Guest Post: Tech Giants, the CNI "Loophole," and the Battle for Park Royal’s Environmental Future

 

Image from actonw3

   

Guest post by Olivia Law-Zygadlo

A major planning battle is brewing on the borders of Brent and Ealing that should concern every resident who cares about local democracy, corporate transparency, and the air we breathe.

This Friday, July 17th, residents from North Acton’s Wesley Estate will protest a proposed mega-data centre at the Frogmore Industrial Estate (NW10 7NQ). Modern data centres are notorious energy drains, requiring immense power grids and cooling systems that create persistent noise and strain local infrastructure. Residents are rightfully demanding that the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC) enforce strict environmental protections and mandate transparent air quality monitoring from Brent and Ealing councils.

However, this local planning application highlights a broader national issue.

The CNI "Shield"

Increasingly, tech infrastructure operators are using Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) designation to bypass standard planning scrutiny. Since the government designated the UK data centre sector as CNI in September 2024, operators have leaned on this status to secure smoother planning treatment.

If planning authorities treat sector-wide CNI status as a reason to lower environmental scrutiny, it sets a dangerous precedent. When operators like Kao Data invoke "national security and vital infrastructure," they effectively create a against local accountability. Our message to the OPDC and the national government must be uniform: there should be no CNI-linked planning advantage without mandatory green standards. If the sector is critical enough to sit alongside water and energy providers, protecting local air quality and the climate must be a non-negotiable condition.

The Role of the OPDC and Cllr Matt Kelcher

Because this development sits within the multi-million-pound Park Royal regeneration zone, the ultimate planning and development authority does not rest with standard council planning boards. It rests with the Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation (OPDC). 

This brings us to a familiar face in Brent politics: Councillor Matt Kelcher.  

   

Not only is Cllr Kelcher  Brent's Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, overseeing major local development portfolios, but he was a long-serving voting member of the OPDC Planning Committee, representing the interests of the London Borough of Brent, where portions of the OPDC boundary fall, during the critical early stages and milestone planning decisions for these major local developments

 

A key question from residents is whether Cllr Kelcher will declare and recuse himself from regeneration and planning decisions given his professional role at TheCityUK. While TheCityUK represents the financial and professional services sector rather than the data centre industry itself, its membership consists of the UK’s largest consumers of digital infrastructure, who rely heavily on data centres to manage risk, host digital services, and process high-volume financial transactions. Residents are asking whether this close alignment between his professional focus and the heavy reliance of his members on data capacity creates a perceived conflict of interest with his impartial responsibilities on the OPDC planning committee.

 

CAMPAIGN WEBSITE 

Brent Planning Committee: Were opponents of the Thanet Lodge application 'nobbled'?

 

 

Brent Planning Committee on July 2nd was far from routine. The application for regeneration of the Wembley Hospital site was eventually deferred after an initial decision in favour was overturned when it was revealed that one councillor who had been in favour was found not to have attended throughout. The vote had passed on the Chair's casting vote. The disqualification meant that the vote was now against. When David Glover raised doubts about the validity of some of the councillors' reasons for opposing grant planning permission, the item was deferred to a future meeting.

The last application  heard was to build a house on land currently used for Thanet Lodge garages in Brondesbury Park. This was even more controversial with a resident alleging intimidation by the applicant of Thetford Lodge leaseholders who opposed the development. This had led to some of them fearing going public with their opposition on the Brent Council Planning Portal. In a presentation to the Committee the resident gave examples of intimidation and said that the application should not proceed as there had not been a fair and full consultation process.

The Chair, Saqib Butt, David Glover, Head of Planning and Development Services, and the Planning Legal Officer combined to say that this was not a material planning consideration and could not be taken into account.

The resident was supported  by Cllr Ryan Hack, ward councillor for Brondesbury Park who repeated the bullying claims and suggested it was similar to 'nobbling a jury'. Officers remained adamant and I had the feeling that even if an applicant had buried his opponents under a car park it would still have not been enough to stop a hearing. 

The resident said that he had reported the intimidation to the police who had expressed concern but did not have the resources to follow up.

The applicant's agent denied that intimidation had taken place and dismissed the representations as 'theatricals' and said councillors has been 'bamboozled'. He suggested that out of 60 letters sent out, there had been 20 responses which was a good response rate. All responses had been against the proposal.

