More detailed objections to Quintain’s plans for a hotel on Wembley Park’s Market Square and Samovar Space.- a space in regular use by residents, LDO visitors, football and concert fans and users of Brent Civic Centre & Wembley Library

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Pedestrians using Wembley Splay, and crossing the site of the proposed hotel.

 

Under a blog post on 16 June, “Wembley Park councillors call on the public to support the fight to keep the Samovar Space & Market Square in front of Wembley Stadium”, I added a comment saying ‘I will need time to study the application, and the previous consents, carefully but when I have done that I will submit my objections, and will share my thoughts with anyone who is interested.’ 

 

I submitted the first part of my comments to the Brent planning website for application 26/1351 in July, but never expected it to take so long for me to finish the task! For various personal reasons, and commitments that had to take priority, it was not until 16 October that I submitted the final part, and sent an illustrated document copy of my full objections to Brent Planning Officers. The application has yet to be referred to Brent’s Planning Committee (but could be at its next meeting on 11 November), so hopefully my delay is a case of “better late than never”. 

 

I will ask Martin to attach my objection comments document below, so that anyone who is interested, including any objectors who may wish to speak against the application when it does come before councillors for a decision, can read the reasons I have set out as to why the application should be refused, on proper planning grounds, in the hope that this assists in the fight to keep this site as open space for the local community and visitors to enjoy.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

The petition to retain the Market Square and Samovar Space is still live and available to sign HERE

The application (16/1351) is on the Brent Council Planning Portal where comments in support, opposition or neutral can be made HERE.  The expiry date is November 27th 2026 but comments can be made up to the eve of the Planning Committee meeting hearing which may be sooner. It has not yet been fixed.

 

Brent Cabinet greet a glorious new dawn on South Kilburn on the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer for long-term completion of the project

 

As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses. 

Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.

Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.

Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to  be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.

Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported  to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.

He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'

Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the  council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace.  It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development.  He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.

Guardian August 2026

 BBC London  September 2026

 

Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.

The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.

In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:  

We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration. 

Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.

We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.

 

Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting; 

  

I'm told that screaming at the screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn. Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.

 

As a South Kilburn resident for the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.

 

South Kilburn regeneration started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.

 

What about the new flats built under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.  This gets described as “In a small number of developments however residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much every new block.

 

What else has regeneration delivered? We read “Significant investment has been made in delivering amenities and social infrastructure including a medical centre, pharmacy, affordable workspace studios. A purpose-built community facility including an enterprise hub, nursery, family wellbeing centre, community halls, community kitchen and café is being built at Granville and Carlton Centres. Sustained investment in public realm including tree planting, landscaped courtyards, pocket parks and play areas has been made across the redeveloped sites in the neighbourhood. These amenities and infrastructure are having a profound impact on community life and has been transforming the South Kilburn neighbourhood.” Perhaps the author couldn’t be bothered to refer back to what was promised at the start of the regeneration of South Kilburn – 2 new medical centres (we have one, delivered many years after it was promised), a new community centre (no sign of that, not sure why the rebuilding of the already existing Granville and Carlton centres should be seen as fulfilling that promise), a new youth centre (no sign) and – yes we do remember – “no more tower blocks”.  It fools no-one to refurbish existing facilities and then claim they are new, instead of actually providing what was promised. Even within the claimed `success' of the Granville and Carlton Centres, community space has been reduced. Green space is often behind locked gates or not maintained, what were public spaces have been privatised and new planting is not monitored. And have people forgotten the block with "poor doors", where social tenants have to use a different entrance to those who have bought their flats?

 

What else has regeneration brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks have.

 

Regeneration has also brought increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area, leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and other criminal activity.

 

Rarely., if ever, does the Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they hope we have forgotten.

 

Would all this be worth it if the regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the housing crisis.

 

An altogether laughable claim is that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement. Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored. A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running, unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.

 

Reading Council documents or watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead, we see  gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.

 

When agreeing to give the £1 billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real world intrude on Brent Council decisions.

