SAVE OUR GREEN SPACES - Community fights to keep South Kilburn's Granville Rec

 

Wembley Matters has reported the regeneration of South Kilburn over many years - problems are many including Granille New Homes purcased by the Council and costing more to remediate than to purchase price, balconies that flood, windows that fall out, shops flooded and closed down, heating breaking down regularly, new build built up close to old build not meeting separation space standards, fire in the disused job centre, Brent Council's  'Landlord Promise' looking unlikely to be fulfilled and much more.

 

The new Peel Precinct public space (above)  is windswept concrete and privately owned and symbolises the lack of soul that often characterises new developments.

It is no wonder then that tenacious residents want to hold on to a remnant of green space that represents what many hold dear, community belonging and engagement, and a space that is utilised for the benefit of all. 

Even on a cold day outside the growing season, there were crops to be seen that contribute to Granville Community Kitchen's mission of transforming 'ourselves, our communities and our food systems to create a just resilient  and sustainable world.'

 

 

A space to run around, tumble safely on a grassy surface AND get involved in growing food and engage with your neighbours. It is clear to me that the site has a lot of potential. Volunteers are already investing hours of their free time and it would be great if Brent Council also invested in the space and saved it from further development.

 

THE PETITION - PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY - SAVE OUR GREEN SPACES

 

We, the undersigned, strongly object to the proposed development of Block D on Granville Recreation Ground (planning ref: 21/2587).

 

Key Concerns & Why We Object: 

• Loss of vital community green space & garden
• Negative Wider Environmental Impact - air pollution and biodiversity
• Lack of Proper Consultation with Residents
• Negative impact on Princess Road Conservation Area 
• Contradicts the original South Kilburn Regeneration masterplan
• Totally inadequate replacement 

 

We demand that Brent Council:

• Halt plans for Block D to preserve our existing green space, garden, vegetable growing project, trees and biodiversity.
• Conduct a genuine public consultation with all local residents
• Revise the development plan to benefit both new and existing residents without compromising our local green space.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

This is an objection made in July 2025: 

I object to the proposed development at Granville Road, which prioritizes housing density over the preservation of vital green space. As a resident of this area for over 50 years, I have deep concerns about the environmental, social, and infrastructural impacts of this plan. My objections align with those of the Princess Road Residents Association and others who have highlighted the severe drawbacks of this proposal.

LOSS OF GREEN SPACE AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACT:

It seems to me that the removal of Granville Recreation Ground will have detrimental consequences for local biodiversity.

I cannot see where the plans help address the decline in birds, pollinators, and wildlife, many of which rely on the mature trees and green spaces that the current space provides.

The introduction of a heavily regimented "urbanized" park design falls woefully short in attempts to replicate the ecological value of the existing natural landscape - so much so that it begs the question if ecological value has been fully assessed.

I am also concerned about the increased heat island effect due to reduced tree cover, which I understand is contrary to Brent Council's own Climate Emergency Declaration (2019, updated 2021).

The proposed "replacement" park, while technically larger, is dominated by roads and parking spaces, meaning an overall loss of usable green space. I fully echo the expressed concerns that this is exactly what London does not need in the face of climate change.

FLOODING RISK EXACERBATION 

I have personally experienced severe flooding in this area (most recently during the July 2021 cloudburst), and the proposed development raises serious concerns about drainage. My household has received no compensation and has had huge implications on matters of insurance for us.

Increased hard surfaces (buildings, roads, paved areas) mean greater rainwater runoff, threatening already overwhelmed drainage systems.

Past flooding events (including historic incidents from the 1950s-60s where basements were inundated) show this area is highly vulnerable.

Lack of detailed flood response plans in the application suggests the council and developers are ignoring this critical risk.

INADEQUATE CONSULTATION & COMMUNITY VOICE IGNORED

Despite being a long-term resident, I-like many others-have not been properly consulted on the material changes to this plan since its 2021 inception. The opaque communication from Brent Council and developers has left me and my wife, as with many of my neighbours, feeling disregarded and misled.

CONTRADICTIONS TO BRENTS OWN POLICIES

As far as I can tell, this proposal directly conflicts with Brent Council's commitments to:

Green Infrastructure Vision (loss of mature trees and biodiverse spaces)
Health Equity Goals (reduction in accessible, natural recreational areas)
Clean Air & Carbon Reduction Targets (fewer trees, more concrete)
Conclusion & Appeal

IN SUMMARY

I urge Brent Council to reject this flawed proposal and instead:

- Protect Granville Recreation Ground as a vital green lung for South Kilburn. 

