Guest post: A parent writes on why the proposed Malorees Schools amalgamation raises serious concerns

  

 

Guest post by Aidan Reilly, parent

Why the Proposed Amalgamation of Malorees Schools Raises Serious Concerns

 

The proposal to amalgamate Malorees Infant and Junior Schools may appear administratively convenient on paper, but beneath the surface lies a troubling situation filled with unanswered questions, broken assurances, and widespread community concern. Far from being a clear-cut improvement, this amalgamation risks: destabilising a successful federation, undermining community trust, and delivering uncertain educational and financial outcomes.

 

A Timeline of Cautionary Lessons

 

In 2014, Brent Council’s Cabinet approved, in principle, the amalgamation of several school pairs, including Malorees, as part of its School Place Planning Strategy. While some, like Lyon Park, proceeded with amalgamation in 2016, Malorees did not.

 

What followed at Lyon Park stands as a cautionary example. After amalgamating its infant and junior schools, the newly formed Lyon Park Primary was rated “Requires Improvement” by Ofsted in 2019. The report highlighted a turbulent post-amalgamation period marked by significant leadership and staff turnover, which resulted in declining educational standards, particularly in reading and writing. Financial troubles followed, including a licensed deficit agreement with the council. In 2020, Brent Council federated the school with Wembley Primary School to address the dire finances, and by 2023, staff were striking over pay restructuring and potential redundancies​​.

 

A Federation That Works

 

Malorees Infant and Junior Schools have operated under a single leadership and governing board since 2017. Staff move seamlessly between buildings; parents and pupils experience the schools as one. By all practical measures, the federation functions as an integrated, effective primary education provider. Parents and carers often and consistently praise the efforts of dedicated staff who we rely on to care, nurture, and educate our children.

 

As one teacher voiced at the April 2025 Brent Cabinet meeting: “Malorees already is one school in everything but name… amalgamation will add almost nothing to that.”​  This raises a fundamental question: If it’s not broken, why fix it?

 

Broken Promises, Ignored Feedback

 

Perhaps most damaging to trust is how the council handled its consultation process. The original consultation documents clearly stated that if there was no agreement among consultees, the schools would remain separate. Yet, despite overwhelming opposition from teachers, support staff, governors, and parents, the council recommended formal consultation, and the Cabinet voted to proceed.

 

Figure 1- Extract from Informal Amalgamation Proposal (Jan, 2025)

 

Consultation data showed that 81.7% of respondents opposed the proposal, and a mere 8.7% supported it. A petition with 260 signatures was submitted, but this was omitted from the summary report. The National Education Union, representing staff at Malorees, submitted an open letter condemning the proposal, referencing both educational harm and fiscal recklessness​​. 

 

 

Figure 2 - results of amalgamation consultation

 

The community submitted representations to Councillors to ‘call-in’ the decision to progress to formal consultation, as it was in contrast to the stated criteria within the proposal. However, these representations were either ignored or not given proper consideration, and the controversial decision remains lacking proper scrutiny.

 

The Funding Gamble

 

The key incentive behind the amalgamation is capital investment. The Department for Education (DfE) has agreed to rebuild the Junior School and suggested that this could extend to the previously refused Infant School, but only if the schools amalgamate.

 

This proposed incentive has serious strings attached. There is no detailed design, concept, or budget for a unified rebuild. Meanwhile, the already-approved Junior School project remains on hold pending the outcome of the consultation, and enhancements such as an awarded grant for a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) ​​have been effectively abandoned. Enthusiasm for the rebuild is cautious at best, especially given that by late 2024, only 23 out of 500 schools in the national building programme had been completed.

 

Financially, the amalgamation comes with a confirmed loss of at least £186,000 per year in “lump sum” grants and additional funding. Additional yearly cuts of around £35,000 were revealed at the April Cabinet meeting, taking the deficit to above £220,000 per year, although there will be an initial phased reduction. With most of the school’s budget allocated to staffing, such a cut virtually guarantees reduced support for children and an increased workload for staff​​. As staffing accounts for the majority of the school’s budget, such a financial hit almost certainly means reduced support for pupils and increased pressure on staff. While some savings have been suggested through lower maintenance costs, the infant school’s average annual maintenance and improvement spend is around £30,000, rising to £42,300 in 2022–2023. These figures fall significantly short of what’s needed to offset the financial burden of amalgamation.

 

 

Figure 3 – Malorees Infant School, published Schools Financial Benchmark (.gov)

 

Staffing, Stability, and the Risk of Academisation

 

Although assurances have been given that there will be no redundancies or restructuring, the experience of other amalgamated schools tells a different story. With school budgets already under pressure and staffing accounting for the majority of expenditure, any significant funding reduction, such as the projected £186,000+ annual loss post-amalgamation, inevitably increases the risk of job losses through attrition, unfilled vacancies, or reorganisation.

