer their allegience to the Green Party.
Cllr Ishma Moeen (Wembey Hill ward) will succeed Cllr Harbi Farah in the revised portfolio of Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Cohesion. Cllr Moeen has wide outside interests in addition to her councillor responsibilities:
The full changes are appended but it is worth noting that Cllr Nerva is replaced by Cllr Farah on the General Purposes Committee and that Cllr Dixon comes off Planning. Cllr Dixon becomes Chief Whip succeeding Cllr Ahmadi Moghaddam who has joined the Greens.
The need for effective scrutiny and full transparency has long been a theme of the Green Party in Brent Cllr Mitchell, leader of the Green Group) is on the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Ethapemi on the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Gbajumo joins the Audit and Standards Committee and Advisory Committee.
Cllr Bajwa, currently revelling in the role of Deputy Mayor, comes off the Licensing Committee and is replaced by Cllr Ethapemi.
Greens now take over the role of second opposition party from the Lib Dems.
The appointments come on the eve of what I understand is a return visit of the Campaign Improvement Board that made the Labour selections for May 2026.
Guest Post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
The meeting where submission of the Stopping-up Order application was approved.
(Note the date!)
In a guest post on 1 January I asked: Why does Brent want to Stop-up “highway” near the Olympic Steps? I have had a couple of email exchanges with Council Officers about this matter since then, the full texts of which are included as “FOR INFORMATION” comments under that article (along with several comments from WM readers).
In the latest response, from a mid-ranking Council Officer on 8 January, it was suggested that if I had wanted to challenge the application for Brent’s proposed Stopping-up Order, I should have sought a Judicial Review of a decision made by Brent’s General Purposes Committee nearly four years ago! That was nonsense – any member of the public has the right to be heard when the application is actually made to the Magistrates’ Court.
The hearing is scheduled for 2pm on Thursday 22 January. But as I’m convinced that even making the application is a mistake, and unnecessary (and I can be very persistent when I feel strongly about something), I have tried one final attempt to make Brent Council see sense. As I had failed to convince them with words, I decided to use pictures as well. This is the text of the email that I sent on the morning of Monday 12 January to Brent’s Public Realm Director, Chief Executive and Director of Law (and I have asked Martin to include the “pictures” attachment below this post):
This is an Open Email
Dear Mr Whyte, Ms Wright and Ms Henry,
I have tried, in my emails of 2 and 8 January, to persuade Council Officers in words why Brent Council need not, and should not, pursue this Section 116 Highways Act Stopping-up Order application.
I realise that it must be frustrating when an ordinary resident seeks to tell Officers that they are "going down the wrong road", but when I can see that the present course is wrong, and that there is a right way, I feel I have a civic duty to draw this to your attention.
If my words cannot persuade you, I hope that my pictures will, so please look at the attached document. It shows that the areas of highway, which the proposed Order seeks to remove the legal right for pedestrians and vehicles to cross over, are in everyday use by the people of our borough and visitors to it.
Does Brent Council really want to embarrass itself in Court, by claiming that these areas of highway are unnecessary?
I realise that Brent
Council, and Quintain Limited, wish to resolve an outstanding problem over
these areas of land as "adopted public highway", and Highways Act
1980 does provide the right way to do that. It is Section 256, not Section
116:
[From Highways Act 1980 on www.legislation.gov.uk ]
I sincerely hope that reason and good sense can now prevail, and that the Council will withdraw its Stopping-up application from the Willesden Magistrates' Court list for Thursday 22 January. I look forward to receiving your reply, in good time before that date. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
Dear Editor,
On 21 December Wembley Matters posted a story based on Labour spin.
Stating that Brent is to get an increase of 9.9% in “core funding”.
Sadly this is not true.
The Labour Government has juggled Grants and other Government funding and came up with a figure for Brent’s ‘core spending power’.
The 9,9% assumes that the Council imposes the full 5% Council Tax rise. So the 9.9% core spending increase includes the extra local people will need to pay as part of the latest Council Tax rise and at a briefing with Finance Officers we were told that the Council Tax rise represent about a 3rd of this 9.9%. So only 6.6% - and NO Labour did not simply invert the numbers. The Labour Deputy Leader was simply not telling the truth.