 

 

Early Notice: Black History Month 2026 at Brent Civic Centre Friday 30th October

 

Labour's new Planning Regulations denounced as an attack on local democracy at Extraordinary Brent Council Meeting

 

 Kim Wright, Brent Chief Executive's, statement ahead of the constitution debate

The Extraordinary Council Meeting on Monday certainly lived up to its billing! The meeting followed the united opposition of the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Conservatives to changes in the constitution tabled at the last Full Council. The constitutional changes were necessary as a result of the Labour Government's changes to Planning Regulations that reduces the role of councillors and residents in planning decisions. The changes are part of the government's efforts to speed up the planning process in response to the housing crisis but there are misgivings among some Labour MPs.

The council is required to make the necessary changes by Halloween so an extraordinary meeting was necessary to resolve the issue.  

Perhaps extraordinarily before the debate got underway Brent Council's CEO, Kim Wright, made an intervention in a statement outlining all the dire consequence for the authority if councillors failed to adopt the required changes. (See video above)

Addressing the concerns of councillors that they could no longer call-in applications she drew attention to a change in the original proposal LINK (in bold):  

5.12 Under the national scheme of delegation, current practices set out in local authority constitutions, such as the power for ward councillors to require cases to be called in for committee consideration or having trigger points for referral to committee if a certain number of objections is reached, will not be possible.

Local authorities are required to amend their constitutions to align with the national scheme of delegation.

However, it is recognised that at the Full Council meeting on 14 September 2026 and the All Member Briefing on 1 October 2026 Members expressed concerns about these changes. In response, paragraph 2 of the terms of reference of the Planning Committee has, so far as possible, been reinstated but with necessary modifications (see Appendices). In outline, this will allow three or more Brent councillors (irrespective of political group membership) to request that certain applications be considered for referral to the Planning Committee

An indication that the unity at Full Council was broken  was quickly evidenced when the Tories abstained on a Liberal Democrat amendment allowing Labour to have a narrow majority over the Lib Dems and Greens. 

For the record this is the proposal from the Liberal Democrats that was not debated as  result of this vote.

NEW PLANNING REGULATIONS

We note that the new Regulations imposed by the Labour Government undermine the role of locally elected Representatives and remove our abilityto effectively represent the interests of local people and our community.

In response to the new Regulations and the reduction of the role and powers of local Councillors we confirm the need to amend the Council constitution and resolve to include the following additions/changes:

1.  To reduce the size of the Planning Committee to 5 members made up of Labour, 1 Liberal Democrat, 1 Conservative and 1 Green.

2.  To resolve that the Chair of the Planning Committee will be a member of one of the opposition parties until May 2030 when the position will be reviewed.

3. To reflect the reduced role of the Planning Committee by reducing the SRA for the Chair of the Planning Committee to £7,500.

Specifically in relation of regulation 5(3) of the 2026 Regulations we resolve:

1. To set up an Advisory Board made up of 3 members of the Planning Committee or their alternates who will advise/inform the Nominated Member and Nominated Officer on whether a ‘qualifying’ application should be referred to the Planning Committee.

2. To ensure that when information/publicity about a planning application is issued by the Council it states

a. That the specific application will be determined by Planning Officers under delegated powers or

b. That the application falls within the defined areas of Regulation 5(3) and where a decision to refer it to the Planning Committee is possible

​ a clear explanation is provided on how and who makes the decision  to refer the application to Committee – and if so referred explain the  process the Planning Committee has to follow.

c. In all cases publish the Planning Officer Report relating to each Planning Application and the decision made and any conditions imposed.

 The debate on whether to accept the changes to the constitution contained many defences of local democracy and allegations that central government was undermining the role of local councillors in representing the views of residents through planning committees. The Tories strongly condemned the Labour Government with stirring speeches that can be heard in the video below - but as you will see in the final minutes said, with something of a whimper, that they had no option but to comply and abstained - again giving Labour a majority over Liberal Democrats and Greens:

 

Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green Group Leader, said that the changes were borne out of the reality of the housing crisis, a crisis Greens recognised and believe requires radical solution, but the changes would further erode public trust in the planning system and strengthen the perception that the planning system is rigged in favour of those who have power and know best how to play the system.  She advocated the plans of Green-led Lewisham Council to bring planning closer to local communities while also meeting housing need.

