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

 

 

Shock on St Raph's as community shut out of their Community Centre without notice

 

Amazing things go on inside this nondescript building

 

St Raph's Voice has sent Wembley Matters this description of recent events at their community centre that have caused disquiet in the community,

 

Children with nowhere to go after school. Vulnerable adults suddenly cut off from support. Mothers left without a safe, familiar space to meet, share advice, or ask for help. All of this has happened earlier this week on the St Raphael’s estate, where the resident association community centre locks were changed without notice.

 

Overnight, this vital hub was closed in a place with a lack of community spaces and provisions. Homework clubs stopped in an area with low educational attainment levels. Support sessions for vulnerable people ended abruptly. Essential community activity ceased with no notice. In an estate with very limited communal facilities, residents have been left with nothing to replace it.

 

The Chair of the Resident Association, Hinda Sharif was kicked out mid-community session by a contractor sent by the council with no communication or explanation. The justification given was fire safety.

 

Residents understand the importance of safety and would never argue against urgent action where there is genuine risk. However, at the time the locks were changed, no fire safety checks had been carried out to ascertain risk, and no evidence or documentation of completed inspections was shared with residents or the Resident Association. No findings were presented and no timeline for inspections or reopening have been communicated.

 

Despite repeated requests for information and clarity on when the doors might reopen, Labour-led Brent Council has not been forthcoming. This lack of transparency has compounded distress in a community already dealing with the sudden loss of essential support.

 

The St Raphael’s community room is not just a venue. It is a lifeline for children who rely on educational support and homework clubs, for vulnerable adults experiencing isolation, and for mothers navigating financial and emotional pressures. The Resident Association provides community-led support that is local, trusted, and accessible - exactly the kind of grassroots infrastructure councils often claim to value.

 

St Raphael’s is also an estate with a proud history of resilience and achievement. It is the former home of George the Poet, Raheem Sterling, and content creator Chunkz, clear examples of what can emerge when communities are supported rather than sidelined. Closing one of the few remaining shared spaces on the estate without notice sends a stark message about how today’s residents are valued, and what investment in future potential really looks like in practice.

 

Brent frequently speaks about community power, participation, and wealth-building. Yet this action exposes a troubling gap between rhetoric and reality. Community power cannot exist where communities are locked out of the spaces that allow them to organise, support one another, and thrive.

 

No suitable alternative space has been offered while the room remains closed. There seems to have been no suggestions of other spaces or due concern for where activities can continue in the meantime. And there appears to have been little consideration of the impact on those most affected.

 

“This is not how you treat communities who rely on this support service,” says Asif Zamir, resident of St.Raphael’s Estate and former Chair of the Resident Association. “It shows a disdain and complete lack of regard or respect. On the one hand they say it’s for resident safety, and on the other they are causing considerable harm.”

 

How decisions are made matters. When Brent Council acts without communication, without evidence, and without accountability, they reveal what they truly think of the communities affected. The failure to respond transparently when asked for information only reinforces that message.

 

Residents are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for honesty, respect, and basic fairness. If safety is the concern, then evidence should be shared, timelines made clear, and interim solutions provided so that children, vulnerable adults, and families are not left without support.

 

If community power is more than a slogan, then it must start with listening - not locking the doors as if the communities affected are irrelevant.

 

I understand that an apology has been made by the council regarding the poor communications involved in this action. However, keys to the new locks have not been handed over and no remedial works have taken place since Monday. 

Proposal to change timing of Brent Council Budget Setting Meeting

 The Budget and Council Tax Setting Meeting is the most important Full Meeting of Brent Council in the municipal calendar. This year's meeting on Monday February 23rd falls during Ramadan  so a proposal has been made to accommodate members who wish to attend Itfar.

Instead of the usual 6pm start it has been proposed that the meeting starts as 3.30pm with a 15 minute break for Itfar at 5.30pm to 5.45pm.

The proposal is in line with Brent Council's respect for the borough's religious communities but also affects councillors and the public who will be working at this earlier time or who have after school childcare commitments.

Time for residents and visitors, and especially young people, to be seen and heard over hotel plans for Wembley Park public space

 Proposed hotel development from the stadium steps side of Engineers Way

I had heard that Quintain had advertised their plans to build a new hotel in the Samovar Space/Market Square at the site so I popped down on a very chilly afternoon to see for myself.

I searched around Market Square and found nothing, then spied this,  in the distance on the edge of  the Samovar Space:

 

 

Close up it was a rather tatty notice with a QR code to Quintain's presentation:

 

 

 

And that was it - there were no other notices or indications of the plans that Quintain expect to submit to Brent Council planners in February or March. No wonder Wembley Park residents are protesting and launched a petition which so far has over 200 signatures. (SEE THE PETITION HERE).

 

I talked to the few people who had braved the cold (although more young people would be there after school) and despite sitting close to the notice while supervising their children had no idea about what was planned and were quite shocked to find out.

 

The Samovar Space is past its best as Quintain took down the Shell Performance Stage and other bits and pieces and the play area has not been repainted, but the potential for a space in the centre of Wembley Park can still be seen.  Only a much smaller area will be left if the hotel is built. All photographs were taken about 3pm this afternoon.

 

 

When the Samovar Space was installed great play was made of the involvement of young people inits design when their voices are often not heard in major developments.

 

Julian Tollast, Head of Masterplanning and Design, Quintain, welcoming an Award for the Samovar Project, said: 

It is a sad fact that young people are often overlooked when it comes to the built environment. With this in mind, we are extremely proud of the work we have done, and are continuing to do, via Seen & Heard to make Wembley Park and the wider area a more welcoming place for all. To succeed at these awards and represent not only the Borough of Brent but London as well was an honour for all involved.

In this case it  seems it is not just young people who are not being 'Seen and Heard' but Wembley Park residents and  visitors.

What a contrast to the optimism of just over 2 years ago as demonstrated by this video:

     

• Date of planning submission February/March 2026.

• Planning determination will take around 3 - 4 months and if approved construction will not commence until end of 2026 at the earliest.

• Construction likely to take 2 - 3 years.

• If you wish to make any comments or have any questions on these proposals, please  send them to :

Development@wembleypark.com

https://www.quintain.co.uk/site-services/nw04

 

 IF YOU AGREE WITH THE OBJECTORS SIGN THE PETITION HERE