Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s latest “spin” versus the facts!

Guest Blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity    

 

 

 Zephaniah House under construction in Wembley High Road (with “The Pages” opposite).

 

On 24 February, Brent Council issued a press release: “More affordable homes coming as Zephaniah House reaches key milestone”. Its content has already been shared by websites including Kilburn Times, Harrow Online and Construction News. Like most stories from Brent Communications, it tells a positive tale, including “quotes” from Cabinet members, to give the impression that all of this “good news” is the work of our local Labour councillors. [What would you expect, when the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications is Cllr. Muhammed Butt?] 

 

“Topping out” at Zephaniah House (image courtesy of Brent Communications)

 

The news item this time was the topping out ceremony at Zephaniah House (on the former Ujima House site in the High Road), part of the Brent Council/Wates Residential Wembley Housing Zone development. The press release says that this is ‘an important step toward delivering 54 new affordable homes on the former Ujima House site in Wembley.’ As you can see from my opening photo, there is still a lot of work to do on the building before the homes there will be ready for occupation, which is supposed to be by 31 December 2026. But with local elections in just over two months, I’m sure they would like you to think it would be sooner!

 

“Quote” attributed to Cllr. Teo Benea (from Brent’s press release)

 

The featured “quote” in the press release is from Cllr. Teo Benea, as the Wembley Housing Zone is a Regeneration project which she inherited from her predecessor in that Cabinet role, Cllr. Shama Tatler. There is also a “quote” attributed to Cllr. Fleur Donnelly Jackson, the Housing Lead, which includes the lines: ‘… our ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can. Zephaniah House will help reduce our waiting list …. This is what it looks like when a council commits to tackling the housing crisis head on.’ I don’t know whether Cabinet members really compose these “quotes” themselves, or whether someone at the Civic Centre writes them. I will share this guest post with them, so they have the chance to reply!

 

I agree that building genuinely affordable Council homes for the people on the waiting list (around 34,000 is the most recent figure I’ve read from Brent Council) should be a top priority, so the 54 homes at Zephaniah House will go a small way towards ‘tackling the housing crisis’. But, yet again, the Council is using the term “affordable homes” to cover more than the genuinely affordable homes (that is, either at Social Rent level, or the slightly higher London Affordable Rent – “LAR” - level), which its 2020 Poverty Commission Report showed was all that most Brent residents in housing need could afford.

 

The start of my first Wembley Housing Zone guest post, in August 2021.

 

The most recent information I have on the 54 homes on the former Ujima House site was from a Freedom of Information Act request in 2023. These were originally all meant to be for rent at the genuinely affordable LAR level, but this had been changed to 32 (including all eight family-sized flats) at LAR, and 22 for shared ownership. If that has changed, I hope the relevant Lead Member can update us.

 

I have been writing about the Wembley Housing Zone since August 2021 (see illustration above), when I highlighted the fact that the proposals going to Cabinet ignored the Brent Poverty Commission’s housing recommendations, which they had accepted less than a year before, writing:

 

‘If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.’

 

A pdf copy of my guest post was sent to all Cabinet members a few days before the 16 August 2021 meeting, at which they formally decided to go down the “development partner” route. I received no response, and my views were ignored. When I later emailed the Lead Member for Housing, asking why they were not building more homes for genuinely affordable rent, she replied that as this project was under her colleague, the Lead Member for Regeneration, she’d forwarded the email to Cllr. Shama Tatler, who would respond to me. (She didn’t!)

 

I later discovered, through FoI requests, that this ‘preferred delivery option’ had already been informally agreed at an unpublished Policy Co-ordination Group meeting in July 2020. That followed on from a previous “go ahead” for the option, by as few as two Cabinet members (the Council Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration?), in 2019. As a result, there had been at least two “soft market testing” exercises, in February 2020 and April 2021, which were used to justify the recommendation to Cabinet in August 2021. You can read the details in my January 2022 guest post “Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white”, and its December 2021 prequel.

 

My November 2021 “parody” Brent Council “publicity photo” for its Cecil Avenue housing scheme.

 

The Zephaniah House press release also refers to the larger Wembley Housing Zone development, across the High Road on the Cecil Avenue site, which it says ‘will bring 237 new homes, including 84 affordable homes.’ As shown in my “cartoon” above, when this received full planning consent in February 2021, it was intended to include 250 homes. The August 2021 Cabinet decision meant that only 98 of these would have been “affordable”, and only 37 at the genuinely affordable LAR level. Big posters on the hoardings around the site now claim that Brent is “delivering new Council homes” there, but the reality is that 150 of them will be for private sale by Wates.

