So what is happening in the old Barclays building in Willesden Green?

 

There has been some speculation about the fate of the former Barclays bank in Willesden Green, at 5 High Road. It has fine facade and stands almost opposite to the firmer Lloyds Bank, recently refused a licence for an adult gaming centre.

Permission was granted for the conversion of the former Barclay's Bank to commercial premises and six flats in August 2025. The flats involve a lot of internal changes plus a separate entrance.

 

The internal changes are most visible from the rear of the building:

 

The six residential units comprise 1 2 bed- 4 person, 4 1 bed - 2 person, 1 single person flat. A viability assessment was claimed to demonstrate that a payment in lieu of affordable accommodation would mean that the project could not go ahead. Because of the nature of the site Biological Net Gain did not apply.

The commercial premises is designated Class E and a drinking establishment or takeaway is ruled out.

Possibilities:    

Class E(a) - For the display of retail sale of goods, other than hot food, principally to visiting members of the public.

• Class E(b) - For the sale of food and drink principally to visiting members of the public where consumption of that food and drink is mostly undertaken on the premises.

• Class E(c) - For the provision of financial services, professional services or any other service appropriate to provide in a commercial, business or service locality where the service is principally to visiting members of the public.

• Class E(e) - For the provision of medical or health services principally to visiting members of the public.

• Class E(g) - For use as an office to carry out any operational or administrative function, research and development or any industrial process being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area (ie what was previously classified as a light industrial use).

 

 If anyone hears about the future use, do let us know. 

Preston Park Children's Playground closed due to safety risk to children

 Preston Park Children's Playground yesterday

Following concerns about the state of the children's playground in Preston Park and safety concerns LINK, Brent Council Parks Department yesterday decided to close the playground pending completion of repairs.

In a message to councillors the Head of the Parks Department wrote:

I am writing to make you aware that we have made the decision today to immediately close the children’s play area in Preston Park, due to safety concerns.

 

I appreciate that it is the summer holidays; however, the surfacing underneath almost all pieces of equipment has now deteriorated to such a condition that we consider it to be a risk for children using the space.  We do not take this decision lightly, but we have a responsibility to provide safe places for play.

 

We had identified some surfacing issues previously and had been obtaining quotes for their repair. Unfortunately, contractors have advised us that temporary repairs will not work and full scale resurfacing of the safety surface is needed. This is not something that can be undertaken immediately and we are therefore closing the playground today whilst we get quotes for the works.

 

The closest alternative children’s playgrounds can be found at Northwick Park, John Billam Open Space and Woodcock Park.

 The news comes after the local controversy over the proposals for a Multi Use Games Area on one of the park's tennis courts during which the state of the children's playground was raised and spending priorities questioned. 

 

Clearly the closure is not ideal during an especially hot summer school holiday and last night it was reported that the playground was still in use, but questions are being asked about how it was allowed to deteriorate to this extent, and how it managed to achieve Green Flag status given the situation.

 

Barry Gardiner MP joins ward councillors in opposing the loss of Samovar Space and Market Square to hotel development

 

England fans on Market Square ahead of the 2020 Euro Cup Final - July 11th 2021 

(Credit & Copyright Alamy)

 

Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) has joined Wembley Park ward councillors Cllr Ahamadi Moghaddam and Cllr Najib Warsame in opposing the building of a  hotel on Market Square and Samovar Space, currently in use as a public open space.

Barry Gardiner writes:

   

Planning Team

Brent Council

 

29 July 2026

 

To whom it may concern,

 

Objection to planning application 26/1351 for Plot NW04

 

I write to object to the above-referenced planning application for the erection of a hotel between two and 17 storeys tall on what is currently the Market Square/Samovar Space.

 

You may be aware that I do not normally intervene in planning matters except in exceptional circumstances, including if the planning application is a major infrastructural development. These developments have knock-on effects with wider political ramifications within the local community such as traffic generation, overcrowding of doctors’ surgeries, and inadequate number of spaces in local schools.