 

It’s also important to note that certain cost-cutting measures, such as not renewing agency or temporary contracts, are not legally classified as redundancies. While technically accurate, this distinction does little to reassure staff or parents, particularly when those roles provide crucial support for pupils, including those with special educational needs and other vulnerabilities.

 

Even more troubling is the potential for forced academisation. If amalgamation leads to a drop in Ofsted ratings, just as it did at Lyon Park, current government policy allows for intervention, potentially transferring the school to a multi-academy trust. While Cabinet members have offered verbal assurances that this is not the intention, the fate of Byron Court Primary School (now Harris Primary Academy South Kenton) reveals the stark reality: once standards are deemed to have slipped, local councils, school communities, and even elected representatives have little power to prevent conversion.

 

There is a further uncomfortable parallel between Malorees and Byron Court, namely, a troubling lack of parental representation during a critical period. When the amalgamation proposal was published for Malorees, the governing board had no active parent governors. A long-standing vacancy had gone unfilled, and another parent governor stepped down before the launch of the consultation. This mirrored the situation at Byron Court, where a similar absence of parent governor voices coincided with decisions that ultimately led to academisation. In both cases, the absence of formal parent oversight has intensified concerns around transparency, legitimacy, and the erosion of community voice in shaping school governance.

 

Questionable Gains, Clear Risks

 

The proposed advantages of amalgamation, such as smoother transitions between Key Stages, a unified school identity, and more efficient resource use, are in practice already being effectively delivered through the current federation. Malorees Infant and Junior Schools operate with shared leadership, coordinated teaching approaches, and effective well-being strategies.

 

Claims of increased pupil numbers due to upgraded facilities remain speculative. Brent’s own School Place Planning Strategy references borough-wide declines in primary enrolment, driven by falling birth rates. Forecasts of future growth hinge on housing developments that may or may not materialise at the pace or scale needed to affect school rolls in the near term.

 

At the April Cabinet meeting, mention was made of the relocation of Islamia Primary School. While there is no formal indication that Brent intends to rehouse this faith school on the Malorees site post-amalgamation, the implication seemed to be that the influx of displaced pupils may help fill places and boost per-pupil funding. But this potential redistribution of pupils is unrelated to the amalgamation itself and could occur independently. If anything, it suggests that pupil demand may be met without structural change, undermining the case for amalgamation as a remedy to under-enrolment. The future of Islamia Primary is expected to be addressed at the May Cabinet meeting.

 

Conclusion: The Community Deserves Better

 

Malorees Federation is not a system in need of repair. It is a rare success story in education: two schools working in true partnership, delivering high-quality outcomes for children and families.

 

The overwhelming rejection of the amalgamation by the school community is not resistance to change, it is a rational, evidence-based defence of something that works. The council must listen.

 

Unless and until there are clear educational benefits, detailed funding plans, and a genuinely transparent process, this amalgamation remains a risk-heavy gamble with no guaranteed reward.

 

Brent Council must put children, not bureaucracy, at the heart of its decision-making. The community deserves much better than this.

 

Please sign the petition to retain Stonebridge’s heritage Victorian villa

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

“Altamira”, 1 Morland Gardens, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

Willesden Local History Society has been campaigning to save the locally-listed Victorian villa, known as “Altamira”, since Brent Council “consulted” on its original plans to demolish it as part of its Morland Gardens redevelopment plans in 2019. I joined the fight in February 2020, with a guest post on “Housing or heritage? Or both?”

 

The battle has been long and hard, but the planning consent which Brent’s Planning Committee gave in 2020 expired at the end of October 2023, without construction beginning on the project. The following month, the Council started a review of its future plans for the former Brent Start site (the college having been moved to a “temporary” home in the former Stonebridge School annexe in 2022, at a cost of around £1.5m).

 

That review was due to last a few months, with proposals then being put to Brent’s Cabinet by Spring or early Summer 2024. Instead, it eventually got tagged onto the redevelopment proposals for Bridge Park, as part of what Brent then started calling its Hillside Corridor project. At the exhibition in November 2024, which began another consultation, this was the conclusion after one year of the Council’s Morland Gardens review:

 

 

By March 2025, a new consultation was launched, asking whether residents agreed that the Morland Gardens site should comprise new Council homes and youth facilities. It did not give any indication of whether Brent intended to retain the heritage Victorian villa as part of that scheme, even though I’m aware that many people had asked for that in their comments as part of the earlier consultation (including me, with detailed proposals on how this could be done!).