 

 

Two signs from the hoardings round the Cecil Avenue site (with my linking comment).

 

Of the 84 “affordable” homes, information from an FoI request, which I shared in January 2024, shows that 56 (that’s just 23.6% of the 237) would now be for rent to Council tenants at LAR level, while 28 would be for shared ownership. The drop in the “affordable” figure (87 to 84) must be the three which I was advised would be for “discounted market sale”, a form of so-called “affordable housing” available if your annual income is no more than £90k!

 

It was claimed in the press release that Brent Council’s ‘ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can.’ But is that what they have done with the Wembley Housing Zone? They already owned the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, and had previously used money provided by the GLA to purchase the Ujima House office block. Without having to incur the cost of purchasing the land, Brent should have been able to build all of the homes there as Council housing. That would particularly have been the case if they had got on with the scheme in 2021, when interest rates on loans from the Treasury were lower, and building costs had not risen as much as they have now.

 

A sign on the hoardings at Cecil Avenue, about Brent’s WHZ “Vision”.

 

So why didn’t they? That must be down to the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone “Vision”, driven by the then Lead Member for Regeneration and supported by the Council Leader. It was clearly their wish to make it a joint venture with a “developer partner”, which led to a delay until early 2023, when they awarded the building contract to Wates Residential (agreeing to pay them £121,862,500). And although Cllr. Tatler posed for this photo with Wates on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023, for a press release announcing the contract award, it was February 2024 before construction began.

 

Cllr. Shama Tatler and Wates officials, from a March 2023 Brent press release.

 

Cllr. Tatler’s “vision” for the Wembley Housing Zone can be summed up in this sentence from her Cabinet Member Foreword, in a report to a Cabinet meeting on 8 April 2024 (which approved ‘up to £11.23m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden’ on the Cecil Avenue site):

 

‘The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’

 

That is NOT a vision to build as many homes as possible, for genuinely affordable rents, in order to reduce the number of local people in real housing need on Brent’s waiting list!

 

As early as January 2022, I was calling for proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision, with a view to increasing the number of genuinely affordable homes in the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, but all my efforts were thwarted by councillors or Council Officers. It was only at a Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 23 April 2024 that Cllr. Tatler was finally asked to explain why Brent had not delivered more genuinely affordable homes as part of that project. When I watched the webcast of that meeting, I could not believe what I was hearing, so I played it through several times, and this is the answer Cllr. Tatler gave:

 

‘'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

What she publicly told the Committee was untrue, as recorded on “Wembley Matters” at the time. I wrote to Cllr. Tatler, with a copy to the Scrutiny Chair, but she never replied to me, and as far as I am aware she never apologised to the Committee for misleading them.

 

If you want facts about Brent’s affordable housing, rather than “spin” or misinformation, I suggest you read Martin’s blogsite, and don’t rely on what you hear from the Council!

 

Philip Grant.

Brent apologises over poor communication regarding the sudden closure of St Raph's Community Centre but much more needed to restore trust

 

Sharing Space session at the Community Centre pre-closure

As Wembley Matters reported there was shock on St Raphael's Estate when Brent workmen suddenly and  without notice changed the locks on the residents' community centre. In the aftermath that followed there was speculation that the closure, on grounds of  fire safety, may have been politically motivated. LINK

Asif Zamir, of St Raph's Voice, that runs events at the Centre, has recently announced that he is standing as an Independent in the local elections. 

Mr Zamir sent an official complaint to Brent Council and received an apology that left a number of questions: 

  

Thank you for your email dated 16 February 2026. While I appreciate the apology regarding the "way in which the closure was communicated," I must formally correct the record on several points where your summary does not align with the documented facts.

1. Failure of Notification

 

Your email states that the Residents’ Association (RA) Chair was "advised of the situation" and informed of the lock changes. This is factually incorrect. The Chair was not informed of the closure, nor was the changing of the locks presented as a solution or even discussed. The email chain sent to the Council Leader and the Lead Member for Housing clearly demonstrates a total absence of communication from Council officers prior to the locks being changed. This was not a "shortcoming" in communication; it was a complete failure to engage with the community’s elected representatives.

 

2. Safety Contradictions and Resident Risk

 

There is a deeply concerning logical gap in the Council’s timeline. You state that safety concerns were identified on 30 January and required "swift action."