 

This application is one such exception. I have been alerted to it by my constituents and I agree with their concerns that these proposals would have severe detrimental impacts on Wembley Park, visitors, and most importantly, residents.

 

At the time of writing, the application has attracted 131 comments on your planning portal. Every single one of them objects. I note from these comments that residents have not been properly notified or consulted by the applicant. I am also aware of a Change.Org petition against the application which has almost 700 signatures to date.

 

Benefit of the Samovar Space

 

The Market Square/Samovar Space is one of the few free, open spaces in Wembley Park that people can spend time in. It hosts markets and community events and is one of the most attractive spaces in an area which is increasingly dominated by high-rise blocks. Samovar provides a free play area for local children, many of whom live in high rise flats that lack outdoor space. The plot is currently a much needed ‘third space’ in which people socialise and form community without having to patronize a business.

 

I understand that the proposals include plans for a new square. This does not afford the same community benefit as the existing space. It would likely suffer from wind tunnelling, and would effectively be the courtyard of commercial premises rather than a genuine public space. The space would also be completely lost with no alternative provision during multiple years of construction.

 

Supposed benefit of the development

 

There is already a plethora of hotels in the immediate vicinity. In Wembley Park we have two Premier Inns, a Holiday Inn, Best Western, Novotel, Hilton Hotel, Wembley International, St George’s Hotel, ARK Wembley, CityLiveIn, and the Ibis which is being refurbished. There are also a number of smaller establishments and further options in neighbouring wards.

 

A new hotel is of very little benefit to the residents who live here and does nothing to diversify the area. Residents actually benefit from community services such as the social and leisure space that already exists on the plot.

 

This is already an intensely developed area. Regeneration projects, commercial services, and the custom and footfall they create need to be balanced across Wembley and Brent, rather than further concentrated in Wembley Park.

 

Harms of the development

 

While the benefits of the proposals are extremely limited, this development would cause a range of active harms to the area, residents and visitors. On top of the loss of the community space, these harms include:

 

·     Years’ long construction causing noise and physical disruption as well as dust and debris;

 

·      Reduced sightlines and sunlight due to the huge scale of the proposed building;

 

·      Exacerbation of the Olympic Way wind-tunnel and echo effects;

 

·      Traffic from construction, hotel guests and ongoing servicing will exacerbate road congestion;

 

·      Trees are unlikely to survive relocation or, if retained, to survive the nearby construction;

 

·      Reduced attractiveness and vibrancy of the area.

 

Many of the consultation’s respondents have quite rightly raised critical safety concerns about the development.

 

Baroness Casey’s review into the disorder in and around Wembley Stadium during the Euro 2020 Final concludes that there was a series of ‘near misses’ in which serious injuries or fatalities were only narrowly avoided. She highlights issues with crowd control specifically on Olympic Way and Engineers Way, and notes that ‘excess crowds overloaded in confined spaces’ were ‘deemed to be one of the highest risk scenarios’ that day.

 

The existing plot provides much needed open space for event day crowds to gather and dissipate, as well as potential space for evacuation of the high volume of visitors we often welcome to Wembley Park. The proposals would remove the Wembley Splay route, which eases pedestrian congestion. Without this, event day crowds will be even further concentrated.

 

The Casey Review quotes a FA/Wembley official: ‘the outer perimeter [of Wembley Stadium] is hard to manage because of the residential blocks’. Constructing a further block so close to the Stadium and Arena can only exacerbate this concern.

 

Planning compliance

 

I understand that outline permission for this development was granted in 2011 under decision 10/3032. Since then, the Market Square and Samovar Space has become a well- established community facility, and Wembley Park has seen the proliferation of similar high-rise blocks. The Planning Committee must consider the site’s current use and setting rather than rely on 15 year-old proposals and assessments.

 

 

I understand that in 2018, Brent Council contributed £12.1 million to improve the site on the condition that the developer would not pursue the full outline parameters. However, I understand that this proposal of a 17 storey building does reach the full parameters. The planning committee must consider whether the approving this application would default on this agreement involving public funds.