Having expressed concern over a 'compromised' process. Cllr Suzanne Gallagher, explored the applicant's claim that this  was a self-build project and as such exempt from paying Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)  and meeting Biological Net Gain targets.  She raised doubts about the validity of the self-build claim after looking up the definition and legislation..

With doubts piling up David Glover appeared to have been doing some internet searching of his own and intervened to say that there appeared to be problems with the ownership certificate for the site.

The Committee agreed to defer this application 'to allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build'.  

 

If you have time it is well worth watching the video above. The item was discussed for almost an hour.

 

PS:  

 

 

'Stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in the South Kilburn high density building area' - Plea to save Granville Rec

 

South Kilburn residents stand up to to show their support for Granville Rec at the Council Meeting 

 

This is the speech Leslie Barson made about the Granville Rec, a rare mature greem space in South Kilburn:

   

I'd like to thank Pete Firmin, for presenting an overview of the structural problems  that we face in South Kilburn for more than twenty years. It's important to address this new council at the beginning of its term for you to know about the situation in South Kilburn. I'm here from Granville Community Kitchen and have worked at the Granville and South Kilburn for more than 30 years. I want to talk about saving a small pocket park on Granville Road, which residents named The Granville Recreation Ground, The Rec.

 

The history of this small space is that it was opened in 2009 when Granville New Homes were built on much of the open space that had been on Granville Road.  The Rec was built to replace open space lost at that time.  Unfortunately, there was no money to manage it.  It fell into disrepair and became a site for anti-social behaviour. With the eventual outcome that about 2011, it was locked permanently. 

 

It was then left abandoned, unused and unloved until 2023, when it was given to Granville Community Kitchen as a temporary place to grow food. GCK lost its garden space with the building of the new garden hall built in the garden at the front of Granville. 

 

After working hard for our first year uncovering the Rec, we have been able to fill it with flowers,  food.  Children, families, elderly people, the isolated, and learning projects for children, young people and adults.

 

We have shown that if it is managed well the Rec can be lovely, wanted, much used place and an asset to residents for their mental and physical health as well as an asset to environmental health and even supporting economic health giving residents vegetables and upskilling volunteers toward possible employment. 

 

In 3 years we have been managing the Rec we have brought it back to life

 

In 2025 alone:

 

407 visitors to education sessions

275 school learners

1102 educational sessions

2 open events with over 100 people attending 

And volunteers sessions twice a week

 

It is used by

Brent family services

Salisbury world refugee project

Local people birthday parties

Over 100 kg of veg distributed to volunteers , community meals and local residents 

 

The regeneration plans to build 14 new homes 4 stories high, completely covering the site with buildings.

 

In these plans a new space bigger than Rec and relocated on the edge of the estate near Kilburn Park tube is to be made as a ‘replacement’. It is called a ‘pedestrianised environment’ and is 10002m bigger than Rec but with trees planted in regimented rows with a road and parking going through this pedestrian area. 

 

There are many reasons why we object to this plan and why this pedestrianised area is NOT a replacement for the loss of old biodiverse land.

 

1.Location and Accessibility

The existing park is centrally located within the South Kilburn estate, making it easily accessible to residents. The proposed replacement would be situated on the edge of the estate, reducing its integration with the community.

2.Size and Usability:  

 

While the new space is technically larger (2500 sqm vs. 1500 sqm), much of this area includes roads and parking. This results in:

· Reduced safe, usable space for recreation

· Only four small designated "safe spaces" within the park

· An overall decrease in pleasant, car-free areas for residents to enjoy

 

3.Conflicts with Brent Councils Policies and Goals

The current Granville Recreation Ground aligns with and supports several key Brent Council policies:

1. Climate Emergency Declaration (2019, updated 2021): Helps achieve the goal of becoming the greenest borough by 2030.
2. Clean Air Targets: Contributes to improved air quality in the area
3. Green Infrastructure Vision: Provides valuable green space within the urban environment.
4. Health Equity: Offers a natural space that promotes better health outcomes and reduces inequalities.

4.Biodiversity and Ecological Value

The existing park boasts significant biodiversity with its mature trees, diverse plant life, and undisturbed areas. The planned replacement, with its manicured design, would severely limit the potential for supporting a rich ecosystem.

5.Community Amenities

Replacing the Granville Recreation Ground with this proposed pedestrian area would result in a net loss of valuable community space and amenities, particularly in an area slated for high-density housing development.