 

However the room was allowed to remain open for on Fri, Sat, Sun and Monday Morning; accessible to residents after these "significant safety concerns" were known to the Council, I understand and appreciate you may not have been personally involved in this, but it remains the responsibility of the council to inform us and discuss solutions.

 

Instead of immediate notification to residents regarding these "grave dangers," advising the chair to ensure the room is not used, deploying emergency staff to disconnect the power or isolate the fusebox the Council’s primary instruction was to a locksmith whom would change the locks mid session on Monday.

 

If the building was truly unsafe, allowing residents to continue using the space while quietly arranging a lock change suggests a failure in the Council's duty of care.

 

3. Lack of Responsiveness

 

Your summary omits the fact that emails from the RA and myself were ignored by all officers for a full week following the incident. "Hindsight" does not explain why active attempts by the community to seek clarity or alternative provision were met with silence during a purported safety crisis.

 

4. Outstanding Requirements

 

While I note the assignment of a single point of contact, the community still requires the following to restore trust:

 

The Full Technical/FRA Report: We are still waiting to understand the specific failings that led to this urgent closure.  

 

A Detailed Timeline: We require a "pinned down" schedule for the remedial works.

 

Work Logs: A comprehensive list of works already completed and those that remain outstanding.

We would like these documents to be provided without further delay so the Residents' Association can independently verify the status of our community space.

 

Regards,

 

Asif Zamir

 

On February 25th St Raph'sVoice  said: 

 

The council advise that they are still awaiting receipt of the formal Fire Risk Assessment report, upon which they will be in a position to provide a clear timeline for the required remedial works that need to be undertaken to the community room.

 

This is after 3 weeks!

Brent Green Group Leader: 'For Brent residents austerity with a red rosette is just the same as with a blue rosette'

 Last night's Brent Council Budget Setting meeting  was different from others during the last more than a decade because for the first time an alternative was presented by a party to the left of Labour.

It was clear that in this, the last Full Council meeting before the May election,  the move of five  Labour councillors to the Green Party, riled the Labour leadership. They wanted to paint their move as opportunist rather than a matter of principle connected to Labour's national and local failings. Some Labour councillors looked a little shame faced during these attacks.

Deputy Leader Cllr Mili Patel, likened the three opposition parties to characters from the Wizard of Oz, quite forgetting that the real Wizard of Oz in her scenario, was in fact Cllr Muhammed Butt who was sitting next to her.

The election campaign has already seen some tricky moves by Labour including the release of Community Infrastructure Levy funds for pre-election improvements previously deemed impermissable, Labour election leaflets published with green colours rather than red, and Brent Council publicity on social media and in the Brent Magazine featuring plenty of pictures of Brent councillors claiming credit for various initiatives. Not an equal playing field.

The Brent Budget Debate was similarly unbalanced with Labour Cabinet Lead after Cabinet Lead extolling their own virtues with quote after quote listing the millions they were spending for the people of Brent, quite forgetting it was the people's money they were spending not the party's.

 

 

Labour's skip's? 

Cllr Muhammed Butt and Cllr Krupa Sheth feature

 

Those pre-election CIL funds and Cllr Krupa Sheth again

 

Designed to deceive? No, surely not?

 

Lib Dems and Greens voted against each other's alternative budgets last night and the details were different.  However, there were some common themes regarding the importance of truly affordable housing (Greens want a separate Housing Scrutiny Commitee),  environmental initiatives and reviewing the mayoral roles and finances. 

Room for cooperation once elected? 

Brent Council Budget and Council Setting meeeting is at 3.30pm tomorrow. Links to full alternative proposals from Tory, Green and Lib Dem Groups

The Council's Budget and Council Setting meeting tomorrow (Monday February 23rd) is the last Full Council Meeting of the Municipal Year. The next meeting will be after the May 7th Council Election and will see the fromation of a new adminstration.

The budget meeting will be at 3.30pm rather than the usual 6pm to allow for Ramadan observation. WATCH LIVE HERE

There is some history attached to the meeting as it will be the first time a Green Group of councillors will present alternative proposals to Labour's budget.

All three opposition groups have submitted alternative proposals and the full details can be found on the links below:

  

·  6.2 Brent Conservative Group Alternative Budget Proposdals 2026 -27, item 6. PDF 604 KB

 

·  6.3 Green Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 462 KB

 

·  6.4 Liberal Democrat Group Alternative Budget Proposals 2026-27, item 6. PDF 284 · 

  

In their introduction to their proposals the Greens say:

 

This Green Group set of budget amendments is not a fully comprehensive view of investment opportunities, cost saving measures or income generation opportunities.
 