 

Now we have found out that the long-awaited new proposals will be put to Brent’s Cabinet at its meeting on 16 June 2025, not as a separate item, but tucked away as part of a report about the future of Bridge Park. In response to this, Willesden Local History Society have launched a petition on the Council’s website:

 

We the undersigned petition the council and its Cabinet, when considering the regeneration of 1 Morland Gardens, as part of the Hillside Corridor proposals, to retain the beautiful and historic locally listed Victorian villa, Altamira, as part of the redevelopment of that site for affordable housing and youth facilities. The 150-year-old landmark building is part of the original estate which gave Stonebridge Park its name, and its sense of place can be an inspiration to local young people who would use it, while there is plenty of space behind the Victorian villa to build a good number of genuinely affordable homes.

SIGN THE PETITION HERE

As I write this, more than 150 people have already signed this online petition, more than enough to ensure that the Society can present its views in support of retaining this important local heritage building at the Cabinet meeting. We can hope that this view adds weight to a recommendation already made by Council Officers, but we won’t know that until the report is published about 10 days before the meeting!

 

From Brent’s Historic Environment Place-making Strategy (Part of the Council’s adopted Local Plan!)

 

At this stage, it is important that as many people as possible from the Brent community sign the petition, to show the strength of feeling that this beautiful and historic building is too valuable to be demolished. The Council’s own planning policies tell them that, but there are some people at the Civic Centre who don’t seem to care about that! If you agree with the petition’s aims, then please sign it, if you haven’t already done so. You can do that here. Thank you.

Philip Grant.

 

 

Police confident that Carpender's Park Lawn Cemetery attack was a religiously motivated Islamophobic act

 Statement on Facebook from Three Rivers Police

 

On Sunday 13 April, we were informed of widespread damage to 85 grave plaques in Carpenders Park Lawn Cemetery, all of which are in an area reserved for Muslim burials. Many of the graves affected are the resting places of babies and young children.

 

Chief Superintendent Jon Simpson, head of Hertfordshire’s Local Policing Command, said:

 

We are continuing to investigate every line of enquiry into this terrible crime, which we are now treating as an Islamophobic act.

 

During the initial stages of our investigation we explored several hypotheses as to how the damage may have occurred and for this reason, we had to be mindful of the words used to describe the incident in the public domain.

 

However, now our inquiry has progressed we are confident that sadly, this was a religiously motivated act. We would like to reassure those affected, and the wider Muslim community, that we are continuing to treat this crime extremely seriously.

 

The investigation team continues to liaise with Brent Council, which owns the cemetery site off Oxhey Lane, as they work to identify the families whose loved ones’ graves have been targeted. Senior police officers and the investigation team have been working closely with Sergeant Irfan Ishaq, Chair of the Hertfordshire Association of Muslim Police (HAMP), to assist with communication to the county’s Muslim community.

 

Sergeant Ishaq said:

 

Since the news of this religiously motivated act reached our Muslim communities, I have been listening to and recording their feedback and concerns. We completely understand their frustration at the delay in confirming it as a hate crime and stand with them in their condemnation of this dreadful incident.

 

I’m sure the public can appreciate that as police, it is important for us to approach every incident reported to us with an open mind to ensure an unbiased and fair investigation.

 

Our focus remains identifying the families of those whose graves have been affected so we can provide support and advice, and our partners at Brent Council are assisting us with this. Given the number of graves involved, and the fact that many of the families affected may no longer live locally, we anticipate that this will take some time as we continue to be sensitive and respectful in our work.

 

We recognise that news of this crime will not only impact the Muslim community, but those from all walks of life. There will continue to be a police presence in and around the cemetery to reassure our community and provide advice where needed. In addition, a further community leaders meeting is being held tomorrow (Wednesday 16 April) to keep our Muslim community informed.

 

We are continuing to appeal to the public for information in relation to this crime, which occurred between 1pm on Friday 11 April and 5pm on Saturday 12 April.

 

Anyone who saw any suspicious activity in or around the cemetery between these times, or believes they have information about who is responsible, should contact Detective Sergeant Anna Cornish on anna.cornish@herts.police.uk, quoting ‘Op Lunate’.

 

You can report information online at https://orlo.uk/1iO6G, speak to an operator in our Force Communications Room via our online web chat at https://orlo.uk/GTSX0 or call the non-emergency number 101.

 

Alternatively, you can stay 100% anonymous by contacting the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or via their untraceable online form at crimestoppers-uk.org.

 

How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Brent Council would like you to believe that the answer is 530 new affordable homes. That is the number they included in the leaflet they sent out to every household in the borough last month, with our Council Tax bills for 2025/26. The claim that 530 affordable homes were delivered is on a page headed “Where Your Council Tax Goes”, directly following the words ‘Here’s how we spent your council tax last year’, so there should not be any doubt that it relates to homes delivered by Brent Council itself. But that claim is untrue!