 

The outline permission was granted ahead of various new policies such as the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, the Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041 and the London Plan 2021. Application 26/1351 must be assessed against current requirements. Particular attention should be paid to the following:

 

The National Policy Planning Framework 2012

 

Section 8: Promoting Healthy and Safe Communities

 

102. Planning policies and decisions should promote public safety and take into account wider security and defence requirements by:

 

a. anticipating and addressing possible malicious threats and other hazards (whether natural or man-made), especially in locations where large numbers of people are expected to congregate…

 

103. Access to a network of high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for the health and well-being of communities,

104. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on unless:

 

a. an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

 

b. the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

 

c. the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

105. Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.

 

Brent Local Plan 2019 – 2041

 

Policy DMP1: Development Management General Policy

 

Development will be acceptable provided it is:

 

a. of a location, use, concentration, siting, layout, scale, type, density, materials, detailing and design that provides high levels of internal and external amenity and complements the locality;

b. satisfactory in terms of means of access for all, parking, manoeuvring, servicing and does not have an adverse impact on the movement network;

i. resulting in no loss of, and where possible enhancing, community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

 

Policy BD1: Leading the Way in Good Urban Design

 

6.1.12 The policy seeks to create buildings and places of high quality that will be appreciated by future generations. High quality design is both visually interesting and attractive and should enhance local character. Good design is not just about what things look like, it is also about how places function and how individual buildings and the spaces around them contribute to the public realm and community well-being... Good design makes places that put people first, promote health and are welcoming, feel safe, are enjoyable and easy to use for everyone.

 

London Plan 2021

 

Policy G4 Open space

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Not result in the loss of protected open space

 

Policy S4: Play and informal recreation

 

B. Development proposals should:

1. Increase opportunities for play and informal recreation and enable children and young people to be independently mobile

5. Not result in the net loss of play provision, unless it can be demonstrated that there is no ongoing or future demand.

 

Policy S5 Sports and recreation facilities

 

C. Existing sports and recreational land (including playing fields) and facilities for sports and recreation should be retained unless:

1. An assessment has been undertaken which clearly shows the sports and recreational land or facilities to be surplus to requirements…

2. The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or

3. The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

 

Concluding remarks

 

It is my view that this application offers very little benefit to residents and in fact risks damaging the community, whereas the existing use of the plot as the Market Square/Samovar Space has visible and proven benefits.

Permission should not be granted without wider consultation of residents. I  support my constituents’ calls for the application to be heard at the Planning Committee with public speaking rights for local residents, and for a public explanation of how the developer has met the conditions to benefit from £12.1 million of public funds in submitting this application.

 

Nor should permission be granted prior to the publication of independent reviews on matters including wind, daylight, trees and construction impact as well as assessments from the Metropolitan Police, Wembley Stadium/the FA, the Safety Advisory Group, and any other relevant authorities.

 

I would be grateful if you could please register my objection and ultimately reject this application.

 

Yours faithfully,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent West

 

To make your own comment follow this LINK Ref 26/1351 

Controversial Wembley Hospital site planning application back at Planning Committee on Wednesday August 5th

 

The Wembley Hospital site was marketed for the NHS in September 2024

 The proposed development of the site

 

There was a degree of panic at Brent Planning Committee's July meeting when the controversial proposals for redevelopment of Wembley Hospital having been passed on the chair's casting vote, was declared void when it emerged that a member of the committee had not been present during the whole consideration of the item. Removing his vote meant that the proposals were rejected. Planning Officers quickly moved to suggest the item be deferred and it will return to the Planning Committee on Wednesday next week.

The Officers' Report notes:

  

This application was presented to Planning Committee on 2 July 2026, with a recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement. The majority of members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent, with members indicating they were minded to refuse the application due to the following aspects of the proposal (not all issues were raised by all members who voted against the recommendation to grant permission):

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing (3 members);

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

3. Lack of community space (1 member);

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children (1 member);

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing (2 members);

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity, including loss of daylight (1 member); and

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character of the streetscene; (2 members).

 

A decision was taken by Members to defer a final decision to a future committee meeting to enable officers to provide a further report setting out an analysis, assessment and testing of the potential reasons for refusal cited above by Members.