- Demand a full, independent flood-risk assessment before any further planning decisions. 

- Hold transparent public consultations-where residents' concerns are not just heard but acted upon.

If this development proceeds in its current form, it will be a loss for the environment, a risk to homeowners, and a betrayal of community trust. I expect Brent Council to uphold its duty to residents-not developers' profits.

'It's about listening to us,' Brent youngsters' message on facing the challenge of climate change together - video

 

 

London Assembly Report: 'We cannot allow London to become a place where only a small number of families can afford to live and even fewer can manage to enjoy a good quality of life'

 

Wembley Matters has covered the declining primary school population in thhe borough over the past two or three years with soome schools reducing the number of classes in each year group and with the possibility of amalgamation or even closures on the horizon. Brent is not affected as much as some London boroughs but it is still an issue. Several factors have fed the decline including the number of European families leaving after Brexit, movement out of London due to affordable housing unavailablity (including Brent Council's policy of moving families on the housing list out of the borough), lack of housing for bigger families and low incomes and long working hours.

 

A report from the London Assembly, 'A London for every child - Reversing the city's declining population' tackles the issue LINK: 

 

WILL LONDON BECOME A CHILDLESS CITY

A survey of Londoners has found that almost a third (30 per cent) consider the city to be an unsuitable place to raise children, with four in ten Londoners (41 per cent) considering it to be a suitable place.

 

London is facing a significant demographic challenge. After a decade of rapid growth in the 2000s, the number of children living in London has since gone into decline at a faster rate than elsewhere in the UK since the early 2010s.

 

Between 2013 and 2023, London’s population of 0-9 year olds decreased by 99,100, despite the overall population of the capital increasing by 506,000 during the same period. The decline has been sharper in Inner London than Outer London. This has given rise to concerns that London – and particularly Inner London – could become a “child-free area”.

 

The London Assembly Economy, Culture and Skills Committee has today launched its report - A London for every child: Reversing the city’s declining child population – setting out steps for the Mayor to make London a more child-friendly city.

 

Families in London face serious financial and practical barriers, including the cost of childcare and housing. For families who stay in the capital, they are often faced with new housing developments that are designed to discourage children playing in their community, or unwelcoming attitudes from neighbours or the authorities.

 

The declining number of children is having a notable effect on London’s school system. Schools with falling roll numbers are facing increasing financial pressure since their funding is provided on a per-pupil basis. In recent years, this has resulted in a rise in the number of schools in London that have closed or merged due to falling pupil numbers.

 

Key recommendations in the report include:

• London should seek to become a UNICEF Child Friendly City. The Mayor should identify the steps required for London to achieve this recognition and pursue actions that enable him to do so.
• The Mayor should include specific requirements for homes suitable for children across all types of tenure in the next London Plan. These requirements should be included in the draft London Plan, which is due to be published in 2026.
• The Greater London Authority (GLA) should develop a map of all the spaces in London that children and young people can access for play and informal recreation. This would help boroughs identify where they have a deficit or surplus of provision and support cross-borough collaboration.

Hina Bokhari OBE AM, Chair of the London Assembly Economy, Culture and Skills Committee, said:

Children and young people are essential to London’s vibrancy as a global city. Providing the right conditions for children to flourish as they grow up and choose to remain here as adults is essential to the city’s long-term economic, social, and cultural dynamism, which further benefits the rest of the country.

We cannot allow London to become a place where only a small number of families can afford to live and even fewer can manage to enjoy a good quality of life.

The cost of housing and childcare, housing developments that are not designed with children in mind, and systems and attitudes that make family life more difficult are contributing to the declining number of children in the capital.

We heard that falling pupil numbers are placing real pressures on London’s schools. As enrolments decline, so too does funding, which makes already tight budgets even harder to manage. 

This can lead to difficult decisions, including reducing the extracurricular activities that enrich pupils’ experiences, or cutting back on essential supports for children with special educational needs and disabilities. 

London must prioritise keeping children and families in the city. Without urgent action, we risk seeing even more families take the decision to leave and set up their lives elsewhere.