6.Natural vs Designed Landscape

The Rec offers a more natural, wild environment with mature vegetation. In contrast, the proposed pedestrian area  is highly designed with:

·       Trees planted in regimented rows along roads

·       Less opportunity for biodiversity and natural growth

·       Reduced foraging opportunities for wildlife and residents

We have  been asking for the last year that the plans be changed for The Rec and it to be left as a park for residents. We have a Petition with nearly 1000 signatures,

 

I now, ask all  the supporters of the Rec  who made the long expensive and time consuming journey from SK to please stand up show their support to stop any building on the Rec

 

We implore the Councillors to  listen  to those who live and work in South Kilburn, rethink the plans for the Rec  and stop the loss of more green and well used spaces in such a high density building area. Please, you have the power to do this! Save the Granville Rec!

Green councillor seeks specific assurances on potential defects and repairs in the South Kilburn regeneration, and sales to 'predatory, rent seeking, private equity firms'

 

 

The Brent Green Group of councillors are clearly intent on delivering their local election manifesto pledging that they will ensure scrutiny and accountability of Brent Council decisions.

Cllr Paul Ryan (Green, Kilburn) has followed up his supplementary question to Cllr Kelcher* (Cabinet lead for Regeneration) on South Kilburn (above) with the letter below which is awaiting a response. This follows Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Council of a resident's view of regeneration issues in South Kilburn.

The Council is due to appoint a single development partner for the remainder of the South Kilburn  Regeneration in September.

THE LETTER 

Dear Cllr Kelcher,

I am writing to you to follow up on some of the questions posed to you and the impassioned deputations made by South Kilburn residents at the latest Full Council meeting in relation to South Kilburn regeneration and the upcoming awarding of the single delivery contract.

I would firstly like to thank you for communicating your willingness to further engage with South Kilburn stakeholders to reach a decision and a contractual framework that is most beneficial for the residents of South Kilburn and I hope that this is something that can be demonstrated and borne out in the coming days, weeks and months.

Unfortunately due to the time constraints of full council meetings we were unable to fully engage with many of the issues raised, so I am writing to seek clarity and more detailed and extensive responses to some of the issues raised.

Contractor Accountability

I am sure you noticed that, in both the questions I posed to you and the deputation presented by local resident Pete Firmin, the issue of structural defects and a lack of stringent build quality are pervasive themes throughout South Kilburn regeneration. Unfortunately, I and may residents feel that your abridged answer did not sufficiently address the issues raised, so I would like to use this opportunity to get a more detailed and specific answer.

The points that you, and the broader Neighbourhoods and Regeneration team have raised regarding the need for the prospective single-delivery contractor to be a long-term collaborative partner is well taken but, considering the history of defects and negligence throughout South Kilburn regeneration, will you be seeking clear contractual guarantees that the cost of any potential repairs arising as a result of structural defects will explicitly and exclusively rest with the contractor responsible for those defects. Additionally, is the Council placing mechanisms in place to ensure these repairs are carried out in a swift manner.

Private Equity

During the full council meeting, I raised the decision authorised by Neighbourhoods and Regeneration that would allow Countryside Properties to sell 143 new build units in SK to US private equity firm Principal Asset Management. Unfortunately you did not respond to this during the Full Council Meeting, but can you now confirm if the Council will commit to ensuring that, in the midst of a housing crisis, it will not allow any more units in South Kilburn regeneration to be sold to predatory, rent seeking private equity firms. 

Granville Rec

In response, to Leslie Barron's deputation in relation to protecting Granville Rec, you did not provide assurances that this vital community space would be protected and intimated that the Save the Rec activists present should be cognisant that this land would be used for social family housing. This has been interpreted by some residents as a cynical attempt to override the wishes of local residents by portraying them as opponents to social housing.

Is there express guarantees that any construction on the Granville Rec will all be social housing? Additionally, considering the scale and scope of investment in South Kilburn regeneration, have efforts been made to move these units to an alternative location?

Can you also assure local residents, that if the Granville Rec is destroyed, that they will be provided with an alternative space that is similarly bio-diverse? Will this space provide a comparable amount of unobstructed, uninterrupted green space that can feasibly fulfil the existing functions of the Granville Rec; namely a community garden and social space. If these guarantees cannot be provided, can you assure residents that you will endeavour to do everything in your power to ensure that this vital community space is protected.

Community Engagement

I appreciate that as Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, you have quite an extensive portfolio. However, considering the enormity and impact of this project, would you be willing to attend a walking tour of South Kilburn arranged by the South Kilburn Residents Panel. This would give you an opportunity to understand the concerns and trepidation of residents and would be a show of good faith to demonstrate that they have a collaborator in the Council who is willing to listen and engage with them.