 

Their further report includes some small changes won from the developer, warnings that some reasons for refusal will not stand up to Appeal, and in some cases result in possible costs to the Council. Their recommendation remains approval incorporating the changes but they include draft reasons for refusal if committee members are so minded. No draft reasons are included for family housing: '...officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.'

I recommended you read the full report HERE to read the complete arguments but I summarise below:  

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing

 

There is no evidence to substantiate the refusal of the application based on the insufficient provision of Affordable Housing as it has been demonstrated through the consideration of technical information by industry leading experts acting on behalf of the council that the proposal would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable Housing in line with the relevant policies. Without such evidence, the Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission at appeal on these grounds and is likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding this, if Members are minded to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient provision of affordable housing, then a reason for refusal has been drafted as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that is deliverable within the scheme and therefore would not make an appropriate contribution to identified local housing need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

 

Following the July Committee meeting, the applicant has proposed minor site layout changes which result in the provision of one additional on-site parking space, taking the total provision to 13 spaces. The additional parking space is not required to ensure that overspill parking does not occur (as this is mitigated through the parking permit restriction that would be secured). However, it does represent an increase that is in direct response to Members’ parking concerns with, and this increase can be supported when balanced against the

policy requirements set out above to move towards more sustainable modes of travel and for car-free development to be the starting point for all development in accessible locations.

 

A reason for refusal of planning consent must be contrary to a policy and result in identified harm. The proposal is in line with adopted London Plan policy T6.1, meeting minimum requirements for blue badge parking and being below the maximum parking standards. The site is in an accessible location with good access to public transport options, where Brent policy BT2 sets out that car-free development should be the starting point. With only 13 car parking spaces proposed on-site, the development would not be expected to lead to unacceptable congestion on the road network generally from trip generation and technical information to support this has been submitted to the council and reviewed by the Council’s own experts. To address the potential for increased parking demand on surrounding roads (and associated congestion), a parking permit restriction will be secured which is in accordance with Brent policy BT2 (b). A Car Park Management Plan would be secured through condition to ensure that car parking spaces are leased rather than sold which is a requirement of London Plan Policy T6.1 (B).

 

As such, the proposal is not contrary to the planning policies which relate to parking and congestion and would not result in material harm in relation to parking and congestion. The Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission on these grounds and at appeal would likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of parking and the impacts of the development on congestion on the local streets then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of on-site parking and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the resulting parking demand would not lead to overspill parking stress and congestion on surrounding streets. This would be to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network, contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and policies BT1 and BT2 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

3. Lack of community space

 

It is not feasible to provide community uses on all sites, with larger developments better suited to enable thedelivery of such facilities. A new community facility is being delivered with Brent Wembley Housing Zone development on the corner of the Wembley High Road and Cecil Avenue.

 

Acknowledging the concern raised by Members it is proposed that the scope of the s106 Heads of Terms be broadened, so that the play space contribution of £50,000 could also be utilised for enhancements to nearby existing community facilities, if that was deemed a more appropriate use for the contribution at the relevant time.

 

The proposal is not considered to be contrary to adopted policy in relation to the provision of community facilities, nor is it considered that the proposal will result in material harm, and with no specific requirement for the provision of a community facility within this site, the council is unlikely to be able to defend a reason for refusal on this basis and at appeal may result in the award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Nevertheless, should members choose to refuse permission on this basis, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of the absence of community facilities, would fail to meet social infrastructure requirements by securing provision for needs arising from the development in relation to the provision of community facilities. This would be contrary to Policy BP7 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children

 

Considering the improved on-site play offer proposed and the remaining reduced shortfall for the 12+ age group that would be experienced by future occupiers, alongside the mitigation to be secured through the Heads of Terms, Officers remain of the view, that on balance, the play strategy is considered to be acceptable.