Rather, it intends to set core principles for financial prioritisation and a direction of travel based on Green Party values of social and environmental justice.

Our priorities for investment fall within three areas:

1. Aligning with the energy transition away from fossil fuels and ensuring long- term energy resilience

2. Ensuring housing equity for all Brent’s residents including enhanced scrutiny of housing policies and operations and landlord licensing arrangements

3. Protecting and investing in Brent’s Green Spaces, including parks, protected areas of natural interest and pocket parks and other green spaces

Brent Council, as with all local authorities, remains in a local government funding crisis, despite the new Labour government’s funding settlement. There are therefore only hard decisions to be made in terms of cost savings, and it is not within the scope of our budget amendments to scrutinise the spending within service delivery. The Green Party is calling for a radical overhaul of the funding of local government as the present system, including council tax, is regressive and unsustainable.

However, we have proposed cost savings as they relate to internal processes such as removing costs associated with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor role, reducing the number of cabinet members, and a reduction in costly engagement initiatives with a low ROI (Return on Investment).

It is also our position that there are a number of under-utilised avenues for income generation and maximising the council’s assets, some, but not all of which have been costed up as part of these budget amendments. These include expanding CPZs and increasing parking revenue through a mix of increasing the base rate and introducing a variable parking rate which takes into account vehicle size, weight and emissions type, further investment in debt collection initiatives, and ensuring maximum ROI of Brent-owned properties, whilst recognising the social value they add to Brent as well as financial value. Where further exploration is required, we have budgeted for feasibility studies for these initiatives.

These budget amendments propose a modest use of SCIL funding at £2.4m, which will part-fund travel initiatives to enhance active travel and traffic calming measures.   

 

As noted by the Budget Scrutiny Task Group, there is an opportunity to deploy CIL funding more widely to support infrastructure and to offset financial pressures on services, while ensuring the residents that benefit are those most impacted by development across the borough.

 

The Full Paper sets out proposals in detail HERE. Below is a summary. Note that in the first item the sum of £15,000 is for a feasibility study - not a programme of work.

 

Was a 'consultation' reaching only 42 people an adequate basis on which to reduce the hours of Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre by 3 hours a day?

 When London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust issued a press release the day AFTER they reduced the hours of the Central Middlesex Hospital  Urgent Treatment Centre they said:

We gave local people an opportunity to share their views on the new opening hours through online and in-person public events and an online questionnaire. These did not result in any substantial or widespread objections. 

Therefore, to optimise the service the opening times have now changed from 8am to midnight, to 8am to 9pm

The highlighted claim without any detail interested me, after all 570 Brent residents has signed a petition calling for Brent Scrutiny Committee to examine the proposal - a scrutiny that had never taken place except for an item tagged onto the end of a meeting without any public notice on the agenda or any papers attached - just a chat by the Trust CEO. When the petition was presented Cllr Ketan Sheth, Chair of the Committee, merely said the hours reduction was 'on their radar'. 

The reduction in hours was then implemented.

Give the claim above. I submitted an FOI asking for more details of the result of the consultation. Such consultations are normally published with tables of results, publication of comments received and an anaylsis.

The FOI revealed the following:

1. Only 42 responses were received

2.  70% of responses came from Brent (other boroughs were Ealing, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow)

3.  41%  of respondents said the reduction in hours would have a significant impact on them

4.  Only two people turned up to the in-person events. 

5. The Chair of Scrutiny had been informed of the proposal. 

I am sure it will be claimed that the low response rate meant that people were not bothered by the proposal, but that is challenged by the number of people (570 against 42) who signed the online petition on the Brent Council website. Unlike a paper petition there is a several stage process to sign on-line - you HAVE to be concerned to bother to sign.

Such a low response rate on a proposal that will affect hundreds of people, now and in the future, must mean that the consultation itself was inadequate. The petition was advertised on Wembley Matters, Next Door and social media and appears to have reached more than 10 times the number that the Trust engaged.

You will notice below that the response does not fully answer the request. Were there really no comments from NW London ICB or Brent Healthwatch?

 

THE TRUST'S FOI RESPONSE 

1. Please supply full results from the consultation on the reduction in hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital. This to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted) - https://www.lnwh.nhs.uk/news/new-opening-hours-at-urgent-treatment-centre-12430 

A structured public engagement exercise was carried out to gather views on the proposed change to the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex Hospital. As part of this process, a questionnaire was utilised to obtain public opinion, alongside opportunities for involvement through online events and stakeholder communications. 