 

 

In Brent the recent building programme under the leadership of Muhammed Butt and Shama Tatler has failed to address the housing needs of the majorty of Brent families. 

The report addresses all the factors  that have contriibuted to the decline in London's child population but I think the section on housing is particularly pertinent;

 

We found that the availability and affordability of suitable housing are key factors in the decision to have children in London. The lack of affordable housing is particularly pronounced in Inner London.Over the last decade, house prices in London have increased faster than earnings, and less than half of London households own their home, compared with around two-  thirds in all other UK regions.53 In September 2025, the average price of a home in London was £556,000, compared with the England average of £293,000. 

 

 

Affordability is also a key issue for renters, since London has a larger private rental sector than other UK region and the highest average rent in the country. In October 2025, the average monthly rent in London (£2,265) was 60 per cent higher than in England as a whole (£1,416) When we asked Londoners about the main reasons they might consider leaving the capital, respondents most often cited housing pressures, including the high cost of buying or renting.

 

Many young people understandably want to own their own home before having their first child, but this is out of reach for most Londoners. In 2024, the median home in London cost 11.1 times the median salary, compared with 7.7 times across England.57 The Office for National Statistics considers anything above five times annual income to be unaffordable. In its submission to our call for evidence, the G15, which comprises London’s leading housing associations, stated that housing costs “have consistently outpaced wages and welfare support, making London fundamentally unaffordable for many families who would otherwise choose to stay in the city.”

 

 For those who stay in London, Susie Dye noted that unaffordable housing results in suppressed households, where “young adults [are] still living with their parents because they cannot get that first home”.59 Ultimately, this will impact whether many young Londoners feel in a position to raise children in the city.

 

The high cost of housing is also a major driver of poverty in London. Katherine Hill (Strategic Programme Manager, 4in10) observed that “people simply cannot afford to bring up their children” in most Inner London boroughs and that they are “faced with the choice of not having any children or moving out to have them.”

 

Echoing this point, Susie Dye emphasised:

 

“If you cannot find somewhere stable and affordable to make a home and bring up a family, then either you delay that or you move away.”

 

Alongside affordability, the shortage of family-sized homes in both the social and private sectors is making London increasingly unviable for families with children. However, data from the 2021 census shows that homes in London have fewer bedrooms on average than elsewhere in the country, with just 47 per cent of London homes having three or more bedrooms, compared with 63 per cent in the rest of England.62 Between 2016 and 2025, under the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme, the vast majority (78 per cent) of homes delivered were 1 or 2 bed homes. 19 per cent of homes had 3 bedrooms and just 3 per cent had 4 or more bedrooms.

 

This represents just 11 per cent of the need for 3 bed homes and 8 per cent of the need for homes with 4 beds or more, based on the GLA’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The G15 noted in its response to our call for evidence that this “lack of appropriate housing is likely to influence families leaving London or deciding against having more children.”

 

When we asked Londoners about the main reasons they might consider leaving the capital, several cited the lack of space in housing as a major reason for them considering leaving London.

 

We are concerned that even where family-sized homes are built, families with children are not able to access them. Susie Dye claimed that data suggests that family-sized homes in London are being occupied by shared tenants, particularly young professionals without children.

 

A further negative effect of the lack of suitably sized homes for families is overcrowding. In its submission to our call for evidence, the G15 stated that London has the highest levels of overcrowding in England. It noted that many families “are raising children in homes that are too small, with little prospect of moving to a larger property.” The G15 referenced research conducted by one of its members in 2022, which found that of families with one child, 34 per

cent live in overcrowded conditions in London, compared with 12 per cent outside the capital.

 

This provides strong evidence of unsuitable housing conditions for families in London

 

Half of councillor members of Scrutiny Committee absent for consideration of the Urgent Treatment Centre hours reduction.

 

   

After three attempts and a 570 signature petition, Brent Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny at last considered, albeit in a limited way because the proposal has been implemented, the reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre. Hours were reduced by 3 hours daily from February 1st, 2026.

 

The London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust was represented by Pippa Nightingale. As on the other occasions, no papers were tabled from the Trust. Councillors and public were denied any evidence on which to base their questions.

 

Furthermore, attendance at the meeting was low, the place for Brent Healthwatch remained empty, and to cap it all the livestream was not working for the presentation by Amandine Alexandre and Ms Nightingale's initial response. The public were denied their right via the livestream or watching the recording, to see and hear democracy in action and hold it to account.