I look forward to receiving your detailed and thorough responses to the above and to continue working with you and delivering for South Kilburn residents at this critical juncture.

Kind regards,

Cllr Paul Ryan

Councillor for Kilburn Ward

Cllr.Paul.Ryan@brent.gov.uk

LETTER: Gladstone Park Medical Centre - Is there a Phase 2? What is it ?

 Dear Editor,

What is Phase 2?

 

It turns out that the Gladstone Park Health Hub proposals are only “Phase 1”! 

What is Phase 2? How much more park will that take? Why weren’t we told this in the initial “consultation”? Why did it take THREE Freedom of Information requests to discover this? Why do we not know what “Phase 2” is? Is there a Phase 3?

It seems that these proposals are “Phase 1”. A freedom of information request has revealed the letter from Willesden Green Surgery’s consultants, Peacock & Smith, asking for pre-application advice on “Phase 1 - Current Scheme”. It says it is an “interim measure”. The letter refers to a slight tweak of the scheme we have now (with parking spaces and a basement gym), but appears to otherwise be the scheme from the Informal Consultation.  A Phase 2 seems to have been blacked out. 

We have been told by Dr Mo in the consultation that Willesden Green Surgery needs new premises and no one disputes this. But we were not clearly told that the new building would be to serve people from all around, up to 1.5 miles away. And we weren’t told that it would be a single point of access for housing, social care, mental health and neighbourhood health services (whatever all that means). We weren’t told there was no cap on the number of patients. So is it 20,000 or 40,000 patients or what? WGS is expanding so rapidly it could be anything. Now do we find there is a Phase 2?

Gladstone Park is surrounded by new flats going up. Stand in the park and look. And in neighbourhoods like Church End the number of residents is increasing dramatically even without the new builds. All over the borough, houses are converted to flats and more and more people are squashed in. Neighbourhoods become “disadvantaged” and new-build flats go up next door. All these people need healthcare yet some local GP practices have declining patient numbers - probably because patients are being sucked into multi-service mega practices with enormous lists.

So isn’t it blindingly obvious that this thing is going to get bigger and bigger and offer more and more services. Great. And someone had the bright idea that, being in a park, you can just use up more and more of the park as you need? Hey presto!

Guess that’s where Phase 2 comes in. 

Why did Friends of Gladstone Park agree to this? Why are Mapesbury Residents’ Association asleep? Why do the Parkrun get shoutouts in Zoom calls? What do they know that we lowly residents don’t? 

So what is Phase 2? And where does it end for our park? 

Yours,

 
A concerned park user and resident 

 

 

 

Brent Council gives reasons for Licensing Sub-Committee's refusal of Arcadia's application for 1 Walm Lane Adult Gaming Centre

 From Brent Council

  

An application for a new adult gaming centre in Willesden Green has been rejected by Brent Council’s Alcohol and Entertainment Licensing Sub-Committee.

 

The application by Arcadia Casino Limited was refused because it was not considered consistent with two licensing objectives under the Gambling Act 2005:

 

* Preventing gambling from being a source of crime and disorder, being associated with crime and disorder, or being used to support crime.

* Protecting children and other vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

 

 

The Sub-Committee considered evidence about crime and anti-social behaviour, the number of gambling premises already in Willesden Green, local deprivation, and the potential impact on vulnerable residents.

 

It also heard from Brent Public Health and five objectors, including three councillors, who raised concerns about crime and disorder linked to the number of gambling premises in the area. They noted that gambling-related harm in Brent is significantly above the national average.

 

More than 200 objections were submitted by residents, ward councillors and community representatives. Local concerns in Willesden Green were central to the decision.

 

The decision comes as Brent continues to call for councils to have stronger powers to refuse gambling premises where there is evidence of local harm. Earlier this year, Brent brought together more than 40 councils and mayors to call for reform of the Gambling Act 2005, including changes to the “aim to permit” duty, which limits councils’ ability to refuse applications.

 

A separate application for a new gambling premises licence on Kilburn High Road, due to be heard on 8 July 2026, has also been withdrawn.

 

The Leader of Brent Council & Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care,  Cllr Muhammed Butt, said: 

 

This is an important decision for Willesden Green and for every resident who has said enough is enough.

 

The Licensing Sub-Committee considered the evidence carefully and independently, including concerns about crime, anti-social behaviour, deprivation, the concentration of gambling premises and the risk of harm to vulnerable people. On that basis, it was right that this application was refused.