Cllr Muhammed Butt emphasised that this was not something of the council's doing: ''If there was any other way, we would have found the way.'  He remained open to further discussion.

The constitutional changes were adopted by a small Labour majority over the Greens and Liberal Democrats when the Tories abstained. 

Cllr Anton Georgiou, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said he could see that some Labour councillors were uncomfortable and warned them that they would have to defend themselves when residents came to complain that they had no say in planning applications.

The planning system will now hand over most decision-making to council officers as illustrated in the Brent  Council document below:

 

Brent Climate Roadshow TONIGHT: Seeds Hub , Empire Way 6.30-8.30pm

 

Brent Council tenants & leaseholders a chance to speak directly to council teams Open Day Tuesday 27th October, 4pm-7pm Tuesday 27th October

 

Date and time
Tuesday, 27 October 2026
15:00 - 19:00

Location
Grand Hall, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley,
HA9 0FJ

From Brent Council

  

Tenant and Leaseholder open day 

 

Join us for our fifth Tenant and Leaseholder open day. This open day is a great opportunity to connect with us, ask questions, get support with housing issues and speak directly with our teams.

 

On the day, you will be able to:

• meet your Area Tenancy Manager
• report repairs, damp, or mould issues
• discuss your rent or service charges
• learn about the steps we are taking to keep your building safe
• find out how to get involved in your community and resident engagement activities. 

 

There will also be information stalls and presentations from a range of council teams. Family-friendly activities will be available for children, and our team will be on hand throughout the event to answer your questions and provide support.

 

You can register your interest to help us plan ahead, or simply come along on the day.

Is your street liable to flooding? Do you know how to protect your property? How should you prepare for an emergency? Brent Civic Centre. Wednesday 14th October Noon-3pm

 

From Brent Council

  

Brent flood awareness event

Join us for a free community event to learn more about flood risks in your area and the simple steps you can take to prepare for and respond to flooding. Whether you're a resident, business owner, volunteer or part of a local community group, this event is a great opportunity to get practical advice and speak to experts.

What's on offer?

• flood presentation from the London Fire Brigade
• advice on how to prepare for flooding
• information about local flood risks
• practical ways to help protect your property from flooding
• guidance on emergency planning
• meet local resilience and emergency planning professionals.

Everyone is welcome. Come along to learn how to be better prepared and help keep your community safe.

 

Event details

Date and time
Wednesday, 14 October 2026
12:00 - 15:00

Location
The Atrium, Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley,
HA9 0FJ

 

 

Philip Grant: Morland Gardens – Brent responds to my query over “Why no progress?”

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

   

Aerial view of the 1 Morland Gardens site. (From Google Maps satellite view)

 

In a guest post on 18 September, Morland Gardens – Why no progress? , I published the text of an open email I’d sent to Brent’s Chief Executive and Head of Capital Delivery. It was the anniversary of a petition I had presented at the September 2025 Full Council meeting, on behalf of Willesden Local History Society, calling on the Council and its Cabinet to retain the 150-year old heritage Victorian villa, “Altamira”, as part of its redevelopment of the former Brent Start college site at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge. Despite Officers beginning a review of plans for the site in November 2023, after their flawed original planning consent had expired, no plans had yet been brought forward.

 

When the Council is publicly questioned in this way, it is only fair to publish their reply, and this is the full text of the response I received at the end of September:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Request for update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens 

 

Thank you for your open email dated 15 September 2026 addressed to the council’s Chief Executive and myself, regarding an update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens.

 

Since my last response in November 2025, the council has carried out a number of actions to progress a proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens. This includes:

 

1. Continued engagement with youth organisations
2. Submission to the Greater London Authority (GLA) for funding from the 2026 – 2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP)
3. Feasibility commission

 

1. Youth Engagement

 

Council officers continue to engage with youth organisations to develop the youth facilities offer at Morland Gardens and to understand how the building could meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough. This is being fed into the feasibility work discussed below.