 

Fortunately, I had my mobile phone with me, and the wobbly recording above must suffice.

 

There may well be case for the reduction in hours, but our grievance was twofold: 1. The consultation was inadequate, rushed, reached too few people, the result not full reported and implemented without notice and 2. Scrutiny Committee had not done its job of fully examining the proposal and had to be forced by public pressure to put it on the Committee's Agenda. The latter appeared to have been done reluctantly by Committee Chair Cllr Ketan Sheth who before and after Ms Nightingale's appearance emphasised what a busy person she was, regretted the short notice she had been given (this has been going on for weeks) and seemed to be suggest we were all privileged to be in her presence and that by calling for accountability we were an inconvenience. 

 

Neither Chair, Cllr Ketan Sheth nor the Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr Ihetsham Afzal, asked any questions of the Trust representative. Cllr Abdi Aden, Cllr Bhagwani Chohan, Cllr Arshad Mahmood, Cllr Tazi Smith, and Cllr Diane Collymore were all absent. 

 

So, no livestream and half of councillors absent - accountability?

 

Those councillors who did attend did their best and notably Co-optees Rachelle Goldberg (Jewish Faith Schools) and Archdeacon Catherine Pickford (Church of England Faith Schools) asked extremely pertinent questions that sometimes made Pippa Nightingale appear complacent and not in touch with the lived experience of local patients.

 

There were several areas where Ms Nightingale's account was at odds with the facts. She claimed the petition had not been received until after the reduction in hours was implemented. In fact it was tabled at Scrutiny Committee on January 19th LINK and was implemented on February 1st (but not announced until February 2nd).

 

She claimed that the 'Have Your Say' process undertaken by the Trust was an 'engagement’ exercise and not a not a formal consultation that befitted a minor local change rather than anything significant.

 

On the engagement/consultation Pippa Nightingale claimed the majority of patients said that the change in hours would make 'minimum impact'.   This is the Trust's own FoI response LINK.

 

  

So only if you add the ‘Unsures ‘to ‘No Impact’ and ‘Minor Impact’ can you make that claim. Faced with the fact that the engagement/consultation had only 42 responses, compared with the 570 petition signatories, Ms Nightingale said lots of people on Patient Panels had responded. Unfortunately, though my FoI asked for information, ’...to include reports, statistics and comments made by organisations or individuals (latter names redacted)' no reports from Patient Panels were included in the Trust's FOI response.

 

The in-person events only attracted 2 people.

 

Another 'insignificant change' came up at the end of the meeting - another change that was implemented despite local opposition from patients. This was the closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at Northwick Park Hospital. Implemented last August, Pippa Nightingale said closure had been a success with patients treated by NHS staff at several council sports centres and some referrals to 'Stanmore' (National Orthopaedic Hospital). Surely another issue calling for evidence and a proper report to Scrutiny Committee rather than just verbal assurances? 

 

The post-election administration, whatever the political balance, must strengthen the scrutiny process so that it properly reflects the council's duty to stand up for local concerns. 

NOTE: Throughout Pippa Nightingale referred to the Urgent Care Centre, rather than the Urgent Treatment Centre. I understand that Urgent Care Centre is old terminology and referred to a less comprehensive offer than what are now called Urgent Treatment Centres. I am left not sure what the provision is at Central Middlesex Hospital.

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party, c/o 23 Saltcroft Close, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 9JJ.

Excited Greens launch their Brent Council Election Campaign on a wave of enthusiasm after Hannah Spencer's by-election victory

 

Some of the Green candidates  standing in the May local election (Credit: Nick Woollard)

 

  Brent Green Party launched its campaign for the Brent Council May Election on Sunday full of the joys of Spring following  Hannah Spencer's amazing Manchester by-election win. They could not have chosen a better time to get motivated to win as many seats as possible on May 7th.

Amanda Alexandre, Green candidate for Harlesden and  Kensal Green ward, said:

Since the election of Hannah Spencer, we have received many heartfelt congratulations from residents across the borough - on the street, at the cafe, on the allotment. Our membership has also increased to over 700 and more than £350 in donations have been donated to our crowdfunding campaign since Friday.  All this support has unlocked a new level of ambition for Brent Green Party for the elections of May 7th  

The launch began with speeches from some of the candidates explaining why they were standing for the Greens:

 

 

This was followed by training in canvassing for the many members who are new to politics and knocking on doors for the first time. There was lots of enthusiasm for getting started with a number of Action Days taking place across the target wards in the weeks ahead. 