The situation is even worse than this. 3 months ago we were told the overspend this year stands at £9 million. Now the Cabinet is being told on Monday the most up to date overspend is £12.5 million. An increase of £3.5 million!
And the reason for the £3.5 million is mostly in social care - care packages more expensive because providers are passing on the higher costs of energy and staffing. And why is cost employees going up? - because Labour hiked up employers National Insurance. So Local Government is being hit the same way as the hospitality sector and any other service reliant on people to provide it.
Because these extra costs are recurring year on year the so called 9.9% (actually only 6.6%) has already been wiped out.
So the Brent Labour claims that things would get better under a Labour Government are pure fiction.
The Lead Member for Finance is clearly completely out of her depth. Tried to mislead us on the true figures, has no control of the Brent Budget and should resign or be sacked.
All the best,
Paul Lorber (Leader of Brent Council Liberal Democrat Group)
I wrote in the week before Christmas about a pensioner with dementia who left his care home for 7-1/2 hours and ended up in hospital. An official complaint was made calling for an investigation. See LINK. I understand that Glen Atkins has now moved from Beechwood Court to a residential setting that is better able to meet his needs and safeguard his wellbeing.
I am told he is much happier in his new home, his needs are being met and he is safe.
Menwhile the first stage of the investigation has concluded that provider concerns were identified that warranted further investigations that are currently in progress.
Unfortunately in another case we covered over the holiday, that of John H in an Octavia property in South Kilburn, who was without central heating for 45 days, the outcome is not as satisfactory. His heating has been restored after 17 appointments and 45 days without heating LINK but in the process of 'repair' parts of the system were disconnected meaning he cannot not top up credit for his heating. The engineer put in a temporary £10 credit which in the current cold weather is likely to run out quickly.
John wrote yesterday evening:
Just to update you.
No one from Octavia, Abri and Brent Council have been in touch today.I still do not know if I will lose my heating when the 10 pounds of emergency credit runs out.My wall mounted meter screen remains blank and my Insite Energy credit balance is still frozen at the same amount as it was on Tuesday, when it was disconnected.
There was another case earlier this week when an elderly and vulnerable council tenant got locked out of her home and Brent Council proved less than helpful.
Changes will needed if Brent Council is to realise its ambition to become an 'age-friendly borough'.
Pensioner John H's heating was finally repaired today. From Day 1 the 24th November, 2025 until today the 6th January 2026 the heating was down for 44 days. There were a total of 17 appointments arranged with SureServe of which four were attended and 13 missed.
John is a disabled tenant of Octavia Housing at Bannister House South Kilburn.
Cllr Fleur Donnelly-Jackson commented on Wembey Matters today: 'The repair has been completed today after continued advocacy by the council's housing partnerships team. The support to the resident is ongoing.
The saga isn't quite over. John told Wembley Matters this evening:
All my heating is back on.
However, I now need another repair appointment to fix all the damage caused by SureServe today, including disconnecting my heating meter, which shows how much credit I have left and leaving some of my pipework exposed.I asked Octavia to carry out the repair but they say it's not their responsibility and it's up to me to arrange the appointment with Insite Energy, who provide my heating.
An Extraordinary Meeting of Brent Council has been called in line with constitutional rules to allocate the new distribution of committee positions This follows the move of 5 Labour councillors to the Green Party and the formation of a new Green Group, led by Cllr Mary Mitchell.
The Green Group becomes the second largest opposition group after the Conservatives taking over from the Liberal Democrats for the purpose of the Members Allowance scheme. LINK
The distribution of Committee seats:
I wrote to Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council about the issue of John H, the South Kilburn resident about the lack of repair of his heating after 15 visits from Sureserve and the unsuitability of the initial offers of alternative accommodation.
This is the response from his Office:
Dear Martin,
I am responding on behalf of Cllr Butt.
Thank you for flagging this case with his office and for setting out the position.
Having looked into the matter on behalf of Cllr Butt, I can see that Cllr Donnelly-Jackson has pursued this issue throughout the Christmas period, raising it repeatedly with housing officers and the partnerships team that liaises with housing associations, including Octavia. To avoid any duplication of that effort and to ensure continuity, Cllr Donnelly-Jackson will therefore remain the lead councillor on this piece of casework.