 

2. SAHP Application

 

In February 2026, the GLA launched the London component of the SAHP, requesting affordable housing delivery partners to submit proposals for a programme of affordable homes delivery over the next decade. The council has submitted an ambitious delivery programme of 1,300 affordable homes of which Morland Gardens is part of this submission. We have included for 65 social rent homes, the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme at the site. We understand from the GLA that delivery partners will be told imminently on the outcome of their bids. In the interim, the council has included affordable homes within the facility mix to be reviewed as part of the feasibility commission described below. Whilst this indicates our intentions, the plans are heavily dependent on securing grant funding from the GLA.

 

3. Feasibility Commission

 

The council has commissioned Mott MacDonald to undertake a feasibility study into providing a mixed-use development at Morland Gardens, including provision for youth facilities, Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and affordable homes. This work is looking at a variety of options which includes the retention of the Altamira and is expected to conclude towards the end of October which may coincide with the SAHP bid outcome announcement.

 

Therefore, the council is not currently able to confirm whether it intends on retaining the Altamira building or not. However, the council is progressing options for the scheme and will review the feasibility work, the outcome of the SAHP bid, review viability implications and funding mechanisms before proposing a capital delivery project for Cabinet’s consideration. This is expected in the new year and I will let you know when any decision is placed on the council’s Forward Plan.

 

You kindly issued the article by Mark Sabolch back in August 2024 and feel free to share my contact details with Mr Sabolch should he wish to include the building in the London leg of his tour looking at heritage buildings in the UK that inspired the designs of Australian architects in the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

Thank you for your enquiry and please let me know should you have any further queries.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

 

 “Altamira” in December 2025, with the belvedere tower at 2 Morland Gardens beyond.

 

While I am pleased that some progress has been made, I do have concerns over the chances of the heritage asset being retained, despite the statement that this is one of the options being considered as part of the “Feasibility Commission”. It will be great if the Council can get funding for genuinely affordable ‘social rent homes’ from the GLA’s 2026-2036 Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP), but the Brent’s bid for the money is based on 65 homes for this site.

 

As the email above says, sixty-five homes is ‘the same number as was proposed for the previous scheme’. One of the main reasons the original 2020 planning consent failed is that the proposed site included not just the land at 1 Morland Gardens, but also the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden land in front of it. The Council had no legal right to build on that extra land, and it failed in its attempt to obtain that right! That extra land would have been part of the footprint for the ten-storey tower block where many of the 65 homes would have been built, and the building would have been so close to the major road junction of Hillside with Brentfield Road (one of the worst air pollution locations in Brent) that the windows on the lower floors would have to be fixed closed, with artificial ventilation provided.

 

Architect’s drawing of the proposed 2020 Morland Gardens building, with my speech bubble added.

 

Realistically, I don’t believe it would be possible to include 65 homes on the 1 Morland Gardens site without demolishing the Victorian villa. If the consultants, Mott MacDonald, have been told by Brent that a scheme must deliver that number of homes, or a figure close to it, they will come back with a report which says it would not be feasible to retain the locally listed heritage building. Is that what Council Officers (and the Cabinet members they will have spoken with about the future of the site) want the outcome to be?

Philip Grant.

St Raph's £20m Pride in Place Project transparency controversy: 'Public confidence cannot be rebuilt behind closed doors'

Guest post by Asif Zamir, Independent Community Advocate

 

BRENT COUNCIL CLAMS UP: Transparency Challenges Over the £20m St Raphael’s 'Pride in Place' Board Recruitment

 

Following a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request regarding the recruitment process for the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s and Stonebridge Pride in Place fund, Brent Council has issued a highly evasive response (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0).

 

Rather than demonstrating the "open, fair, and transparent" governance promised in its corporate guidelines, the local delivery authority has completely withheld specific candidate metrics and process logs. Instead of providing the specific information requested, the council has merely supplied generic, blank procedural policy documents.

From the perspective of community oversight, this response raises serious transparency concerns.