BREAKING: Withdrawal of gambling application for former Kilburn bank a victory for community power

 

 

Greens demonstrate outside the former Santander Bank in Kilburn High Road 

Hard on the heels of the Brent Licensing Committee turning down an Adult Gaming Casino application for the former Lloyds Bank in Willesden Green, Macau Casino Slots has withdrawn their application for 131-135 Kilburn High Road, the former Santander Bank.

 

Cllr Suzanne Gallagher (Green councillor for Kilburn Ward) hailed the news:

  

Huge news! 

 

Following our community campaign against the proposed Bingo Hall, Macau Casino Slots have officially withdrawn their application for 131-135 Kilburn High Road. The hearing scheduled for July 8th is now cancelled.

 

The old Santander building was never an appropriate location. Kilburn High Road already suffers from a high concentration of gambling establishments. Crucially, this site sits within a community ranking among the top 2% most deprived neighbourhoods in England.

 

Brent has a duty to protect our most vulnerable residents from predatory industries.

 

Furthermore, we must protect former banking premises that now lie empty across our borough; casinos are not a suitable substitute for what was once an important community service.

 

This is a massive win for community power! Coupled with last week's refusal decision for the Adult Gaming Centre in Willesden Green, this withdrawal sends a powerful message of hope to boroughs across London and beyond.

 

These businesses should not be setting up shop in our most deprived areas. This victory goes beyond Brent, it is a blueprint for community resistance everywhere. We want to help those communities who are fighting for the heart and soul of their high street.

 

Let this serve as a crystal-clear message to other gambling operators: look elsewhere. You are not welcome in the most deprived corners of Brent.

 

Thank you to everyone who stood with us! We promise to continue standing with you in the fight against gambling harms

The Chalkhill Estate that never was!

Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

1. Cover of the January 1963 Wembley Borough Council booklet.

 

When I wrote an illustrated article, “Chalkhill – 1,000 years of history”, in 2012, I was aware of three versions of the Chalkhill Estate, dating from the 1920s, late 1960s and early 2000s. I recently became aware of plans for a different renewal of the Chalkhill Estate, drawn up by Wembley Borough Council and published in January 1963. Although these plans for the Chalkhill and Barnhill Roads Redevelopment Area were overtaken following the creation of the London Borough of Brent in 1965, I think that readers may be interested to see what might have been!

 

Why was Wembley’s Borough Engineer and Surveyor considering the redevelopment of a private housing estate which had been laid out just over forty years earlier? He was responding to guidance issued by the then Conservative Government’s Minister of Housing and Local Government, Henry Brooke, in 1960:-

 

2. The “National Policy” paragraphs from the opening section of the January 1963 booklet.

 

Planning permissions for most of the suburban housing developments in Wembley and Kingsbury from the late 1920s and 1930s had specified housing densities of eight or ten homes per acre. The “Metroland” Chalkhill Estate was probably chosen as the area for Wembley’s first response to this call for ‘redevelopment at higher densities’ because its individual building plots had been sold off at sizes from a quarter of an acre upwards (with many homes there on half acre or one-acre plots). The grounds of “The Shalimar” at 43 Chalkhill Road were large enough for garden parties to be held there, as I’d discovered when I shared the remarkable story of “Ram Singh Nehra - a Wembley Indian in the 1930s” in 2021! By the 1960s, different builders had already started buying up properties there with large gardens for possible redevelopment. 

 

3. An early 1920s advert for building plots on the Metropolitan Railway’s Chalk Hill Estate.

 

From the mid-1920s onwards the Government had required local Councils to draw up a Development Plan for their area, which had to be approved by a Minister. Wembley’s outline amended proposals for the Chalkhill area had already been agreed by Whitehall:

 

4. An extract from the Redevelopment Area booklet, and 5. ‘the plan attached’ to it.

 

Under the proposed plan, the area would remain residential, with mainly low-rise homes, although with the possibility for up to three “tall” blocks of flats (no more than 11 storeys – compare that to Wembley Park today!) close to the station. Existing trees would be ‘preserved wherever possible’, and there would be good ‘pedestrian access through the area affording safe, convenient and attractive footways towards shops, transport and other public facilities.’ As more families then had cars, each development would ‘be provided with adequate parking spaces for motor vehicles.’

