PETITION: Brent Council MUST consider the impact on residents of proposed reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre

 Urgent Treatment Centres deal with non-life threatening health issues nd relieve pressure on hosptal A&Es. With the latest CQC report on Northwick Park Hospital revealing waits of up to 12 hours the important role of the UTC at Central Middlesex is highlighred.

The NHS has proposed that the current hours at Central Middlesex Hospital  UTC (below) are reduced by 3 hours a day despite these pressures and the increase in the local populations from the new developments taking place locally. This means the UTC will close at 9pm with the last patients registered at 8pm. See LINK

 The petition below has been launched to urge Brent Council's Scrutiny Committee to consider the impact on local people of the proposal. Sign the e-petition here: 

https://tinyurl.com/protect-urgent-care

Brent Council Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee must consider proposals to reduce the opening hours of Central Middlesex Hospital Urgent Treatment Centre

We the undersigned petition Brent Council’s Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to convene an urgent meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to consider NHS proposals to cut the opening hours of the Urgent Treatment Centre at Central Middlesex Hospital by 3 hours a day, 21 hours a week.

 

In 2014, Central Middlesex Hospital A&E Department closed following a decision from the then Conservative Heath Secretary Jeremy Hunt. At the time, we were told that the opening of an Urgent Care Centre at Central Middlesex hospital would mitigate the loss of the A&E department. However, in 2019, the hours of the Urgent Care Centre were reduced when the overnight Service Centre was withdrawn. Six years down the line, we are faced with yet another reduction of the renamed Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC). The Centre currently closes at midnight but, if London NW University Healthcare Trust go ahead with their proposal, it will close at 9pm.

We the undersigned are therefore firmly opposed to a further reduction of NHS services that will undoubtedly put more pressure on Northwick Park Hospital A&E and UTC and will lead to fewer people getting the required medical attention as quickly as necessary and call on the current plans to reduce the UTC hours by 3 hours each evening to form the agenda of a specially convened Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee to be held as soon as possible.

We note that the 2019 proposals were considered by that Committee in July 2019 setting a precedent for the views of the Council and residents to be represented.

 Peoplewho live, work or study in Brent can sign the petition here: 

https://tinyurl.com/protect-urgent-care

Brent' Council's efforts to address the local manifestation of the national SEND crisis

 

This image from the House of Commons Education Committee Report 'SOLVING THE SEND CRISIS' Easy Read sums up the issue faced national and in Brent in providing for the rising number of children with special needs and disabilities.

The report states:

The evidence shows a lack of standardisation in both ordinarily available provision and Special Educational Needs (SEN) support, with no clear, consistent understanding of what these should involve in practice. We heard from parents and carers that this inconsistency leads to variable quality of provision, which in turn is driving more families to seek support through specialist placements or by securing an EHC plan. It is unacceptable that aclear definition of inclusive education is still lacking.

The numbers are striking:

Since the introduction of the Children and Families Act 2014, the number of children and young people identified with special educational needs (SEN) has surged from 1.3 million to 1.7 million.1 Today over 1.2 million children and young people receive SEN support, and nearly half a million have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. Behind these numbers are families navigating a system that too often feels adversarial, fragmented and under-resourced.

In Brent LINK the numbers  have increased significanty leading to the need for additional  provision and the Council paying for places in other boroughs and in the private sector:

As of August 2025, there are 4025 children and young people living in Brent aged 0-25 with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). Of these, 2414 are statutory school age, or 5.5% of the school population (similar to national levels, which currently sit at 5.3%). 12% of pupils are identified with additional needs that can be met at SEN support where a need is identified but does not meet threshold for an EHCP (compared to 14.2% nationally).

In the last year, the number of EHCPs has increased across all age groups, but not consistently.