 

In view of the mitigation that has been agreed by the applicant, which as referred to above is to provide a contribution of £50,000 to address the identified deficiency in play space provision, Officers do not consider there to be reasonable grounds for refusal based upon lack of on-site play space for older children, which could be successfully defended at appeal.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of play and recreational facilities, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an adequate quantity of on-site play space for children aged 12 years and over, resulting in an identified shortfall. The lack of sufficient on-site play and informal recreation would fail to adequately meet the needs of future occupiers, particularly older children. In the absence of sufficient on-site provision, the proposal would be contrary to policies S4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy BH13 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing

 

The scheme presented to Members in July 2026 proposed that 26 of the 108 dwellings would be family sized (with at least 3 bedrooms). It was acknowledged in the main Committee report that this would represent a marginal shortfall (1 home) below the Local Plan BH6 policy target of 1 in 4 new homes to be family sized.

 

Notwithstanding this marginal shortfall the development, it was considered that the proposal would provide a meaningful contribution of much needed family sized homes (including family sized affordable homes). For these reasons, the proposed development was considered acceptable in respect of family sized housing provision.

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has proposed an increase in family sized housing provision to directly address Members’ concerns. An additional family sized 3-bedroom dwelling is proposed at ground floor level within block A, by converting a 1-bedroom affordable dwelling into a 3-bedroom affordable dwelling through the relocation of a bicycle store, which will result in the overall provision of family homes being 27 of the 108, meeting the 1 in 4 policy target. As referenced above, almost half of the affordable homes (45%) would now be family sized also, which is positive given the significant need for family sized affordable homes. The increased level of family housing proposed is fully in accordance with Local Plan policy BH6. As such, officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.

 

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity due to the loss of daylight

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has sought to further demonstrate the relationship between the proposed townhouses, namely unit 101, and 15 Fairview Avenue, in response to Members’ concerns that the proposal would cause harm to neighbouring amenity.

 

An illustrative section analysis of this proposed relationship has been provided which shows that the boundary fence provides a degree of screening to the existing kitchen (side facing) window to 15 Fairview Avenue. It shows that the first floor and second floor windows of the proposed home that are directly opposite the kitchen window of No. 15 are bathroom windows and would be obscure glazed (which can be secured by condition), and that the bedroom

windows of the new houses would be at an angle to the kitchen window. The illustrative plan shows the smaller pane of each bedroom window is to be obscurely glazed which would further reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy (again this can be secured by condition). The same obscure glazing strategy is also proposed to the rear façade of unit 100.

 

One member was minded to vote to refuse permission due to the impact of the proposal on the light received by the kitchen window of No. 15. As discussed above, the proposal will have an impact on the amount of daylight that is received within the kitchen of No. 15, and that impact will be noticeable. However, the No Sky Line assessment shows that the levels of reduction are 6 % beyond the threshold set out within the BRE guidance.

 

While the impacts are acknowledged, it is considered that they are considerably outweighed by the benefits of the development that are set out within paragraphs 358-373 of the committee report and include the provision of a significant number of new homes, with one in four of those homes being family sized and 11 of the homes being proposed as affordable homes.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the side facing kitchen window of 15 Fairview Avenue would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of this property.

 

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene

 

Any historic association with the Barham Family, who originally donated the land to build the Old Wembley Hospital or the Copland Sisters, who funded the establishment of the hospital through the Copland Charity, is not legible when one views the site. The Council’s Heritage Officer has judged that these historic associations on their own do not represent an element of heritage significance special enough to justify retention.

 

In summary, the proposals would accord with relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including 203 and 216, and policies BHC1 of the Local Plan and HC1 of the London Plan. Overall, the harm/total loss of the Non Designated Heritage Asset(NDHA) could be overcome by public benefits delivered on the site. It is important that the lost buildings, which played an important role in the area’s history, are recorded. This has been done in part through the agreed Level 2 Building Recording and a condition is recommended that that an interpretation panel and/or plaque be placed on site to explain the former role the hospital played in the community (including its founding via a local charity and its use during the Second World War).