Cllr Butt is aware of the position and will support Cllr Donnelly-Jackson in escalating the matter with senior management at Octavia where needed, with a focus on ensuring that any temporary arrangements reflect John’s health needs and required disability adaptations.
Thank you again for your advocacy on John’s behalf: please be assured that the case continues to be actively pursued.
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Philip for his many valuable contributions over the past year,
I don’t make New Year resolutions. If I did, one of them would probably be not to get into any new entanglements with Brent Council in 2026. And I would have broken it already, after seeing this Legal Notice in the 18 December edition of our local newspaper.
The Notice said that the Council would be applying for a Stopping-up Order for an area of highway, including pedestrian areas near the Olympic Steps. That seemed an odd thing to do, as such an order would extinguish all rights of way over that land. I’m interested in the history of Wembley Park, and actually wrote an illustrated article, The Olympic Way Story, for Brent Council in 2017! I wanted to see what area of land the application affected, but to do that I would have to go to the Civic Centre ‘during normal office hours on Mondays to Fridays.’
A copy of the Notice, on a lamp post at Engineers Way, 22 December 2025.
So on Monday 22 December I went to the Civic Centre to inspect the Plan and Draft Order, and did see one notice about the proposed stopping-up on a lamp post. But when I asked to inspect the documents, staff in the Library did not know anything about them, and after a half-hour wait to be seen at the Civic Centre’s “Welcome Desk” (reception), staff there did not know about them either, and could not find them in the cupboards behind the desk.
I sent an email to the address of the Council Officer listed in the Notice as soon as I got home, and that Officer in Brent’s Development Services department sent me pdf copies of the documents the following day, also saying that they ‘were given to both Civic Centre reception and Wembley Library on the 12 December 2025 for public viewing.’ As I believe it is important that local residents have easy access to the Plan and Draft Order, I will ask Martin to attach copies at the end of this article.
When I saw what was involved in the Order Brent would be seeking from Magistrates on 22 January, I could not understand the reason for it. Why would they want to stop people walking over that land, or vehicles from going between Engineers Way and Olympic Way East or West? I felt it had to be questioned, and if necessary challenged! My 22 December email had been copied to Brent’s Public Realm Director (who had signed the Notice), and as his “out of office” message said that he was away until 29 December, this is the main section of the email I sent him first thing that morning:
‘[Your colleague] kindly sent me the documents for this Stopping-up application on 23 December, but that does not detract from the fact that those documents were not freely available for me to inspect, during normal office hours at Brent Civic Centre on Monday 22 December, as they should have been under your Notice of 11 December 2025.
Please let me know whether you still intend to make the Council's application at the hearing on 22 January 2026, or whether you will be issuing a fresh Notice, with a new hearing date, ensuring that the necessary documents are available to inspect, at a designated location within the Civic Centre (as suggested in my email to you of 22 December).
I note that the Plan showing the hatched areas which the proposed Order plans to stop-up was prepared for Quintain Limited in June 2025. Can you confirm, please, that the London Borough of Brent is making the application on behalf of Quintain Limited, and if so, on what basis is the Council doing that (and at whose expense)?
This is the relevant extract from the Plan (with the words "Olympic Steps" added for clarity):
The draft Court Order states that the application is being made because the area(s) 'shown hatched black on the plan attached drawing number TPHS-434-DR-00 should be stopped up on the ground that it is unnecessary.'
Please let me know the reasons why you consider those hatched areas to be unnecessary for pedestrians and/or vehicles to use in future. I have to ask that, because I cannot understand why that should be the case, as stopping-up would extinguish 'all traffic and all public rights of way ... over the said area of highway.'
From my knowledge of the area, including walking over some of the "hatched" areas myself on my visits to Wembley Park, I can't understand why it should be unnecessary for:
· vehicles to pass, at least on some occasions, to or from Engineers Way and Olympic Way East and Olympic Way West, including to access the undercroft area for community and other events;
· for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Olympic Way to have unimpeded access to the Olympic Steps, in both directions, especially when large events are taking place at the Stadium;
· for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Market Square, beside the Civic Centre, to have unimpeded access to Wembley Park Boulevard (and back, on their way from Wembley Arena, the LDO and beyond towards Wembley Park Station);
· for pedestrians coming west along Engineers Way from Canada Gardens, the University of Football Business and other developments, to have free use of the existing wide pedestrian area at the foot of the Olympic Steps, and the existing but narrower pedestrian area as they approach Wembley Park Boulevard and Arena Square.