 

The residents of the St Raphael’s & Stonebridge are entitled to full disclosure on the following three institutional points:

 

1. The Omission of the Advertised Resident Panel

 

The original request sought the specific decision logs confirming why the publicly advertised, localised resident stakeholder interview panel was omitted from the final evaluation process. The council’s response completely bypassed this question.

 

* The Procedural Breach: While the Candidate Pack permits political figures and council officers a seat on the final panel, Page 9, Section 4.5.9 of Brent Council’s own internal Recruitment and Selection Policy explicitly mandates that “steps must be taken to involve service users [residents] in the selection process wherever possible.” By completely omitting the advertised resident selection panels, the council removed vital community-led checks and balances, leaving political leadership as the sole evaluators of the post.

 

2. The Withholding of Basic Aggregate Statistics

 

The FOI request sought basic, non-identifiable numerical data: the total number of individuals who applied for the Chair position, and the total number successfully shortlisted for a formal interview.

 

* The Overreach of Data Protection: The council has claimed that disclosing these raw numerical figures violates Section 40(2) (Personal Data) under data protection laws. This represents a significant overreach of UK GDPR frameworks. Releasing a simple, raw aggregate statistic carries a zero percent probability of individual re-identification.

 

Withholding basic statistical counts prevents the public from assessing the competitiveness and openness of the selection process.

 

3. The Conflict Management Audit Trail

 

The successful candidate's public employment record indicates they served as a senior Brent Council staff member directly inside the Brent Council Leader’s Office until August 2025. They were subsequently appointed as the Independent Chair of this multi-million-pound community board in September 2026—just 13 months later.

 

* The Mandatory Policy Window: Under Page 7 of Brent Council’s own Conflict of Interest Policy, the Declaration of Interest forms of former employees must legally be held by the department for a minimum of 2 years after leaving the council's employ. Because the appointee falls squarely within this active 2-year audit window, an internal record trail MUST exist.

 

Despite this, the council has refused to provide anonymised copies of the due diligence, political activity disclosures, or conflict management logs requested to verify how the public perception of independence is being maintained.

 

Next Steps for Accountability

 

A flagship national initiative funded by central government to be "community-led" cannot be administered behind closed information barriers.

 

Consequently, we have taken two formal steps to challenge this evasion:

 

1. Escalated to Chief Executive Kim Wright: We have officially triggered a statutory Request for an Internal Review with the Information Governance team, copying in the Chief Executive and the legal department, to challenge the withholding of this data.

 

2. Notified Whitehall Assurance: We have forwarded the entire evasive FOI file and relevant council policy pages directly to the MHCLG Communities Delivery and Assurance Unit (PiPPcorrespondence@communities.gov.uk) for an independent compliance review.

 

I have also issued a direct, formal notice response to the newly appointed Chair, Priyesh Patel.

 

Our position is absolute: we have explicitly rejected any invitations to step into closed-door or private briefings at the Brent Civic Centre.

 

We will not enter any polished boardroom to discuss the future of a £20 million community fund while the council is actively hiding the recruitment data from the public. A formal, transparent meeting under strict public record rules will only be considered after Brent Council fully complies with basic transparency regulations, overrides its faulty data protection excuses, and releases the aggregate FOI statistics.

 

Public confidence cannot be rebuilt behind closed doors; the paperwork must be fully disclosed to the community first.

 

I’ve also formally written to Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman and Leader Councillor Butt requesting clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the appointment of the Independent Chair for the £20m St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.

 

I’ve asked them to confirm, among other things, whether any relevant professional or political associations were declared, whether any conflict-of-interest or risk-mitigation assessments were undertaken, whether the candidate’s recent Brent Council employment was considered in assessing independence, and whether residents were involved in the selection process.

 

I’ve given them until *5pm on Wednesday 7 October* to respond.

 

 Dear Councillors Aden, Knight, Blackman, and Leader Councillor Butt,

I am contacting you in my capacity as an independent community advocate for the St Raphael’s estate and Stonebridge regarding the recruitment and appointment of the Independent Chair of the £20 million St Raphael’s Pride in Place Neighbourhood Board.

Given your elected roles and responsibilities within the ward and borough, I am seeking clarification on the governance and conflict-of-interest arrangements surrounding the selection process, particularly in light of information raised through my Freedom of Information investigation.