 

Impact on the character of the streetscene

 

Where building heights then step up to four/five/six-storeys, in terms of scale, this responds appropriately to the larger civic buildings. In terms of character, the proposed multi-tonal bricks are reflective of the surrounding residential context. Facades are broken down and well-articulated, including the feature brickwork detailing. Architectural inspiration for the scheme has been derived from the surrounding Metroland context, as well as the listed Wembley Fire Station, located nearby, built in an art-deco style. This inspiration is clear to see across the proposed scheme, and demonstrates the level of regard that has been had to the surrounding context.

 

In summary, the character of the proposed development represents a considered and appropriate response to the surrounding context. Officers consider the overall approach in terms of design and appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics, and in design terms the requirements of Local Plan policy BD1 are satisfied.

 

Nevertheless, if, having regard to the discussion above, the Planning Committee are minded to refuse the application due to the concerns raised, then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development by reason of the demolition and loss of the existing non-designated heritage asset and the form, appearance and character of the proposed development would fail to preserve or appropriately respond to the significance of the heritage asset, resulting in heritage harm to Brent’s historic environment. Furthermore, the proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing character of development in the area, resulting in harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies BD1 and BHC1 of the Local Plan, and heritage and design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to conserve heritage assets and secure high-quality design that responds positively to local character and context.

 

Given that to all intents and purposes this was public land, the question is, are the public getting a good deal? 

Road closures & parking restrictions Wembley Park - Tuesday July 28th, Saturday August 1st, Sunday August 2nd

 From Brent Council

Bruno Mars, The Romantic Tour on following date this week:

 

- Tuesday 28 July 

 

Luke Combs, My Kinda Saturday Night Tour on following dates  this week:

 

-  Saturday 1 August

-  Sunday 2 August

 

Please read below to see how this might affect you.

 

Timings

 

      - Bruno Mars, The Romantic Tour concert doors will open 7.00pm and road closures will be in place at 3.00 pm for all above events.

 

      -  Luke Combs, My Kinda Saturday Night Tour concert doors will open 7.00pm and road closures will be in place at 3.00 pm for all above events.

 

We expect the area around Wembley Stadium to be very busy before and after this event so please avoid the area if you can, unless you have a ticket for the event.

Event day parking

 

Event day parking restrictions will be in place from 8am to midnight on main roads and from 10am to midnight on residential roads on Tuesday 28 July, Saturday 1 August and Sunday 2 August 2026.

 

If you have a paper permit, please make sure you clearly display it in your vehicle. If you have an electronic permit, you do not need to display this.

 

Drink-free zone

 

Save Samovar Space & Market Square open spaces in front Of Wembley Stadium - submit objections by Friday July 31st

 

 

The campaign against the building of a 17 storey hotel in the current Samovar Space and Market square in front of Wembley Stadium and adjacent to Brent Civic Centre is gaining moment with the formation  of a WhatsApp Wembley Park Community Action Group JOIN HERE 

 

Current (from application document)

Proposed (from application document) - Brent Civic Centre now hidden
 

The campaign is asking for supporters to send in their Objections to Brent Council by Friday 31st July, the Neighbourhood Consultation Expiry Date. SUBMIT HERE

The campaign informs supporters that objection should focus on planning issues and makes some suggestions:

 You may wish to mention:

1. Loss of community space: Market Square and Samovar Space provide valuable public space for residents, markets, events and local businesses. Wembley Park needs more community infrastructure, not less.

2. Poor consultation and community engagement: Many residents were unaware of the proposal, and consultation failed to meaningfully engage the local community most affected.

3. Impact on the local area: The proposal would further intensify development in Wembley Park, increasing pressure on public spaces and changing the character of the neighbourhood.

4. Design and public realm: Consider whether replacing an active public square with a 17-storey hotel creates an attractive, welcoming and accessible place for residents.

 

Samovar Space and Market Square from above 

 

Remember: Planning decisions must be based on planning considerations. Explain how this proposal will affect you, your neighbourhood or the wider community. Personal experiences and local knowledge can be very persuasive.