 

6. Paragraph about the types of homes from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

 

7. The key to the Redevelopment Area map.

 

Traffic problems in the Chalkhill neighbourhood were also addressed in the Redevelopment Area proposals. One of the most radical ideas was to make a short section of Chalkhill Road, nearest to Wembley Park station, a cul-de-sac, and to include a multi-storey car park there for station users and the shops in Bridge Road, with some new shops opposite.

 

8. Paragraph about fixing the through-traffic problem from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

 

9. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map with proposals for the western end of Chalkhill Road.

 

What had been the next section of Chalkhill Road would have become green open space under the proposals, with footpaths across it leading to Barnhill Road and the remaining part of Chalkhill Road. Having blocked the through-traffic “rat run”, the new main entrance to the estate would be from Forty Lane, opposite the Town Hall steps, running straight down to curve into Barnhill Road. New housing along the Forty Lane frontage would be set back from the main road, and accessed from service roads.

 

10. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map showing the new access from Forty Lane,

 

The Redevelopment Area proposals recognised that the higher density of homes on the estate would lead to a larger local population, with the Borough Surveyor writing: ‘A residential neighbourhood, if it is to include the means of satisfying the needs of its inhabitants, should contain adequate religious, education and social activities.’ One of the needs identified was for a new Primary School, and another was for a park. Although the exact locations for these could not be settled, the proposals recommended reserving land for these facilities between Barnhill Road and the Metropolitan railway lines.

 

11. Possible sites for a school and park on the Redevelopment Area map.

 

Chalkhill Primary School was built on part of this “reserved land” in Barnhill Road, with the infants’ section finished by the end of 1970, and the primary school fully open by 1972. However, residents had to wait until 2013 for the opening of Chalkhill Park!

 

Another of the proposals by which ‘the tendency for traffic to use residential roads for through travel will be stopped, and the obstruction of Blackbird Hill [and Bridge Road] by right-turning traffic will be avoided’, was ‘the connection of Chalkhill Road and Barnhill Road near the site of the proposed Catholic Church.’ How this was originally proposed, compared with what was actually constructed, can be seen on these maps:

 

12. Extract from the Redevelopment Area map and the modern Google Maps satellite view.

 

The two roads were connected via Ken Way, and Chalkhill Road was diverted round what became the site for the church, closing off a junction which was too close to the Blackbird Cross intersection. When the new English Martyrs’ Roman Catholic Church was built in 1969/70, to replace a temporary wooden church in Chalkhill Road which had opened in 1930, it was not the traditional rectangular shape shown on the 1963 map, but a beautiful modern round design.

 

13. English Martyrs’ R.C. Church under construction in 1969, and seen from Blackbird Hill
across the former Chalkhill Road junction in 2013.

 

Wembley Borough Council did not envisage building this new Chalkhill Estate itself. Instead, it set out its Redevelopment Area proposals as an overall guide for private developers of the principles it wanted to see applied by them in putting forward individual plans, which would work together over time to form a cohesive well-designed estate. This was explained in the booklet’s final section:

 

14. The final “Summary” paragraph from the Redevelopment Area booklet.

 

“Speculators” had already been buying up properties with large gardens, suitable for the what the Council proposals suggested as ‘satisfactory redevelopment units of not less than four acres’. One such planned development was already in the pipeline, and in the same month that the booklet was published this was the local newspaper’s front page story:

 

15. Headline about the start of Chalkhill’s “New Town”, 18 January 1963.

 

I’m not sure which development on the site of six houses the “Wembley News” article was referring to (possibly Windsor Crescent?), and if you know please share that information as a comment below. Clearly a start was made on the Wembley Borough Council Redevelopment Area scheme, but it did not get very far before Brent Council came into being in April 1965, and decided to build its own Chalkhill Estate!

 

16. An aerial view of Brent’s newly completed Chalkhill Estate, 1970. (Courtesy of Barbara Phillips)

 

Looking at the area now, you could believe that this late-1960s development was “the Chalkhill Estate that never was”, as the concrete “Bison” blocks of flats were demolished from 1997 onwards, to make way for another version of Chalkhill. But I hope this look at an alternative 1960s vision of the estate has provided an interesting piece of local history for you.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Acknowledgement: The late Geoff Hoggett worked in the Chalkhill area in the 1960s, and at some point acquired a slightly muddy copy of the Redevelopment Area booklet and plan. His interest in local history caused him to save them, and they were found by his daughter, Julia, rolled up in a cardboard tube, after his death. I’m grateful to her for sending them to me, so that I could share this story with you.