The FOI process (Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0) has not, to date, provided answers to several specific questions concerning resident involvement in the selection process, aggregate applicant and shortlisting figures, and whether conflict-of-interest or independence assessments were undertaken in relation to the successful candidate.

I have also obtained information which indicates that the successful candidate was employed by Brent Council, including within the Council Leader’s Office, until August 2025. I have further identified information concerning subsequent local political activity involving ward representatives. I am not asking you to accept any allegation of impropriety; rather, I am asking for the relevant governance arrangements to be confirmed publicly.

I therefore request confirmation of the following:

1. Declaration of association

Prior to the conclusion of the Independent Chair selection process, did any Stonebridge Ward member, or anyone within the Executive Office involved in the process, formally declare any previous professional, political or campaign association with the successful candidate to the Council’s Monitoring Officer, Director of Legal Services, or other designated officer responsible for managing conflicts of interest?

2. Conflict-of-interest assessment

Were any conflict-of-interest declarations, assessments, registers, risk assessments or other governance records created in relation to those associations? 

3. Risk mitigation

If any potential conflict or perceived conflict was identified, what risk-mitigation measures were put in place to ensure that participation by elected members in relation to the Neighbourhood Board remained appropriately separated from any previous professional or political associations?

4. Independence of the Chair

Was the successful candidate's recent employment by Brent Council considered as part of an assessment of whether they met the independence requirements of the Independent Chair role? If so, who conducted that assessment and what governance framework was applied?

5. Resident involvement

Did residents or local stakeholders participate in the evaluation, interview or selection of candidates for the Independent Chair position? If not, what was the recorded rationale for not incorporating a community-led interview or evaluation element?

6. Selection transparency

What were the total numbers of applicants, shortlisted candidates and candidates who progressed to formal interview for the Independent Chair position?

For clarity, I am not requesting personal data relating to other applicants.

I am seeking aggregate recruitment statistics, procedural information and confirmation of governance arrangements.

The Council's FOI response confirms that Brent was responsible for recruiting the Independent Chair positions. It also states that individual candidate scores and assessments were withheld as third-party personal data. My questions above are deliberately framed so that they can be answered without disclosing individual applicants' personal information.

I have now formally requested an internal review of FOI Ref: IRC-92027-V6F0K0. That review specifically asks the Council to reconsider whether the unanswered questions concerning resident involvement, aggregate selection figures, independence assessment and conflict-of-interest arrangements fall within the scope of the original request and can be disclosed without identifying individual applicants.

I would therefore be grateful if you could provide a substantive response to each question above by 5:00 PM on Wednesday 7 October 2026, so that the response can be placed on the public record alongside the ongoing FOI review.

If any of the information requested is not held, please state that expressly. If it is held but cannot be disclosed, please identify the relevant exemption or governance basis relied upon.

The purpose of this correspondence is to establish a clear factual record concerning the governance of the St Raphael’s Pride in Place programme and to ensure that residents can understand how independence, conflicts of interest and community participation were addressed during the appointment process.

I look forward to your response.

Regards,

Asif Zamir
Independent Community Advocate
St Raphael’s Estate and Stonebridge

 

Ballymore Ltd to be awarded Brent Council's single regeneration partner contract for its South Kilburn project

 

Above Ballymore's description from their company accounts

 Brent Cabinet on October 12th will be asked to approve the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer of the remaining regeneration of the South Kilburn Estate.

The company was in competition with Mount Anvil and St George. The appointment of a single developer followed dissatisfaction with the lack of coherence and other issues associated with multiple developers.  

The following are extracts from the Lead Member and Officers' Report to Cabinet: 

In a small number of developments... residents have experienced build quality issues. Elsewhere multiplicity of landlords arising from the current site by site development model has resulted in the inconsistent and variable standards of management and maintenance of their homes and the public realm. This inconsistent approach has also restricted the full placemaking potential and social value impact of a comprehensive regeneration programme.

The community is also experiencing noise, dust, traffic disruption and increased anti-social behaviour, the inevitable consequences of large-scale, long-term regeneration and construction programmes. This experience has been exacerbated due to programme delays arising from viability challenges and tough economic conditions.