 

Questionnaire responses

 

The questionnaire received 42 responses

 

Respondents’ borough	Brent	Ealing	Harrow	Hillingdon	Hounslow
Percentage	70%	20%	3%	2%	3%

 

Understanding the impact of proposed change: If the UTC  were to close earlier at 9pm, how would this affect you or those you care for?
	No impact	Minor impact	Significant impact	Unsure
Percentage	15%	21%	41%	23%

 

For those who felt it would have a significant impact on them, the reason given in most cases was the perceived lack of nearby alternative provision or the time it would take to travel to another site. However, most of these respondents had attended the UTC in the previous six months for a minor illness or infection that would have been more appropriately seen by a pharmacist or GP. This aligns with a recent review of the Trust’s urgent care services that found that many patients who visit our urgent treatment centres out of hours would be more appropriately seen in a primary care or pharmacy setting.

Several respondents noted that the lack of radiology services after 8pm meant that they had not been able to access care at the UTC after this time. This reflects the case for change and optimising the service to match the provision of X-ray services at Central Middlesex Hospital.

Nearly all respondents said clear information and direction to alternative services, such as pharmacies and out-of-hours services, would help them access the right care.

Public involvement events

Despite extensive promotion* our involvement events only attracted two people, who asked several questions but did not express any particular views on the proposal.

* Promotional activity

• Trust website and social media channels
• Trust’s stakeholder bulletin (350 recipients)
• Posters at the UTC.
• Press release generated coverage in My London, EALING.NEWS and Wembley Matters blog
• The North West London ICB and Brent Healthwatch also promoted opportunities to be involved.
• Letters to key stakeholders (MPs, scrutiny leads, Healthwatches)

Amandine Alexandre, a Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal ward whose resident are likely to be impacted by the earlier  closure, said:

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust probably knew right from the start that closing the Urgent Treatment Centre at 9pm rather than midnight every day was unlikely to be a decision approved by patients and deliberately failed to engage a large number of them in the consultation. However, trying to bypass patients is not an acceptable way to treat people. 

 

The fact that Brent Scrutiny Committee appeared intensely relaxed about residents getting reduced access to the Urgent Care Treatment is also a serious cause of concern for anyone living in Brent. I would like to reassure fellow residents : the Green Party will never cease speaking up in defence of NHS patients in the face of austerity and disdain from the current authorities.

Wealdstone Brook protected for now as planners turn down Woodgrange Close development

 Proposed houses and disused garages

 

 The site beside the trees of the Wealdstone Brook

 

Brent Planning officers have refused the application to build 6 houses on the site of disused garages near the Weladstone Brook. The application had received 19 objections including from prospective councillors for the area. LINK.

Planners set set out the reasons for refusal below. (Beware the double negative in point 1):

  

1.In the absence of sufficient information, it has not been demonstrated that the development, due to the close proximity to the Wealdstone Brook, would not adversely affect the Wealdstone Brook in terms of load bearing or induce torsional stress on the channel bank / wing wall, and would not prejudice the health and survivability of retained trees. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, and BGI1 of the Brent Local Plan and with Policies 2019-2041 and Policies G7 and SI7 of The London Plan.

 

2. The proposal, by reason of a lack of sufficient accurate information, fails to demonstrate that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on trees, would meet the required gain in biodiversity, would not unduly harm protected species, a Wildlife Corridor and Grade 2 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), or provide an adequate urban greening factor. This is contrary to policies DMP1, BGI1 and BGI2 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 and Policies G6 and SI17 of The London Plan.

 

3. The proposed development fails to demonstrate safe and functional use for refuse vehicles because the submitted tracking diagram shows that the refuse vehicles would transcend the western site boundary and do not account for a ramped pedestrian access. The development is therefore contrary to policies DMP1 and BT3 of the Brent Local Plan 2019 -2041 and Brent Council’s Waste and Recycling Storage and Collection Guidance for Residential Properties.

 

4. The proposed development fails to provide a safe, step free, and inclusive pedestrian access route between the site and the adjoining footpath network. The lack of ramped or level access may force wheelchair users, pushchair users, or others with limited mobility to access the site via the northern entrance which would result in unsafe vehicular and pedestrian conflict. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D5 and T7 of the London Plan 2021 and policies DMP1 and BT1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041.