 

Stressing the participative nature of Green Party politics, members then broke into small groups to share ideas for the upcoming Brent Green Manifesto with the emphasis on fresh and imaginative policies. This produced some very animated discussion as can be seen from the photographs of excited participants below:

 

Credit: Nick Woollard    

 

Credit: Nick Woollard    

 

 

Credit: Nick Woollard   

 

Credit: Nick Woollard   

 

Children were welcomed to the event and enjoyed badge making and drawing, and the food and drinks of course.

 

 

Credit: Nick Woollard    

 

 

It was a friendly and convivial gathering with lots of new connections made as well as old friendships consolidated, boding well for the challenge ahead.

 

 

 

Credit: Nick Woollard   

 

Credit: Nick Woollard    

 

 

Credit: Nick Pollard   

 

 

Credit: Nick Woollard   

  

 

Credit: Nick Pollard    

  

 

Finishing with some young singing and song writing talent    Credit: Nick Woollard

 

NOTE: Membership of Brent Green Party passed 700 today with many joining after Hannah Spencer's by-election victory.

 

If you would like to support Brent Green Party's 2026 Election Campaign uou can donate to the crowdfunder HERE. 

 

 

Published and promoted by James Paton on behalf of Brent Green Party and its candidates c/o 23 Saltcroft  Close, Wembley, HA9 9JJ.

LETTER: Complaint about delays with repairs? No problem, Brent will delay dealing with your complaint

 

Via ChatGPT         

 

Dear Editor,

   

Last November, with increasing frustration at lack of progress with mounting issues around our blocks, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents’ Association in South Kilburn submitted an official complaint to Brent Council. This listed over 20 outstanding issues around the blocks, some reported years ago, and also complained about the lack of communication from Council departments about these issues.

 

The response we received at the start of December was, to be frank, a joke. The seriousness with which the responding officer treated the complaint is perhaps best shown by the fact that they got the name of the blocks wrong. They tried to pin the blame for repairs not being carried out on the officer who does monthly walkabouts around the area with us and said “I am pleased to hear that a walkabout is scheduled for 11 December 2025. During this visit, all outstanding issues will be collated, and further updates will be provided afterwards. I have also reminded the wider service areas of the importance of clear and timely communication, both to manage expectations and to ensure residents feel included in the process of improving their community spaces.”

 

We waited until after that walkabout to respond on the off chance that what was written might materialise. Fat chance, so we escalated the complaint (20/12), pointing out that, as so often, no other Council officers came besides the one who always comes and makes meticulous notes. In escalating the complaint, we objected to the attempt to place the blame for delays on that officer, since we know for a fact that he passes on issues (he copies us into the emails). Like us, he rarely gets responses. In the face of this we named a succession of more senior Council officers who have, at various times, promised to take action to action those issues and little has happened and nothing more is heard.

 

The acknowledgement we received on 5th January said, “the latest date by which we hope to respond in full is 25 February 2026, although we will aim to do so sooner if at all possible.”

 

On 25th February we received an email from the Complaint Investigator saying “I am writing to update you with progress on your complaint. Unfortunately, ongoing unprecedented caseload pressures mean that we will need more time to complete the investigation. We expect to provide you with a full response to your complaint by 25 March 2026.”

 

Unbelievable. 

 

Of course, in the meantime, a few of those issues initially complained about have been dealt with, most haven’t, and new ones (reported, of course,) have arisen. As ever, getting blood from a stone is much easier than getting any information from brent Council.

 

Meanwhile, we are told that Brent's Chief Executive is concerned at problems with neglect of South Kilburn, A Cabinet officer recently told an online meeting that he knew there are real problems in South Kilburn. Yet knowing and concern and actually doing anything seem a long way from their minds. When, earlier last year, officers from several South Kilburn TRAs wrote to all and sundry (MP, CEO, Councillors, council officers), in general terms about lack of action and communication, most didn’t respond, those that did told us they were passing our letter on to Council Officers, obviously oblivious to what we were raising in the first place.

 

Note: To be clear, the Council blocks concerned are not part of South Kilburn regeneration, though people might think they are being neglected in advance of demolition.

Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

       

Central Middlesex Hospital UTC reduction in hours at Scrutiny on Wednesday but without any written submission - accountability still lacking

 

 

 No information for the 'briefing'

 

Brent Green Party's campaign, supported by a petition signed by 570 residents, has succeeded in getting the reduction in hours at Central Middlesex Urgent Treatment Centre on the Agenda of Wednesday's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee.

BUT, and it is a very big 'but', there are no accompanying papers, so committee members and the public have no evidence from the NHS on which to base any questions or comments. This repeats the pattern established when a similar 'briefing' was slipped into a Scrutiny meeting as an urgent item (not on the agenda on that occasion) just before the NHS consultation - absolutely nothing in writing then either. 

Along with the failure to publish details of the results of the consultation (I had to submit an FoI to get them, see this LINK ) and the implementation of the reduction in hours without notice LINK, indicates an apparent contempt for the Committee and its role, as well as for concerned residents.

The Committee must show it will stand up for residents on Wednesday, despite (or because of?) of the fact that the reduction of 21 hours a week has already been implemented by London North West University NHS Healthcare Trust without the detailed scrutiny that was needed.

You would not get away with similar conduct and lack of accountability on a major issue at a primary school governing board!

Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s latest “spin” versus the facts!

Guest Blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity    

 

 

 Zephaniah House under construction in Wembley High Road (with “The Pages” opposite).

 

On 24 February, Brent Council issued a press release: “More affordable homes coming as Zephaniah House reaches key milestone”. Its content has already been shared by websites including Kilburn Times, Harrow Online and Construction News. Like most stories from Brent Communications, it tells a positive tale, including “quotes” from Cabinet members, to give the impression that all of this “good news” is the work of our local Labour councillors. [What would you expect, when the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications is Cllr. Muhammed Butt?] 

 

“Topping out” at Zephaniah House (image courtesy of Brent Communications)

 

The news item this time was the topping out ceremony at Zephaniah House (on the former Ujima House site in the High Road), part of the Brent Council/Wates Residential Wembley Housing Zone development. The press release says that this is ‘an important step toward delivering 54 new affordable homes on the former Ujima House site in Wembley.’ As you can see from my opening photo, there is still a lot of work to do on the building before the homes there will be ready for occupation, which is supposed to be by 31 December 2026. But with local elections in just over two months, I’m sure they would like you to think it would be sooner!

 

“Quote” attributed to Cllr. Teo Benea (from Brent’s press release)

 

The featured “quote” in the press release is from Cllr. Teo Benea, as the Wembley Housing Zone is a Regeneration project which she inherited from her predecessor in that Cabinet role, Cllr. Shama Tatler. There is also a “quote” attributed to Cllr. Fleur Donnelly Jackson, the Housing Lead, which includes the lines: ‘… our ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can. Zephaniah House will help reduce our waiting list …. This is what it looks like when a council commits to tackling the housing crisis head on.’ I don’t know whether Cabinet members really compose these “quotes” themselves, or whether someone at the Civic Centre writes them. I will share this guest post with them, so they have the chance to reply!

 

I agree that building genuinely affordable Council homes for the people on the waiting list (around 34,000 is the most recent figure I’ve read from Brent Council) should be a top priority, so the 54 homes at Zephaniah House will go a small way towards ‘tackling the housing crisis’. But, yet again, the Council is using the term “affordable homes” to cover more than the genuinely affordable homes (that is, either at Social Rent level, or the slightly higher London Affordable Rent – “LAR” - level), which its 2020 Poverty Commission Report showed was all that most Brent residents in housing need could afford.

 

The start of my first Wembley Housing Zone guest post, in August 2021.

 

The most recent information I have on the 54 homes on the former Ujima House site was from a Freedom of Information Act request in 2023. These were originally all meant to be for rent at the genuinely affordable LAR level, but this had been changed to 32 (including all eight family-sized flats) at LAR, and 22 for shared ownership. If that has changed, I hope the relevant Lead Member can update us.

 

I have been writing about the Wembley Housing Zone since August 2021 (see illustration above), when I highlighted the fact that the proposals going to Cabinet ignored the Brent Poverty Commission’s housing recommendations, which they had accepted less than a year before, writing:

 

‘If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.’