Thus far:

 .... the programme has delivered (including under construction) a total of 1,954 homes including 1,239 (63%) social rent homes. In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs. 225 tenants are currently remaining to be rehoused,120 of which are being rehoused at NWCC, Peel, C&G and in new and existing council homes across the borough.

You will notice a deficit of 105 tenants to be rehoused.

The 'viability challenges  and tough economic conditions' mentioned above are likely to impact on what single developer is able to deliver. However, the report to Cabinet sets out some of what officers see as the  positives in Ballymore's bid:  

• their approach to placemaking supported by specific commitments, standards and delivery mechanisms to practically deliver a coherent, integrated sustainable and high-quality South Kilburn neighbourhood with a distinct identity. 

• their street activation strategy including culture, leisure, retail, community and workspace uses supported by commitments to affordability, creating opportunities, supporting enterprise and community-capacity building. 

• their proposals for a network of streets and open spaces which is well managed, climate-resilient, supporting biodiversity, active travel, play and inclusive community life. 

• their commitment to adoption of design standards and design approach that positively affects health, well-being, comfort and convenience of living in South Kilburn. 

• their processes and protocols for designing, commissioning, monitoring and evaluating robust and durable build quality and building performance and their commitment to the highest level of aftercare and resident satisfaction. 

• their approach and commitment to environmental sustainability, climate resilience and adaptation. 

• their strategy for meanwhile uses which effectively manages a neighbourhood in transition and delivers visible, tangible social and economic benefits for residents from the outset including how this will contribute to the long-term placemaking of South Kilburn. 

• their approach to providing a full range of residential tenures - private and affordable to create a mixed, inclusive and resilient community; including their approach to delivering 50% affordable housing across the masterplan. 

• their approach to long-term, unified estate management and stewardship for South Kilburn, in coordination with the earlier phases including their proposals for resident and tenant/occupier involvement in future routes for community voice in decision-making.

Readers will note the difference in the highlighted 63% social rent homes and 50%  affordable housing  - the latter is a slippery concept and viability issues may affect the proportion of affordable homes and their tenure.

Brent officers were also impressed by Ballymore's approach to social value:

The preferred bidder’s proposals for delivery of social value in response to criteria relating to Empowered Communities is based on their understanding of South Kilburn community’s needs, aspiration and ambition for the regeneration. The response includes the following:

• their 10 year social value strategy alongside a social value action plan for the first two years addressing identified areas of need of the South Kilburn community including Young people, Cost of living crisis, Community capacity building, Community voice and Climate emergency. 

• their suggested list of activities, initiatives and events, commitment to resources and demonstration of their skills and expertise alongside their approach to working with the network of South Kilburn VCSE, the council and other institutional and statutory service providers in a complementary manner to address each area of need. 

• their suggested mechanisms to measure demonstrable impact through KPIs, quantitative proxies and qualitative assessment to provide a rigorous, professional, transparent and evidence-based reporting framework to measure, monitor and report delivery impact. 

• their suggested governance structure to oversee the delivery of social value and how they will ensure a “review, refine and revise” approach to understanding local needs, designing initiatives, monitoring progress and measuring impact.

Meanwhile a resident was not impressed by Brent Council's poor communication regarding the Ballymore appointment itself:

 Fun fact. Brent Council directly informed various organisations about this decision. One which it didn't is the South Kilburn Residents Panel, which supposedly had a tiny part in the decision. Surprised? Not in the least.

The name Ballymore may ring a bell with readers. It has come up on this blog as one of the developers of the controversial canalside Ladbroke Grove Sainsbury site that Kensal Green Residents Association have been campaigning against:   

https://www.keepkensalgreen.com/      https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/05/campaign-launched-for-low-rise.html

Six years ago they hit national headlines over allegations that their own employees were writing enthusiastic reviews of the company's developments on Trust Pilot' LINK

More seriously there has been great concern over a series of fires at its luxury New Providence building near Canary Wharf:

New Providence Wharf had everything — until the fires started