 

5. The proposed development is not subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Planning Act which would be required to ensure the delivery of the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable housing through an off site contribution. As such, the impacts of the development would not be mitigated and the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policy and policy BH5 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041, together with the guidance set out within Brent's S106 Planning Obligations SPD.

 

In a comment on earlier coverage of this issue John Poole wrote:

 Cllr. Janice Long and I, John Poole, two prospective Labour Councillors for the Kenton Ward at the local elections next May, visited the site  and spoke with local residents at the Mural Bridge whose use Woodcock Park on a regular basis and they were shocked and surprised at the prospect of housing at that site and so close to the Wealdstone Brook. Cllr. Long wonders what else could the site be used for - the disused garages go back to the 1950s - and we all agreed that it is an ideal area for a greening project to add to Brent Council's increase in biodiversity in the area and supporting the Council's Carbon Net Zero policy.

Was St Raph's community centre lock-out politically motivated?

 

Bias by Brent Planning Officers over Hazel Road application listed for Committee next week – TWO open emails to Brent’s Director of Law.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Hazel Road and the Mission Hall now, and what is proposed.

 

Readers may remember a guest post from last September “EXPOSED! – Improper bias by Brent’s Planners over the Hazel Road application.” It may appear to have gone quiet since then, but things have been happening behind the scenes. Now matters are coming to a head!

 

Kensal Green Residents’ Association, whose FoI request had uncovered the evidence used in my previous article, sent a pdf document copy of my exposé as part of a complaint to Brent Council. The reply they received, from Brent’s Head of Planning, first summarised the issues raised, then responded in general terms to the summary (without referring to any of the detailed evidence of wrongdoing by the Case Officer) and concluded that there had been no bias! (That is typical of the way Brent has dealt with various complaints I have made over the years.)

 

In between various other, more pleasurable, heritage activities, I had put together a very detailed, evidence-based objection comment about the bias by Planning Officers, which I finally submitted to Brent’s planning website for application 25/0041 on 26 January. Brent’s Planning Code of Practice requires Officers and Members to consider and decide applications ‘in a fair impartial and transparent manner.’ Because I felt that there had been a clear breach of the Code, and a failure by the Council’s Head of Planning to address the concerns raised, I sent this open email to Brent’s Director of Law on 2 February:

 

‘Bias and perceived pre-determination by Brent Planning Officers in dealing with application 25/0041

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Henry,

 

I am attaching a pdf document copy of an objection comment which I submitted on 26 January in respect of the planning application ref. 25/0041 (26 & 28 Hazel Road, London NW10). It contains detailed evidence of irregularities by Brent Council Planning Officers, which I would bring to your attention in both of your roles.

 

1. As Monitoring Officer:

There has been a breach of Brent's Planning Code of Practice by the Case Officer dealing with application 25/0041 (I will not name the Officer in this open email, but you can easily identify him internally), and potentially by other Planning Officers who have dealt with this application.

 

Paragraph 1.2 of the Code makes clear that Officers, as well as Members, must ‘consider and decide planning matters in a fair impartial and transparent manner.’

 

In cases such as this, where there had been pre-application advice and discussions, involving the Case Officer and other Officers, paragraph 8.4 of the Code states: 'It is vital that such discussions are conducted in accordance with this Code so there can be no suggestion of actual pre-determination or bias, or any perception of pre-determination or bias, or any other procedural impropriety.'

 

As I have shown in the attached document, there is a very strong perception of pre-determination in favour of the applicant in this case, and very clear evidence of bias by the Case Officer, so that his consideration of the application, in particular (but not exclusively) over the heritage aspects of it with which I was involved as an objector, was neither fair nor impartial.

 

You will need to consider the attached document in full, but the key points on the heritage side are:

 

·      the Case Officer had already sent the applicant's agent a copy of the Alternative Heritage Statement ("AHS") which I had submitted in February 2025, and invited the submission of a revised heritage statement ("RHS") on behalf of the applicant (which I do not object to);

 

·      after reviewing the RHS, submitted in April, and finding that it did not undermine the case made in my AHS, which showed that the application failed to comply with Brent's Local Plan heritage policy BHC1, the Case Officer not only asked the agent to prepare another revised heritage statement ("RHS2"), but spelt out in an email of 2 May 2025 what that statement should say. This instruction was clearly designed to enable the Case Officer to claim that policy BHC1 had been complied with (as if the application did not comply, Planning Officers could not recommend its approval to Planning Committee);

 

·      the RHS2 was sent to the Case Officer on 27 May 2025, and because a more senior Officer decided that this should trigger a new public consultation period, the Case Officer issued letters and notices about the consultation on 10 June;

 

·      however, the RHS2 document, which the consultation was meant to be about (with a closing date of 10 July) was not published on the Council's planning webpage for application 25/0041 until 9 July 2025. This did not seem to have been accidental, as I had emailed the Case Officer on 10 June saying that the revised heritage statement on the website was the April RHS (I was not aware until late July that there had been an RHS2!).