The age groups with the highest increases in EHCP numbers were the 5-10 and 16-19 age groups, which saw increases of 8.2% and 7.4% respectively. Table 19, below, gives the EHCP % increases between 2024 and 2025 broken down by age group. It should be noted, though, that in 2024, EHCNAs for children aged 0-5 accounted for 41.3% of all new requests to assess, children aged 5-10 accounted for 39% of new requests and children/young people aged 11- 25 accounted for the remaining 19.7%.

 

The national pattern of need  is indicated by this chart from the House of Commons Report:

 

The Brent report just lists EHC Plan pupils (Blue in the above  national chart)

Communication and interaction (Including autism spectrum condition) 58.33%*

Cognitive and Leaning needs 24.06%

Social, Emotional and Mental Health 10.34%

Senseory and/or physical needs 6.73%

Other needs 0.55% 

* This has increased by 2% in just one year.

 

Brent note The predominance of Communication and Interactions as the most commonly occurring primary need in Brent’s EHCP cohort looks set to continue with the Early Years SEND team reporting 75-85% of their referrals over a 12-year period being for concerns regarding CI development. This is a national trend and is not unique to Brent.

 

London Borough of Brent provision 

 

You will notice that with the exception of The Phoenix Arch all the special schools are academies. It is significant that there is a strike over reduced wages for learning support assistants at Woodfield School currently following last year's strike at The Village School.

Wembley Manor, part of the Rise Academy Trust, a new school in London Road, Wembley has staggered its entry, not rising to its full capacity until September 2027.

In addition to the schools above there is additional provision in some other schools, often in spaces freed up by a reduction in primary pupil numbers:

Expansion of some schools is planned for 2025-2027 including on the Strathcona site in South Kenton that was once suggested as the site fro Islamia Primary, now moving to the Leopold Brentfield road site.:
 

Extracts from the Brent School Place Planning Document

 

Ongoing targeted work to support schools and settings to better meet the needs of children with SEND has seen an increase in the number of children remaining within mainstream education in Brent. However, despite increasing confidence in the mainstream sector to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND, and significant investment by Brent to increase the capacity within special educational settings and ARPs in the borough, additional special school places are required. Key numbers are as follows:

 

 48% of all children with an EHCP in Brent attend a mainstream school provision. This is an increase of 1% since this time last year.

 However, in terms of age-groups, 37% of primary aged children and 49% of secondary aged children with an EHCP require a special school place. Numerically this is expressed as 634 and 587 children respectively.

 Communication and Interaction is the area of need most strongly correlated with placement in special for both primary and secondary aged children with an EHCP in Brent, followed by Cognition and Learning for both age groups.

 

Manstream school pupils waiting for a special school place 

 

Brent currently has 136 children in mainstream schools awaiting a place in special (an increase of 16% since this time last year). Of these 136, 128 are primary age and 8 are secondary age.

 

Additionally, Brent currently has 16 children unplaced and receiving home tuition whilst a placement is sought (a 6% decrease since this time last year). Of these 16, 8 are primary aged and 8 are secondary aged. The primary need of the majority of these children is communication and interaction (most commonly ASC), accompanied by cognition and learning needs. 

 

The cost of out-of-borough and private provision is c£23m

 

199 Brent pupils with EHCPs attend out-of-borough maintained special schools (an increase of 2% since this time last year), at a cost of £5.6m per annum. This represents 8% of Brent’s school age children with an EHCP. Additionally, 197 children attend independent schools (an increase of 1.5% since last year), at a cost of £11.9m per annum. This also represents 8% of Brent’s school age children with an EHCP. The use of independent places has increased along with the cost of each place meaning that cost pressures associated with independent places have increased disproportionately to the percentage increase in places used. The transport costs for Brent children with an EHCP attending out of borough and independent provisions is circa. £6m per annum.

 

Total places requirement

 

Given the above, if all Brent children were to access a place at a maintained, in-borough special school, Brent would require a total of 1221 places (634 primary and 587 secondary), with the majority of these places being for children who have either communication and interaction or cognition and learning as their primary area of need. Brent currently has 480 places in primary age special school classes and 497 places in secondary age special school places. Of these places, 12% are occupied by children from other boroughs, leaving 422 primary places available and 437 secondary places available. Given this, Brent has a current shortfall of 212 primary places in special and 150 secondary places in special. 