 

Brent Council belatedly publishes its Infrastructure Funding Statement for 2024-25 - Receipts at end of year £157m SCIL and £21m NCIL

 

The Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) is a vital document providing transparency and accountability and is required by law.  The Brent IFS for 2024-25 failed to appear when other local authorities' statements were published. When I asked Brent Council why it had not been published they responded, 'because it's not ready.'

In Monday's Cabinet report they now state:     

The requirement to produce an annual Infrastructure Funding Statement is set out in the amended CIL regulations (2019). The Council must prepare an IFS for 2024/25 and publish it online. The IFS should have been published on the Brent Council website before 31st December 2025 per the CIL regulations but was delayed. For these reasons it is advised the IFS 2024/25 is published as soon as practical, and no alternative options have been considered.

Still no explanation for the delay of 7 months for an annual report but I publish extracts below. The next IFS is due before December 31st 2026 and will contain information relevant to the pre-election spending bonanza.

A further query was over an update of the borough's Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP). The last IDP was published seven years ago in 2019 and a lot has changed since then.

Brent Council says:    

The Council will continue to focus the spending of CIL and S106 receipts on essential infrastructure to support the level of growth outlined in the Local Plan and the projects identified in the IDP. It will do this jointly with partners through effective and ongoing engagement, ensuring key infrastructure is delivered at the right time and in the right place to support growth and development. As reported to Cabinet in May 2025, Brent’s current IDP was published in 2019 and is due to be reviewed and updated over 2026-27.

 

SCIL funds have matured over several years; prudent financial practice and good future infrastructure planning demands that the fund is judiciously allocated over time. This allows for important infrastructure coming forward in the future to be funded. In view of this, the Council is due to update its IDP to help with the future planning of infrastructure across the borough, ensuring it aligns with the growth anticipated to come forward in the Local Plan and Borough Plan priorities. This provides transparency to residents, members, infrastructure providers and the wider development industry on the type of infrastructure required to support long-term growth and development of the borough.

 

Transparency and accountability over SCIL was demanded by opposition parties at the July 6th Full Council.

 

First the sums of Strategic and Neighourhood CIL at the end of 2024-25:

 

The amount of SCIL and NCIL collected in 2024-25:

So what was Strategic CIL spent on in 2024-25?

 

To put these figures into perspective Monday's Cabinet will be asked to approve £39m SCIL to go towards the burgeoning costs of the Bridge Park Complex project.

 

NEIGHBOURHOOD CIL 

 

The IFS usually contains details on the funding of Neighbourhood CIL projects but in 2024-25

The NCIL bidding process was paused during 2024/25 due to a review of the NCIL application and bidding process and no further funds were awarded.

This cleared the way for the mainly centrally directed pre-election spending earlier this year.

Two projects of over £100,000 each required Cabinet approval in 2024-25 and that was granted:    

Step Up Hub: Community Safety Community Leadership Programme

The aim of this social infrastructure project is to improve the quality of life for disadvantaged people impacted by development by providing support to further equality, social justice, social mobility, and community cohesion.

The programme combines academic learning, with practical tasks, helping learners address real-world problems. The structured course will be supplemented by mentoring and coaching support. Course content will focus on community cohesion and crime reduction and include delivering interventions to address anti-social behaviour which has increased with the increase in development.

 

Tenterden Pavilion

This project will provide funding for a new football pavilion at Tenterden Sports

Ground in Kenton, suitable for a grassroots level football club (Forest United (1973) Youth Football Club Limited). The project is required to obtain match funding, and no NCIL funds will be released without evidence of the additional funding, as agreed by Cabinet.

 

 SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS

Brent Council explains:

The Council enters into Section 106 (S106) obligations with developers - a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms. S106 obligations are focused on site-specific mitigation of the impact of development such as securing affordable housing or requiring improvements to an access road. CIL, on the other hand, is designed to raise funds for infrastructure needed generally as a result of an increase in development in an area and is spent on community infrastructure projects across the borough.

This has increasingly been used to provide affordable housing where a  developer is unable to do so on their development:

 Other S106 allocations:

 I recommend reading the full Infrastructure Funding Statement  202-25 with accounts of projects and their funding. READ IT HERE