 

Although I believe that the Case Officer has breached the Planning Code of Practice, I would only ask that, if my complaint is upheld, he should be given a formal reprimand, not anything more serious. This is because, from past experience, I believe that problems over how adopted planning policy and practice are dealt with at Brent Council are not just down to this single Officer.

 

If you agree, on reviewing all of the evidence provided in the attached document, that the Planning Code of Practice has been broken in this case, I would ask that a written warning be given to Brent's Head of Planning, to be passed on to all of the Officers in his Department, that any future case of failure to consider and decide an application fairly and impartially will be treated as a misconduct offence, with serious consequences.

 

2. As Director of Law:

 

My wider concern, and hopefully yours as well, is that when the evidence which I have included in the comments document attached was presented to Brent's Head of Planning last October, in a complaint made by Kensal Green Residents' Association, his response was summarised in the words: 'I do not consider that the local planning authority has acted in a biased manner.' The details about this are set out at section 4 of the attached document.

 

I realise that a Head of Department is likely to try to protect his Officers, and the reputation of his Department, but in order to do so he has either failed to look at the detailed evidence provided, or has decided to ignore it, and try to deflect attention away from it in his response (an email of 24 October 2025 to Kensal Green Residents' Association, which they forward a copy of to me).

 

That approach undermines the credibility of any Report to Brent's Planning Committee put forward in respect of this application, if that Report is prepared or presented by Officers who have been involved in any way with the clear bias and perceived pre-determination which I have uncovered and commented on.

 

If such a Report, which would almost certainly recommend approval of the application, were to be made, and the Planning Committee were to accept the Officers' recommendation, then there would be strong grounds for an appeal against the decision to the High Court by objectors. Would you, as Director of Law, wish to take that risk?

 

The alternative that I can see, if the application is to be considered by Brent's Planning Committee, is that Brent Council should engage an independent planning consultant, perhaps nominated by a body such as the Royal Town Planning Institute, to review all of the planning application documents and comments on the application, and prepare a report and recommendation which is not influenced by the "procedural improprieties" which I have drawn attention to.

 

I look forward to receiving your response to this email, before any further action is taken by Brent Council (as local planning authority) over application 25/0041. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

I had not received any acknowledgement to that email when I wrote a second time, after learning that application 25/0041 had been listed for a decision at the Planning Committee meeting next Wednesday, 11 February. Having read the Officers’ Report, on which Committee members are expected to base their decision (which is usually to approve the application, as recommended by Brent’s Planning Officers), it continued the bias previously complained about. This is what I wrote on 5 February:

 

Bias by Brent Planning Officers in their Report to Planning Committee on application 25/0041

This is an open email

 

Dear Ms Henry,

 

Further to my email to you on Monday 2 February, about bias and perceived pre-determination by Planning Officers in this case, I have been advised that application 25/0041 has been listed for determination at the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 11 February.

 

Having read the Officers' Report, it is clear that the bias By Planning Officers in favour of the application, and against those objecting to it, has continued in that Report. As a result, it is unlikely that there could be a fair and impartial consideration of the application, and I would strongly urge that application 25/0041 (26 & 28 Hazel Road, London NW10) be adjourned from next week's Planning Committee meeting, and only returned to the agenda when a Report and recommendation has been commissioned and prepared by an independent planning consultant, as suggested at the end of my 2 February email.

 

Because of my request for an adjournment, I am copying this email to the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee, and to the Governance Officer for that meeting, for their information. I am also copying it to the Chief Executive, who may well be concerned by its contents as Brent's Head of Paid Service.

 

I realise that this email involves serious allegations, so I will seek to justify them, by reference to the Officers' Report to Planning Committee.

 

The Report's "summary of concerns raised" does include a mention of the detailed comment document which I included with my 2 February email, which it describes as: 'Planning officers being bias and pre-determining application.' However, the "Officer Comment" on this concern does not deal with the detailed evidence which I had provided, showing that there had been clear bias by the Case Officer. Instead, it suggests that any such bias would be immaterial:

 

'All planning applications are required to be determined in accordance with planning policies set out within the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The assessment of the planning application would also consider any comments received from the public or internal/external consultees, when forming a recommendation on a proposal.'