 

A pdf copy of my guest post was sent to all Cabinet members a few days before the 16 August 2021 meeting, at which they formally decided to go down the “development partner” route. I received no response, and my views were ignored. When I later emailed the Lead Member for Housing, asking why they were not building more homes for genuinely affordable rent, she replied that as this project was under her colleague, the Lead Member for Regeneration, she’d forwarded the email to Cllr. Shama Tatler, who would respond to me. (She didn’t!)

 

I later discovered, through FoI requests, that this ‘preferred delivery option’ had already been informally agreed at an unpublished Policy Co-ordination Group meeting in July 2020. That followed on from a previous “go ahead” for the option, by as few as two Cabinet members (the Council Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration?), in 2019. As a result, there had been at least two “soft market testing” exercises, in February 2020 and April 2021, which were used to justify the recommendation to Cabinet in August 2021. You can read the details in my January 2022 guest post “Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white”, and its December 2021 prequel.

 

My November 2021 “parody” Brent Council “publicity photo” for its Cecil Avenue housing scheme.

 

The Zephaniah House press release also refers to the larger Wembley Housing Zone development, across the High Road on the Cecil Avenue site, which it says ‘will bring 237 new homes, including 84 affordable homes.’ As shown in my “cartoon” above, when this received full planning consent in February 2021, it was intended to include 250 homes. The August 2021 Cabinet decision meant that only 98 of these would have been “affordable”, and only 37 at the genuinely affordable LAR level. Big posters on the hoardings around the site now claim that Brent is “delivering new Council homes” there, but the reality is that 150 of them will be for private sale by Wates.

 

 

Two signs from the hoardings round the Cecil Avenue site (with my linking comment).

 

Of the 84 “affordable” homes, information from an FoI request, which I shared in January 2024, shows that 56 (that’s just 23.6% of the 237) would now be for rent to Council tenants at LAR level, while 28 would be for shared ownership. The drop in the “affordable” figure (87 to 84) must be the three which I was advised would be for “discounted market sale”, a form of so-called “affordable housing” available if your annual income is no more than £90k!

 

It was claimed in the press release that Brent Council’s ‘ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can.’ But is that what they have done with the Wembley Housing Zone? They already owned the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, and had previously used money provided by the GLA to purchase the Ujima House office block. Without having to incur the cost of purchasing the land, Brent should have been able to build all of the homes there as Council housing. That would particularly have been the case if they had got on with the scheme in 2021, when interest rates on loans from the Treasury were lower, and building costs had not risen as much as they have now.

 

A sign on the hoardings at Cecil Avenue, about Brent’s WHZ “Vision”.

 

So why didn’t they? That must be down to the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone “Vision”, driven by the then Lead Member for Regeneration and supported by the Council Leader. It was clearly their wish to make it a joint venture with a “developer partner”, which led to a delay until early 2023, when they awarded the building contract to Wates Residential (agreeing to pay them £121,862,500). And although Cllr. Tatler posed for this photo with Wates on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023, for a press release announcing the contract award, it was February 2024 before construction began.

 

Cllr. Shama Tatler and Wates officials, from a March 2023 Brent press release.

 

Cllr. Tatler’s “vision” for the Wembley Housing Zone can be summed up in this sentence from her Cabinet Member Foreword, in a report to a Cabinet meeting on 8 April 2024 (which approved ‘up to £11.23m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden’ on the Cecil Avenue site):

 

‘The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’

 

That is NOT a vision to build as many homes as possible, for genuinely affordable rents, in order to reduce the number of local people in real housing need on Brent’s waiting list!

 

As early as January 2022, I was calling for proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision, with a view to increasing the number of genuinely affordable homes in the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, but all my efforts were thwarted by councillors or Council Officers. It was only at a Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 23 April 2024 that Cllr. Tatler was finally asked to explain why Brent had not delivered more genuinely affordable homes as part of that project. When I watched the webcast of that meeting, I could not believe what I was hearing, so I played it through several times, and this is the answer Cllr. Tatler gave:

 

‘'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

What she publicly told the Committee was untrue, as recorded on “Wembley Matters” at the time. I wrote to Cllr. Tatler, with a copy to the Scrutiny Chair, but she never replied to me, and as far as I am aware she never apologised to the Committee for misleading them.

 

If you want facts about Brent’s affordable housing, rather than “spin” or misinformation, I suggest you read Martin’s blogsite, and don’t rely on what you hear from the Council!

 

Philip Grant.