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

Consultation opens on the amalgamation of Carlton Vale Infant School and Kilburn Park Foundation School - Public Meetings October 14th 9am and 6.30pm

 Links to the Have Your Say Consultation and to register for the above meetings HERE

 

A significant step takes place today with the launch of the  long-delayed consultation on the amalgamation of Carlton Vale Infant School and the Kilburn  Park Foundation School.

In January 2026  Carlton Value had just 38 pupils, down from 48 the previous year, leading to a budget reduction of £67,319;  while Kilburn Park had 55 pupils, down from 60 the previous year and a budget reduction of £33,309.

The plan is for the new, yet to be named, primary school, to be one form of entry - 30 pupils per age group. Reception to Year 6 would total 210 pupils - compared to a total of 98 presently in the current two schools combined.

However, the separate building project for a new primary school will be built for 210 pupils initially but with capacity for two forms of entry - 420 pupils plus nursery,

In the process The Kilburn Park Foundation School would lose its foundation status and the new school would become a normal local authority community school. 

The Authority has expressed confidence that the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate will yield more pupils in the long run, although there are indications now that the amount of council/social family housing due to be built by the single developer (their appointment may be announced on Friday) will be reduced due to viability issues. Private housing is likely to yield fewer children. Brent Council believe that a brand new state of the art building will attract more pupils from the wider area.

The Council explain: 

The proposal is that Carlton Vale Infant School and The Kilburn Park School Foundation are joined together to form one combined primary school from an agreed date (which could be 18 April 2028). The amalgamated school would initially occupy the site of the existing Kilburn Park School Foundation while a brand-new primary school building is erected on the site of Carlton Vale Infant School as part of the regeneration of the South Kilburn area of Brent. Once the new school building is complete, pupils would move in and the old Kilburn Park School Foundation building will be demolished and the land converted to open parkland for the use of the public.

The amalgamated school would provide 210 places in Reception to Year 6 (30 per year group). This is a reduction to the current capacity of the existing schools and reflects current demand for school places in the area. The new school building is being designed with capacity for an expansion to two forms of entry if there is a significant increase in demand in the future.

The plan to build a new school is separate to this proposal to amalgamate the schools. If agreed, amalgamation would occur before the new building is completed. Further information about this will be communicated to parents and staff at the appropriate time.

 The decline in numbers of pupils reduces the school budget which is allocated per pupil, but there are other budgetary  considerations:

Whilst most income depends on the total number of pupils, Carlton Vale Infant School and The Kilburn Park School Foundation currently also receive individual “lump sums” and sports premium grants. These would reduce on amalgamation with an estimated net cost of c.£169,500 per annum by 2029/30 (the final timescale depending on when amalgamation takes place). The full impact would only be felt two full years after amalgamation and could be at least partially mitigated by cost saving from any new building and through the generation of additional income.

The consultation paper outlines what the council sees as advantages in ethos and potential funding streams but note the tentative nature of the latter.

0. In order to amalgamate the two schools, it is proposed to close one school and expand the age range of the other school. The governing body has indicated a preference for the combined school to be a community school, which is a local authority maintained school. This choice aligns with current government policy, promotes community engagement, and allows for greater autonomy in curriculum development and decision-making. As a community school, the combined school would be able to prioritise social inclusion and offer tailored support for disadvantaged students. 

   As a community school the local authority would continue to support the combined school, which may also have access to additional funding streams and resources, potentially leading to improved facilities and educational opportunities for students. Therefore, it is proposed Carlton Vale Infant School will be expanded and The Kilburn Park School Foundation would close. The new school would then be one Primary School.

The consultation closes on November 8th 2026. The Consultation document should be read in its entirety first and can be downloaded HERE

Plans for new SEND and Primary Study classrooms at Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre now open for comment

 

A little over a year ago I presented a petition to Brent Council, supported by Brent Friends of the Earth and Brent Parks Forum, calling for the continuation of primary environmental education provision at the new Post 16 Centre at the Welsh Harp. LINK 

I am pleased to say that the planning application now on the Brent Council Planning Portal incorporates the recommendations we made.

   

Application Number: 26/2156 LINK

 

Location: Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre & open space, Birchen Grove, London, NW9 8RY Comments by 16^th October 2026

 

“Demolition of all buildings and construction of a one-storey education and community centre, including improvements to access arrangements, provision of car and cycle parking, landscaping, play space, boundary treatments and ancillary works.”

The proposed building is larger  to make space for the SEND and the primary provision with separate classrooms and toilets as we  requested. In order to keep it at single storey it occupies a bigger footprint than currently with the loss of some trees. The current classrooms that has a temoporary repait to allow classes to continue and the toilet block will be demolished. The chapel that was erected as part of a plan for proposed lawn cemetery on the site, but later abandoned will remain. it is currently let out by the council as Planet House,

 Double classrooms in both the SEND and Primary sections of the building

  

Internal Images

 

EXTRACTS FROM PLANNING STATEMENT 

 

The Site is located in the administrative boundary of the London Borough of Brent (LBB).The Site measures 0.3 ha (hectares) in total.

 

The Site is comprised of two existing buildings, the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre, and a W/C block, both accessed off a private road (?), Birchen Grove. Hardstanding for informal car parking is located to the east of the W/C block. Green open space, including trees and grassed areas, are located to the west.

 

   

The Centre is currently used for education and community purposes, providing support for schools via an outdoor learning curriculum, providing experiential facilitated sessions. The Centre is also available for hire by the local community primarily for children’s birthday parties.

 

The Centre is currently owned by Brent Council and operated by Thames 21. Thames 21 is an environmental charity that works to clean and restore rivers and improve wildlife by mobilising volunteers and engaging communities to help adapt to the impacts of climate change. At Welsh Harp, Thames 21 provide a large range of nature activities for Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and Key Stage 2 (KS2) students. Currently over 70 schools work with Thames 21, attending the Centre for outdoor learning and activities for either half or a full day. Activities include habitat studies, water pollution studies, Stone Age studies (fire lighting and shelter building), bushcraft activities and understanding the role of nature and waterways in building climate resilience.

 

The Site is located in the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and designated as Open Space, a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a local nature reserve in line with the Brent Local Plan

 

Brent Council formally committed to providing a Post-16 Skills Resource Centre in 2019, with approval granted by Cabinet in November 2021 as part of the School Place Planning Strategy 2024- 2028. The post-16 Skills Resource Centre is to be provided in recognition of the lack of in-borough provision for young people with complex learning difficulties, including those with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).

 

The Centre will provide access to land-based education and training for students who may have completed school or college programmes, but whose level of need means that they require additional support to access the next step after formal education. The Centre will offer training in horticulture, work experience, periods of volunteering and employment and enterprise development within the horticultural industry.

 

The Centre will be owned and operated by Brent Council. Delivery of the Centre will be developed with partners including environmental organisations, education providers, council services, local employers and community groups. A number of the groups that will utilise the centre have been consulted in the development of the designs and proposals. Together, they will seek to create a joined-up pathway from engagement to skills development, work experience, supported internships and, where appropriate, sustained employment. The introduction of flexible space in the form of the multi-purpose rooms will also provide other community groups and members of the general public to use the centre, with benefit beyond the core user group.

      

To provide a clear strategy and operational plan of the centre, it is proposed to provide an Operation Management Plan once details of delivery have been further developed. As the operational delivery strategy for the centre is still under development, it will be more effective to present the operational details at a later date. The Applicant is willing to accept a suitable planning condition requiring an Operation Management Plan to be submitted to and approved by the Council, prior to the centre’s Occupation.

 

The proposed single-storey development comprises two rectangular blocks in a stepped configuration, containing four classrooms, a multi-purpose room, WCs, reception, office, and plant rooms. The layout provides distinct and separate spaces for different users, with school-aged students located in the southwest section and post-16 SEND students in the northwest section. Administration spaces, including reception and office, are clustered around the reception area to the building interior and the outdoor entrance area, enabling flexible use by school-aged students, post-16 SEND users, or the local community. The design ensures safeguarding between user groups, with shared spaces located centrally while each distinct area has access to dedicated WCs and circulation space.

 

   

Access

 

The Site is accessed from the south of the site via Birchen Grove. It is proposed to keep the existing access road off Birchen Grove that runs adjacent to Planet House to the west. The access road will provide a shared surface entrance to the drop-off area, the accessible car parking bay and main entrance to the centre.

 

A new pathway will be created off Birchen Grove adjacent to the existing zebra crossing which will allow pedestrians to access the site to the school-aged student classrooms through the secure fenceline, or alternatively via the main entrance on the southern elevation. The pathway will also provide access to the cycle parking.

 

Trees

 

A total of 18 trees, in addition to two groups of trees and a hedgerow, have been assessed as part of the accompanying Tree Survey prepared by Arbtech. It states that the majority of trees identified during the survey were of moderate quality.

 

The majority of the trees will be retained as part of the proposals. Three trees are proposed to be removed, in addition to one group of trees and the partial shrub clearance to the north of the site boundary. This is to enable the space required for development to construct the new centre. The layout of the proposals has been designed so as to minimise tree loss as much as possible.

 

Thirteen trees are proposed to be planted across the Site. Five trees will be added to the trees clustered towards the south of the Site adjacent to Birchen Grove (namely T04 and T07) and around the new parking area. The additional planting in this area will help shield the proposed building when viewing the Site from the south along Birchen Grove.

 

 

Morland Gardens – Why no progress? An Open Email to Brent Council

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

  

The photograph above, showing the secured entrance to the former Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens in Stonebridge, was taken on 30 October 2023, the day the planning consent for the flawed 2020 Brent Council redevelopment proposals for the site expired. In a guest post a month later, “Morland Gardens – now there is a real chance to save the Victorian villa!”, I wrote about the opportunity which the review of future plans for the site, which the Council had just begun, gave for Brent to come forward with much better proposals, learning from their mistakes in the past (which I also referred to in that article). 

 

Now, nearly three years later, the Council has yet to come up with any plans, other than an agreement by Cabinet in 2025 that the site should be redeveloped for affordable housing and youth facilities, both of which are much needed. After years of “reviewing the situation”, they have yet to disclose whether they still intend to seek the demolition of the beautiful and locally listed heritage building on the site (but if they do, “I think they better think it out again!”).

 

To try and get some answers on what is happening, I sent this open email to Brent’s Chief Executive and Head of Capital Projects (and copied to Stonebridge Ward councillors and the Cabinet Lead Member for Regeneration) on 15 September:

 

‘Request for update on plans for 1 Morland Gardens

 

This is an open email

Dear Ms Wright and Mr Martin,

 

It is a year since I presented the Willesden Local History Society petition to Full Council, calling for the heritage Victorian villa "Altamira" to be retained as part of Brent's redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens. At that meeting, councillors from all three of the then parties on the Council spoke in support of the petition, and I had a positive conversation with the then Lead Member for Regeneration, Cllr. Teo Benea, straight after the meeting.

 

Council Officers started a review of future plans for the former Brent Start site in November 2023. A year later, that review was combined with the wider proposals for Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor, and a consultation held during which I submitted detailed comments in December 2024, including this draft proposal showing how the heritage building could be retained as part of a youth/community facility, with a pocket park including the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden outside the site, and still provide room for at least 27 affordable Council homes:

 

 

The Bridge Park report to the July 2026 Cabinet meeting still gave no details of what is proposed for the Morland Gardens site, so the public are still no wiser about the outline of "affordable housing + a youth facility" which was agreed by Cabinet a year earlier, and there is nothing in the Forward Plan to indicate when any further decision on the future of this vacant Council-owned asset will be made.

 

Although you have heard these arguments before, I will summarise them for the benefit of Councillors Blackman and Kelcher.

 

·      Brent's own Local Plan historic environment supporting document says this about the value of heritage assets:

 

 

·      In addition to Willesden Local History Society and many local residents, The Victorian Society also opposed the demolition of "Altamira" when Brent sought permission for that in 2020.

·      A Professor of Architecture, also opposing demolition in 2020, finished his detailed reasons by writing: ' 1 Morland Gardens is not just any nineteenth-century villa, but a characteristic work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance. Its destruction would be a terrible loss, not only to the local environment, but also to the architectural heritage of Victorian Britain.'

·      This beautiful 150 year-old landmark building is one of only two Locally Listed heritage assets in Stonebridge Ward, at the gateway to a small development which saw the birth of, and gave its name to, Stonebridge Park.

 

Council Officers have surely by now decided whether or not to recommend the retention of the Victorian villa as part of the Morland Gardens redevelopment. It is well past time that this decision should be made public, and real progress made on plans to make use of a vacant site which needs to be developed for affordable housing and a youth club. Please let me, and the people of Brent as a whole, know whether the Council proposes to retain "Altamira" as part of that development, or not.

 

If the proposal is to retain the heritage Victorian villa (which was sympathetically restored by the Council in the 1990s, to provide an inspiring home for its adult education college, now known as Brent Start), then please carry out the necessary work to make good the damaged slates around the roof, so that the condition of the building does not deteriorate.

 

I believe that I sent you, in the past, a copy of an article by architectural historian Mark Sabolch, about Italianate-style buildings, of which "Altamira" was an excellent example (and probably the best surviving one in our borough). Mark will be leading a tour in this country for the Historic Houses of Australia Association in May 2027, looking at heritage buildings here which inspired the designs of Australian architects in the 19th and 20th centuries. It would be great if he could include "Altamira" in the London leg of the tour, seeing it at its best, rather than in the state of neglect which the Council has sadly allowed to happen!

 

I look forward to receiving a positive response to this email (which I would ask that you make "reply all", please, so that the Lead Member and Ward councillors are kept informed), rather than another "no decision has been made yet", which is wearing thin after nearly three years since the start of the "urgent review" which was meant to take place. Thank you. Yours sincerely,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

    

“Altamira” in a 1907 Stonebridge Park postcard, and a similar view in 2023.

 

I have received a generic response email from Brent Council to “[My] Service Request”, and will ask Martin to share their “full response” with you once it is received, so that it is available to everyone who may be interested.

I fully believe that this landmark Victorian heritage building is too valuable for the past, present and future of Stonebridge Park to be destroyed through a lack of understanding and care by Brent Council. The sooner they bring it back into community use, and build genuinely affordable Council homes on the land behind it, the better!

 

Philip Grant.