 

I agree entirely that planning applications should be determined in accordance with Brent's adopted Local Plan policies, but those policies have not been set out in the Report 'in a fair impartial and transparent manner’, which is a vital requirement for both Officers and Members in considering and deciding planning applications.

 

In addition to showing that application 25/0041 did not comply with Brent's heritage policy BHC1, my Alternative Heritage Statement ("AHS") comment of February 2025 listed three other Local Plan policies that the application breached. This is the relevant extract from para. 4.5 of the pdf document version my AHS that was emailed to Planning Officers:

 

  

That objection, highlighting the application's failure to comply with three identified Local Plan policies, is not included in the Report's "summary of concerns raised". That is a serious omission when applications need to be determined in accordance with planning policy, and another example of the bias by Planning Officers in favour of the application which they want to see approved.

 

The Report's list of "Key policies of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041" does not even include policy BP6 South East, which is the specific development management policy covering the Kensal Green area of the borough. When dealing with the other two policies in the body of the Report, Planning Officers have been very selective with the parts they refer to. This is a screen shot from the Report:

 

 

Para. 40 of the Report fails to include the requirement in policy DMP1 that 'complements the locality' includes the requirement to 'conserve and where possible enhance the significance of heritage assets.' Para. 48, at the end of that section of the Report, actually claims: 'The proposed contemporary design is therefore considered as high quality and would comply with policy DMP1.' But the character of the locality which policy DMP1 states the proposed development needs to complement is a street of two-storey Victorian terraced homes. A square modern four-storey office block (in place of a Victorian heritage building) would detract from the locality, rather than complement it.

 

Para. 41 of the Report does admit that policy BD1 states: 'innovative contemporary design will be supported where it respects and complements historic character,' then goes on to seek to negate that requirement by adding: 'but is also fit for the future.' It is not disputed that the proposed building has an 'innovative contemporary design', but it does not respect the historic Victorian character of Hazel Road. That requirement of Brent Local Plan policies DMP1, BP6 South East and BD1 should mean that application 25/0041 IS NOT recommended for approval, but Planning Officers have failed to represent those policy points fairly in their Report.

 

The section of the Report dealing with the heritage aspects of the application "copies and pastes" extensively from the Further Heritage Comments document prepared by Brent's Principal Heritage Officer ("PHO"), which was published in November 2025. However, the PHO was quite new to Brent, and had not known or had misunderstood several important points from the borough's Historic Environment Place-making Strategy ("HEPMS"), a 2019 supporting document for the Local Plan.

 

One misunderstanding was his view that because 28 Hazel Road had not been added to the Local List after a 2016 project, it did not merit being on that list, and so should have a heritage significance score of no more than 5 (and his assessment gave it that score, out of 12). I wrote to him on 25 November, explaining with supporting evidence how he had misunderstood the HEPMS, and showing him that as 28 Hazel Road was included on the list at Schedule 3 of the Strategy document, it was considered to qualify for addition to the Local List, with a score of at least 6 out of 12, even though none of the 100+ properties on that list have been formally added yet.

 

The PHO replied to me on 27 November with this email:

 

As can be seen, the PHO thanked me for bringing the misunderstanding to his attention, and said that would share the information 'with the relevant planning case officer.' However, the Report does not take into account that information, and still includes the original, and false, claim: 'It must be emphasised that, following LB Brent’s 2016 round of the local list review process, that the site building was not locally listed, as it was not considered to have reached the necessary threshold for local listing.'

 

The Report also continues to claim that the former Victorian mission hall has a heritage significance score of 5 out of 12, despite the fact that if it had a score that low the HEPMS would not have treated it as a non-designated heritage asset! This is yet another example of the bias shown by Planning Officers against genuine grounds for objection by myself and many other Brent residents in their consideration of this planning application.

 

The application should not be allowed to proceed to a decision at next week's Planning Committee meeting, and I look forward to hearing that it has been withdrawn from the agenda, pending an independent Report which can be relied on to be fair and impartial, rather than the current Report by Brent Planning Officers which cannot. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

Is it worth all this effort, trying to oppose the Brent Council “machine”? I believe it is, and that ordinary citizens, like us, sometimes have to make a stand on important issues. If what I have uncovered is happening on this application, how much trust can residents have that Brent's Planning Officers will deal with any application fairly and impartially?

Philip Grant