 

As outlined above, to prevent Brent children with EHCP being unplaced, the independent sector, home tuition, out of borough schools and the mainstream sector are all currently being utilised.

 

The number of forecast primary special places required is similar to last year’s predictions. The latest forecasts for secondary special places are, however, higher than last year’s predictions by 50 places. This means that additional secondary places may be required sooner than previously anticipated due to increased demand:

 In August 2024, 42% of secondary age pupils were described as requiring a place in a special school. In August 2025, that percentage has risen 7% to 49%, representing a difference of circa. 41 children. 

 The increase in secondary aged children requiring a place in special is attributed to rising levels of need in Brent’s younger children as they reach secondary age. 

 Permanent exclusions in the last academic have had a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, reflecting pressures in capacity and mainstream schools’ ability to meet pupil’s needs.

The reasons for the increase in special need applications are still being debated and include better diagnosis, the impact of Covid and the school closures, and less communication between parent/carers and children in an age of mobile phone. Another article would be need to fully explore this.

There are now no local authority secondary schools in Brent. They are all stand alone academies, part of an academy chain or free schools. Anecdotally, some are more reluctant to take SEND pupils than others. 

The variety of provision, some seemingly quite ad hoc, its privatised aspects, and its cost, all have led to  Brent Council's plans to provide more in-borough provision. The privatisation and profit-making entering the arena are also reflected in very expensive private provision Child Social Care.

The National Education Union has set out is demands regarding SEND:

The NEU wants the Government to address these 5 immediate challenges on inclusion:

• Needs led funding – for SEND support, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans and local SEND and mental health services. 
• A strategy to reduce Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) workload. 
• Support staff numbers must be maintained and increased. 
• Time for staff planning, family liaison and CPD. 
• DFE must support knowledge exchange and professional skills around inclusion across all curriculum subjects.  

The following goals can build positive experiences for learners with SEND:

• Every child/young person attends a school/college with an inclusive ethos. 
• Every student is assessed early and regularly for learning and social and emotional needs and appropriate support can be provided. 
• Every child/young person has a strong relationship with a trusted adult in school/college. 
• Parents/carers are engaged partner

 

The question of what is truly inclusive mainstream provision is one considered by the House of Commons Education Committee:

It would be really usesul to have a meeting or conference  in Brent open to young people, parents and educators to discuss the current SEND crisis and solutions. 

  

Brent warns of potentially noisy night roadworks and closure in Sudbury December 15th to 17th

 

From Brent Council

 

Carriageway Resurfacing – East Lane Wembley (Pasture Road-Oldborough Road) --- Night Work

I am writing to inform you of planned carriageway resurfacing works in East Lane Wembley between Pasture Road and Oldborough Road. This work has been programmed to commence on Monday 15th December 2025 and be completed by Wednesday 17th December 2025, between the hours of 8.00 pm and 5.00 am weather permitting.

Works will be carried out by our contractor O’Hara Bros Surfacing Ltd on behalf of the London Borough of Brent.

Please see above map showing the extent of work highlighted in red. The road will be closed during the period of this work. Traffic marshals will be on site to assist residents.

We ask that you please ensure no vehicle or other obstructions are left on the road during the period of the resurfacing. Any vehicles that have not been moved and are stopping the works from taking place will be carefully relocated to a street nearby by a tow truck.

If your vehicle has been removed and relocated to another street whilst the resurfacing works are in progress, please telephone 0208 8689997.

Due to the nature of the work, it is likely that there will be higher levels of noise, but we will do our best to keep the disruption to a minimum and complete the works as swiftly as possible.

If you have any questions, would like more information about the planned works, or you have a disability and require this information in another format, please email Public Liaison Officer N.purkiss@oharabros.co.uk or call 020 84242220

Thank you in advance for your patience and co-operation. We hope these changes will make a real difference to you and your street.

Altamira and the Morland Gardens delay – Brent Council’s response.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From Brent Council’s adopted Local Plan Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Last week Martin published a guest post with the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Director of Property and Assets (Morland Gardens – (Happy?) Anniversary Brent! Why the delay?). I promised to let readers know what the Council said in reply, and here is the full text of the email I received on 18 November, with the names of Council Officers replaced by their job titles.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

RE: New Service Request: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - What are Council Officers' recommendations and when will they be published?  

 

Thank you for your open letter dated 10 November 2025, and note that [the Director of Property and Assets] has asked me to respond on the queries raised:

 

1. Please let me know the date by which Council Officers intend to make their detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens.

 

As you state in your open letter dated 10 November 2025, Cabinet approved the facility mix at Morland Gardens for affordable homes and youth facilities in June 2025. Please note that establishing the youth provisions/requirements is a crucial enabler to bringing forward a vision for the site that aligns with the Cabinet approved facility mix. The Council has therefore been liaising with a range of youth service providers to better understand what/how they would seek to use the building/site to meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough.

 

In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in with regards to increased borrowing costs, construction inflation, and compliance with new/enhanced building safety standards. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has recently issued its new Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 – 2036 and the Council will be reviewing this funding prospectus to see if it can provide the Council a viable route to bring forward affordable housing schemes on sites such as Morland Gardens. The SAHP funding window opens in February 2026 and closes in April 2026, so the Council will be able to confirm after this date if a grant bid for Morland Gardens has been included.

 

With the work currently being undertaken, the Council cannot confirm a date by which officers intend to make detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens until we are able to lock in the proposed youth service provisions for the site and the affordable homes funding opportunities through the SAHP.

 

2. Please also let me know (as some decision on this point must surely have been reached after two years of review) whether those recommendations will include retaining the heritage Victorian villa building, Altamira, as requested in the Willesden Local History Society petition which was presented to September's Full Council meeting, and supported then by councillors from across all three political parties.

 

As per the response to the petition from the Willesden Local History Society, no decision has been made on the retention or not of the Altamira building. Any decision will be based on the outcome of the above (youth provision identification, housing scheme requirements) for Cabinet to make a considered decision.

 

Thank you once again for your open letter, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

The response says why Brent is not currently building many new homes, and these words in the answer to point 1 are of more general interest: ‘In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in ….’ The reference to ‘social rent tenure’ is another example of the misrepresentation of “social housing” terms frequently coming from the Council’s Officers and members.

 

The only new genuine Social Rent level homes which Brent Council provides go to existing tenants who are moved to new homes because the Council wants to demolish their existing home. If you want to understand the different types of affordable housing, please read my November 2022 guest post Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply.

 

Illustration from Brent’s March 2025 Council Tax leaflet.

 

While I’m on the subject of the Council’s misleading information about affordable housing, you may remember my guest post from last April: How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26? It was in a leaflet sent to every Council Taxpayer in the borough, including a letter to residents from the Council Leader saying how well they had done. And the answer to the question of how many affordable homes Brent Council had actually delivered itself in 2024/25 was 26, not the 530 they wanted us to believe!

 

You will also notice from the response above that the proposed affordable housing at Morland Gardens may well depend on Brent getting financial help from the GLA’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-2036. But I can’t help wondering - what happened to the £107m of funding which Brent trumpeted that it had been promised from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026? 

 

From the GLA’s affordable homes website.

 

How much of that promised £107m was spent by Brent Council, and how many new affordable homes were built with that money? Wasn’t it meant to be helping to fund the regeneration of St Raphael’s Estate (see this June 2021 post: Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?)? How many new homes have been built so far as part of the long-promised St Raphael’s regeneration? (I don’t know – perhaps someone can give the answer in a comment below, please.)

 

Brent’s original 2020 Morland Gardens scheme was meant to use £6.5m in funding from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2021 (extended to 2023, because of Covid). That money was lost, but it could have been used instead for a Council redevelopment at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent before Morland Gardens in 2020, and would have provided 67 affordable homes. That project could not go ahead because of the flawed Cabinet decision to move Brent Start to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe on that site. You can read the details in my October 2021 guest post: 1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged.

 

It was hard not to get distracted by some of the contents of the Council’s response above, but I must get back to the main point of this guest post. Should I just accept what the Council Officer was saying, or should I reply? I chose the second option, and this is what I wrote:

 

‘Dear [Head of Capital Delivery},

 

Thank you for your email, in response to my open email of 10 November to [the Director of Property and Assets]. As the text of my open email was made public, both online and in the "Brent & Kilburn Times" (see below), I will seek to make the text of your reply, on behalf of Brent Council, publicly available.

 

The information given at point 1 is helpful in understanding the continuing delay, although this will mean another winter when the empty property can suffer further weather damage. That is not good stewardship of a valuable heritage building!

 

I am disappointed with the response to point 2, because it suggests that the only factors which will be taken into account in deciding whether Officers should recommend either retaining or demolishing the heritage building will be what is required for the proposed youth provision and housing scheme. That approach ignores the requirements of Brent Council's heritage planning policy BHC1, and its adopted Historic Environment Strategy, which both signal the importance of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in proposed developments affecting them.

 

I have referred to the section on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" before, but these words from it need repeating:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.'

 

The historic value of "Altamira" is huge. This was the landmark building at the entrance to an 1870s estate named Stonebridge Park. It was in at the birth of that district of our borough, and with its distinctive belvedere tower, it was one of the few original Victorian villas left standing when most of the street called Stonebridge Park was demolished to make way for the 1970s Stonebridge Park Brent Council estate.

 

Many of those 1970s buildings were demolished after less than 30 years, but "Altamira" is now 150 years old, and still in good structural condition, as well as being a beautiful example of Italianate architecture. It will be part of the Morland Gardens regeneration site, and it can be used for place-making purposes, helping to share the story of Stonebridge Park with young people, and the wider community, now and for future generations. That is why it should be retained, and why you and other Council Officers involved should decide to recommend its retention as part of your detailed submission to Cabinet.

 

Please keep me updated on progress with your review, and let me know if you need support from me (and the wider local history community) for an SAHP funding bid which includes retaining the heritage building. Best wishes,’

 

 

Philip Grant.

 

Government underfunding means council tax increase, higher council rents and increased charges as Brent Council faces £30m budget gap by 2028-29

 

 

I wrote a while ago that which ever party (or parties) win the May local election in Brent will be faced with a challenging financial situation. They will inherit the 2026-27 budget currently going out to consultation after approval at Monday's Cabinet Meeting.

Although there was plenty of mutual praise anomf Cabinet members there was no disguising the serious financial situation with increasing costs of homelessness accommodation, the Housing Revenue Account  coping with the cost of repairs required by the Social Housing Regulator, increasing costs in Adut and Children's Social Care and the soaring demands on the High Needs Grant for children with SEND, In addition 65% of Brent Council maintained schools are forecasting in-year deficits and facing restructures of staff to reduce costs.

 Meanwhile the Labour Government is still to decide the local government funding settlement and the current confusion over the Budget offers little realistic hope. Green MP Carla Denyer said, 'Local councils continue to be underfunded by the UK Government, and I will keep pushing Labour to give them the funding they need.'

The Brent budget gap is due to rise to £30m by 2028-29:

Apart from growth through increased demand there is also the additional inflation cost;

 To bridge the £10.4m 2026-27 budget gap savings/cuts are proposed to be decided at the Budget Setting Meeting in February 2026:

A 4.99% Council tax increase is proposed (2.99% general, 2% social care) and a 4.8% council rent increase, increased service charges and increased borrowing to bring the Housing Revenue Account into balance:

 

Among proposals to close the budget gap are a saving through challenging procurement costs of £3m, digital including AI innovation £1.43m, service efficiencies of 1% £3.2m, staffing reduction £400k, increased fees and chages £500k, self-service web-forms rather than email £655k, lane rental increase to utility companies £350k , off-street parking charges increased to market rates £130k.  There also be less tolerance of bad debt and an effort to get maximum market rent from Brent properties other than council homes.

Spending currently underway ahead of the May election on roads and tree planting is largely financed as a one-off by the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy. 

Savings/Cuts proposed 

Hover mouse over foot of extract to enlarge.

 

 

Brent Council has launched a consultation on the proposals: 

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, said: 

Many councils continue to operate under severe financial duress. Brent isn’t immune to these challenges, but we have continued to manage our finances responsibly over many, many years, allowing us to protect the frontline services that matter most. 

We are now accelerating our programme to transform the way we work so we can continue to protect essential services. This isn’t an easy task but I’m pleased that most of our £10million financial plan will come from working more efficiently and effectively. If you live or work locally, I urge you to have your say on the proposals. 

Residents, businesses and local partners can share their views on the council’s 2026-27 budget proposals until 30 January 2026.

Greens call on Brent Council to scrutinise proposed reduced hours (21 hours per week) at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre

 

The PFI funded Central Middlesex Hospital - are its services being gradually run down?

 

From Brent Green Party

 

In 2014, Central Middlesex hospital A&E department closed following a decision from the then Conservative Heath Secretary Jeremy Hunt. At the time, we were told that the opening of an Urgent Care Centre at Central MIddlesex hospital would mitigate the loss of the A&E department. However, in 2019, the hours of the Urgent Care Centre were reduced  when the overnight service was withdrawn.

 

Six years down the line, we are faced with yet another reduction of the now named Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) at Central Middlesex hospital. The Centre currently closes at midnight but, if London NW University Healthcare Trust go ahead with their proposal, it will close at 9pm.

 

The curtailing of the services at the Central Middlesex hospital is even more incomprehensible because it runs contrary to the evolution of the demographics in Brent. The Brent population went up by 9.2% between 2011 and 2021. This is a significant increase which is both higher than the population rise in England (+6,6%) and the population of rise London (+7.7%). How is Brent's growing and ageing population supposed to cope with a reduction in urgent care treatment?

 

Brent Green Party is therefore firmly opposed to a further reduction of the NHS services that will undoubtedly put more pressure on Northwick Park Hospital A&E and its Urgent Care Centre and will lead to fewer people getting the required medical attention as quickly as necessary, in the best-case scenario.

 

We call on the current plans to reduce the Urgent Treatment Centre hours by 3 hours each evening to be added as an urgent item to the Agenda of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee taking place on Wednesday November 19th. Failing this an Extraordinary Meeting should be called to consider the issue as the next Scrutiny will not be until January 2026 – too late to affect the decision.  We note that the 2019 proposals were considered by that Committee on July 9^th 2019 setting a precedent for the views of the Council and residents to be represented.

 

The reasons for the reduction in hours put forward this time are almost the same as previously, gradually taking away the service from Brent and nearby boroughs.

 

Zengha Wellings-Longmore, Green Party candidate for the Harlesden and Kensal Green council ward said:

 

The cut is now proposed at a time when the Urgent Care Centre and A&E at Northwick Park Hospital are encountering heavy demand with extremely long waits outside the recommended parameters.

 

At the same time the local population is expanding through developments at Old Oak and Park Royal Development Area, Grand Union, Neasden Stations, and Alperton. Alongside this are potential critical incidents at Wembley Stadium, Wembley Arena and on the Park Royal Industrial Estate.

 

It is vital that the impact of the reduction in service be considered and that the cost and long-term benefits of upgrading late night resources at the UTC be considered instead.

 

We note that the closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Northwick Park Hospital recently took place without any Scrutiny by Brent Council.