The areas which your application proposes to stop-up were designed to be the way they are, as part of Quintain's Masterplan for Wembley Park. I can't see why the need for them should have changed, particularly given the growing number of people living in the area, and the increased number of large events at the Stadium, since that Masterplan was drawn up, and approved by Brent Council.
Unless you can provide a very strong justification as to why those hatched areas on the Plan are now unnecessary, I think that this application should be withdrawn. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.’
In case you have difficulty in visualising the areas the Council proposes to stop-up from the plan, I have marked them in red on this Google Maps satellite view extract:
The Public Realm Director quickly sent a holding reply, to say that he would consult colleagues on their return before sending a full response, and this is what he wrote when he sent that:
‘Dear Mr Grant,
The land proposed to be stopped up was the former bell mouth into Green Car Park and a sliver of land along the southern footway of Engineers Way located east of Wembley Park Boulevard.
The stopping-up was requested by Quintain as the area shown in hatch was deemed to be in the line of their Hostile Vehicles Mitigation bollards (an important counter-terrorism installation). These bollards are installed by Quintain, and the future maintenance will also be with them. The staggered nature of the former highway land would not serve any purpose as highway maintainable at public expense and so there is value in eliminating an ongoing burden on public finances.
I confirm Quintain has met all expenses in this stopping-up process. The original application was made around five years ago and the legal process, the statutory undertakers utility clearance and the obtaining of a court date have taken a considerable amount of time.
The stopping-up does not in any way impede public access to Olympic Steps nor to the access roads Olympic Way East and West. The stopping-up process will not in any way change the layout of the public realm that is currently in place. All existing pedestrian and vehicular access will remain unchanged, and we have had written assurance from Quintain to this effect. The purpose is simply to allow Quintain to maintain their land in future years to the same standard as the rest of the Wembley Park estate.
We have now been given a court date for the hearing on the 22 January 2026 at 2 pm. Therefore, the notice of intent and the draft order was publicised by our lawyers on the 15 December allowing sufficient time for the statutory notice period.
As part of the notice process, notices and a draft order were published in the local press; the same was posted on-site and a copy of the notice of intent, draft order and the stopping-up plan were left with Brent Civic Centre welcome desk and at the Wembley Library on the 12 December.
Following your email, my colleague contacted the Civic Centre welcome desk and requested that the documents must be available for public viewing until the end of the statutory notice period, i.e. 19 January 2026.
I regret you couldn’t view these documents when you visited. However, they were left with the front of house staff on Friday, 12 December 2025.
The stopping up process is a lengthy process and the court date is harder to obtain. Therefore, asking for an alternate date is not a viable option and would require substantial officer time.
I can advise, however, that if you are not satisfied with our process, then you can, of course, make representation at the court.
I hope this is helpful background. Kind regards,
Director of Public Realm.’
The Olympic Steps and Stadium, from Engineers Way
(with people walking across a strip of land that could be stopped-up!)
If you have managed to read this guest post all the way through to here, thank you. What do you think of this proposed Stopping-up Order, and the Council’s explanation of why they are applying for it? If you have any views, please feel free to share them in the comments below.
I think it is important that local residents are aware of this application, by Brent Council on behalf of Quintain Limited. Having considered it myself, I believe that the proposed Order is unnecessary, and a misuse of Section 116, Highways Act 1980. I will try to persuade the Council Officer to withdraw the application, and will include my reasoning for that (as the text of an email I will send to him) for information in the comments section.
For now, though, I will wish all “Wembley Matters” readers a Happy New Year! There will be lots of interesting and important things happening in Brent in 2026, and this blog website is a very good source for information about them, so please keep following it.
Philip Grant
Letters have gone out to residents regarding the re-consultation of the Neasden Goods Yard development appication on Neasden Lane (near the Jubilee line station and between the various railway lines). Note that a further development is planned for the O'Hara's Yard adjacent to the site.
A few storeys have been lopped off some of the blocks with the tallest now Ground Floor plus 44 storeys.
The re-consultation closes on Monday February 2nd 2026. See LINK
PROPOSED TENURE
There have been four new comments since the 2023 version of the application:
