Flu is early this year - and it's nasty! GET VACCINATED!

 

I can tell you from personal experience! 

Message from Brent Council

 

Flu season has come early this year, and the NHS is bracing itself for what could be a tough winter. Brent Council and our NHS partners are urging residents to support the NHS during this period of high strain on our health service. 

 

Eligible residents can get a flu vaccine at the same time as a COVID-19 vaccine, making it as easy as possible for those most at risk to stay protected. Due to the severity of this year’s Flu Season, even close contacts of someone with a weakened immune system are eligible for jabs. If you are visiting elderly family during this holiday period, we urge you to get your jab and protect your loved ones and the NHS.

 

It is easier than ever to get vaccinated. Brent Council and the NHS have been going out into communities to deliver the vaccines and provide health check-ups. Pop-up vaccine clinics are available at our libraries, our health buses will be located at local supermarkets, and at your local pharmacist. Visit the North West London NHS page here, to book your vaccination or find your local walk-in vaccine clinic.

 

This approach was just one of the things outlined at a recent Health and Wellbeing Board Meeting to address winter pressures on the healthcare system. Preventing hospital admissions and supporting patients to be discharged as soon as possible will also be crucial to protecting communities this Winter.

 

Councillor Neil Nerva, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, Public Health and Leisure said: 

 

Together the council and local NHS have been working hard through Brent Integrated Care Partnership to ensure the system works as efficiently as possible during the difficult winter months.

 

I know residents are also keen to do their bit to protect their NHS, which is why we have been making a real effort to explain all the ways they can do that. Getting your jabs if you’re eligible and making sure you only use emergency services for life-threatening situations all makes a huge difference.

 

Bhavna Patel, from Chana Chemist, was one of the team helping with the vaccinations at the health bus. She said:

 

Residents can arrange their jabs through their GP or at their local pharmacist, but we also make the effort to come out into the community to offer the vaccines and other health checks like blood pressure.

 

In addition to getting out and about around the borough, Cllr Nerva has also appeared in a recent video made to promote the key messages and the council has printed posters to appear in parks, housing estates, shops and other community settings to spread the word far and wide.

 

The video that Cllr Nerva made with the Brent Borough Medical Director, Dr Rammya Mathew, is available on Brent Council’s YouTube channel, explaining how residents can use local pharmacies, NHS 111 and out-of-hour appointments via GP Practices to get the help they need.

 

Dr Rammya Mathew advised;

 

As Winter approaches, our NHS is always under extra pressure. We all have a responsibility to try to look after the NHS. The best way to do that is by keeping safe, and there are a number of ways we can do this.

 

The first thing to do is to get vaccinated if you are eligible. The early public health data is showing us that we have had a spike in flu much earlier than usual. Because of that, it is very important for people to get their vaccines early.

 

To support our NHS, residents are advised that if they feel unwell, they should first visit a pharmacy, where they can be advised on treatment or be referred to their GP. By visiting pharmacies first, residents help free up our GP capacity for those who need it most. 

 

To find out whether you are eligible for a flu or COVID-19 vaccination and to book a slot or find out where to access a walk-in clinic, go to the North West London NHS webpage. You can also find out further information there about where to get the most appropriate medical help for any health issues you develop over winter. 

To see all the support we offer over the Winter period in Brent, visit our Winter in Brent page here.

 

 

Failings in Brent Council's social landlord duty continue

 

This morning's Brent Cabinet discussed progress on addressing the improvement plan demanded by the Social Housing Regulator after the Council's self-referral.  'Historic failings' on repairs and maintenance were condemned.

Lead Cabinet member Donelly-Jackson said that the progress report was 'necessarily frank' but the council was now aiming to be easy to contact, quick to respond and with clear communication.

Leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt, said, 'Even one failing for one resident is a reflection on all of us...we are the only ones they can come to. They can't go anywhere else.'

Summarising he said, 'We hold ourselves accountable for all our failings.'

Fine words but the entrance door on a South Kilburn block above, reported on November 14th if not before, has still not been repaired. It is not a fire door as first thought, but is a security door. Despite a council claim that it has been 'made safe' pending repair, it is still open.  This is way byond the 8-10 days promised and well outside the new regulations for urgent safety issues. 

Just yesterday in Harlesden I spoke to a tenant in a Brent Council block where gound floor sewage leakage had been reported frequently for months but never effectively irradicated. 

Clearly there is much to be done before the Council can claim to have solved its long-term 'historic failings.' 

Chalkhill Estate infill at Planning Committee next week. 105 garages and car park replaced by 61 social rent homes

 

Metropolitan Housing Trust who run the Chalkhill Estate as Metropolitan Housing Thames Valley have submitted an application for the demolition of 105 garages and re-use of other space to build 61 infill homes on the 'science blocks' site on Chalkhill Road.

The estate was designed with a considerable amount of green space and there are many trees, some of which will be removed. Of the 105 garages 71 are currently unused and the application claims only 18 are used for car parking.

 

The garages are quite close to existing blocks and will be demolished and replaced by housing

 

Existing garages and car park in blue above

The planners point out that Forty Lane has been designated an 'intensification corridor' that allows for building heights of up to 5 storeys. The site is between Forty Lane and Chalkhill Road but with some buildings between the site and Forty Lane itself.

 

Building heights:

 

Terrace A - 3 storeys

Block B -3 storeys

Block C - 4 storeys

Block D - 5 storeys

Block E -3 storeys

 

There are CGIs of some of the buildings in the application papers:

Block C above

 

Plenty of trees are shown in the CGIs. There are currently 69 trees on site with 17 covered by Tree Protection orders and 10 will be removed to make way for the building of the new blocks:

 

 51 new trees will be planted to compensate for the loss but this is not sufficient to make up for the reduction in canopy cover provided by the mature trees on site that predate the estate. The developer will contribute £26,292 for mitigating the loss through new planting in the vicinity of the development.

 

£53,804 will be contributed to the carbon off-set fund. 

 

The provision of 61 new homes at social rent is positive. No intermediate product such as shared ownership is planned. As these are not generally considered affordable to local people, this is a plus. There are a number of larger family homes planned.

 

 

 B=bedrooms P=Persons

 

 There are 8 objections to the plans on the Brent Planning Portal. Behind the conflict is planners' treatment of the application as one in an urban context designated for'intensification' and residents' enjoyment of a site originally designed with plenty of light and green space. 

 

 Einstein House

 

Residents of Einstein House are particularly affected and have put in an objection. Note that a contributionof £30,000 to a CPZ is now included and a daylight assessment completed (covered in detail for each property in the Officers' Report HERE) that concludes the harm to exising residents is outweighed by the benefits of the new housing.

Einstein House Objection

 

I am writing to formally object to the above planning application, specifically the proposal to construct Block E directly behind Einstein House. My objection is based on the following planning concerns:

1. Loss of Light (Daylight and Sunlight Impact)

The proposed Block E will significantly reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received by residents in Einstein House. The block is approximately three times the height of the current garages and will be located in close proximity to habitable rooms, including bedrooms and living rooms.

During consultation, we were informed that a daylight/sunlight report was conducted. However, no such report assessing the impact on existing homes has been included in the planning documents. The only report presented appears to relate to light within the proposed new blocks. This is a critical omission, as the council must be satisfied that BRE guidelines regarding adequate light to habitable rooms are being met. The height and massing of the proposed development will cast significant shadows over Einstein House, especially during winter months, severely affecting the quality of life for residents.

2. Loss of Privacy and Overlooking

Block E will be positioned approximately 12 metres from Einstein House. This is well below the 18-21 metre standard separation distance typically recommended between directly facing windows of habitable rooms. The proposed design includes balconies and windows that will directly face into the bedrooms and living rooms of existing residents. These rooms are considered habitable spaces and therefore deserve protection from unreasonable overlooking. No mitigation measures (e.g. frosted glass, angled balconies, or screening) appear to have been proposed to reduce this impact.

3. Noise Pollution and Anti-Social Behaviour - New Footpath

The plans propose the removal of the current secure gated area at the rear of Einstein House and its replacement with a public footpath. This significantly impacts residents' privacy, safety, and wellbeing.

Opening this area to public access may encourage anti-social behaviour, especially during evenings, and will create ongoing noise and disturbance. The proposed new lighting for the path while necessary for safety will further affect residents in ground floor flats through light pollution and reduced sleep quality. There is also no detail in the application on how this new public space will be managed or maintained to ensure current resident's safety.

4. Parking Pressure

There are already major parking constraints in the area. The proposed development does not include a robust parking strategy. While a small number of designated spaces appear in the plans, there is no clarity on whether new residents will be restricted from using existing street or estate parking.This will almost certainly exacerbate existing pressures, especially as no Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) or traffic management scheme is proposed. The application also appears to lack a comprehensive Transport Assessment to evaluate local capacity.

5. Poor Site Planning - Disproportionate Impact of Block E

While the wider development includes some open and green space, the positioning of Block E raises serious concerns. Unlike the other proposed blocks, Block E has been placed extremely close to existing homes in Einstein House just 12 metres away and at a height that is significantly taller than the current garages it replaces.

This placement creates an unbalanced development where one group of residents (in Einstein House) bears a disproportionate burden of the scheme's impact, including loss of light, privacy, and increased noise.

The council should require a review of the mass and siting of Block E to reduce its uniquely high impact and ensure a fairer and more sensitive design approach, especially when other blocks in the proposal do not create similar issues.

6. Lack of Transparent Consultation

Residents were not meaningfully consulted on key elements of the proposal. Several important documents such as the daylight/sunlight assessment for existing residents and detailed traffic or security plans were not shared during the consultation period.
This raises serious concerns about the transparency and fairness of the process, especially considering the significant impact this proposal will have on existing residents' lives.

7. Impact on Mental Wellbeing and Quality of Life

The combined effect of reduced daylight, increased noise, loss of privacy, and general overdevelopment will severely affect the mental wellbeing and quality of life of residents in Einstein House. These concerns should be taken seriously in line with Brent Council's Local Plan objectives and commitment to high-quality, healthy living environments.

Objections raised here fall in line with Brent's Local plan policies, London Plan policy and BRE daylight and sunlight guidelines.

For the reasons set out above, I respectfully urge Brent Council to refuse this application in its current form, or at the very least, require significant redesign and another consultation to mitigate its serious impacts on existing residents.

Einstein House Residents

The Planning Committee takes place at 6pm on Wednesday December 10th in the Conference Hall of Brent Civic Centre or can be observed online HERE.

 

Chalkhill Estate Centre (Google Earth)

 

When visiting the site I heard fears expressed that further infill proposals from Metropolitan will be made on the estate if this application is successful. Nearby on King's Drive the freeholder is consulting on infill plans for Kings Court (Kings Estate Improvement Programme) and Carmel Court and there are longer term plans for redevelopment to high rise of the ASDA, Kwik Fit, Torch corner site.

 

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.

 People who 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.