 

When I saw that figure, I couldn’t understand where all those homes had been completed in the borough during the past year, so I put in an FoI request. Here is the answer (in red) that I received to the first point, which as well as confirming that the claim relates to the year 2024/25 says that 530 affordable homes was actually 434.

 

Extract from email of 31 March 2025 from Brent’s Strategic Housing Partnerships Manager.

 

I realise that, as the leaflet had to be printed around two months before the year end, there had to be some estimating, but to publish a figure of 530, more than 22 per cent higher than the actual number at 31 March is stretching the facts. Brent has claimed, in response to being challenged on the figures by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, that 530 was ‘correct at the time of going to press’, but that can’t be true either.

 

But the situation gets worse for the Council, as the second point I raised in my FoI request was where these affordable homes were “delivered”, and whether they were built by Brent or by another registered provider of social housing (such as a housing association). This is the response I received:

 

 

So, there it is, in black and white. Brent Council did not deliver 530 affordable homes in the year to 31 March 2025, and not even 434, the revised total of all of the affordable homes completed in the borough in that year. The Council itself delivered just 26 affordable homes in the year, less than 5% of the number its leaflet to Council Taxpayers would have you believe!

 

When Brent set out its five-year New Council Homes plan in 2019, it promised to deliver 1,000 new homes at “genuinely affordable” rents between 2019 and 2024. It failed to do that, and quietly changed the target to 1,000 “affordable” homes by 2028, just one example of the misleading information they have given over affordable housing. In the third part of my FoI request, I asked for a breakdown of the different types of affordable housing included in the 530 (or 434) figure, This was the answer:

 

This shows that only 101 out of 434 of the new affordable homes was at the “genuinely affordable” London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, that is just over 23% of the total. Brent Council has a planning policy which states that at least 70% of affordable homes provided (and 50% of new homes in developments of 10+ homes are meant to be “affordable”) should be genuinely affordable, so our planning system is clearly failing to deliver on what is an identified need for the people of Brent.

 

More than half of the affordable homes delivered were not even homes for rent, but shared ownership (45% of the total) and discount market sale (14%). ‘Discounted market sales housing’, which like shared ownership technically counts as “affordable housing”, even though it is not affordable to most people in housing need in Brent, is defined as homes which are sold ‘at a discount of at least 20% below local market value.’

 

The other claim over housing in the Council Tax leaflet is that ‘1,000 new council homes [are] being built this year.’ I asked for the details behind that claim as well, and this is the answer I received:

 

You will note that, again, between sending the leaflet to the printers and 31 March, the Council had to revise its figure down from 1,000 to 899. These are ‘expected completions’, and who knows how many more of these will not actually be completed by 31 March 2026? 

 

From the names and addresses of these ‘new council homes’ being built, at least three large sites, Alperton Bus Garage, Fulton Road and Quay Walk, amounting to 564 homes (62.5% of the total) are private developments, where Brent is borrowing large amounts of money to buy flats from the developers, rather than building new homes itself.

 

And this is the odd thing. It is (or should be) much cheaper to build new homes on land that you already own, but instead of building all of the homes on the Council owned former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue for rent (at the genuinely affordable rents which local people need), Brent has agreed that Wates, the contractor building them for the Council, can sell 150 of the 237 homes there privately. Only 56 of the new homes there (just over 23%) will be for renting to Brent families at the “genuinely affordable” LAR level.

 

Brent also owns all of the blocks of housing, and the land on which they stand, which are part of its long-running and much delayed South Kilburn Regeneration programme. In the latest deal for this, with Countryside, the developer will get more than half of the homes to be built on the site of Neville and Winterleys, to sell privately. The homes retained by the Council will all be for social rent, which sounds like a good thing, but that is because they will all be for existing Council tenants, being rehoused so that their homes can be demolished. There will be no new homes available for rent to families on the Council’s waiting list.

 

These dishonest housing claims, which have gone out to every home in the borough, give the impression that Brent Council is providing much more affordable housing itself than is actually the case. Who benefits from this deception? The principal beneficiaries are Cllr. Muhammed Butt (whose “Dear Resident” letter is on page 3 of the leaflet, saying what a good job his Council is doing, despite the huge cuts to its Central Government funding since 2010) and his Labour councillors. This propaganda on their behalf is in an official Brent Council leaflet, paid for out of our Council Tax, as they sent us the bill for this year’s increased amount!

 

The back cover of the leaflet contains an advert about Brent’s campaign against fly-tipping, featuring a photograph with “the usual suspects”. As the leaflet contains the lies I’ve exposed above, I will end this piece with an amended version of that advert.

 

Parody of the back cover advert. (Image by Brent Council, amendments by the author)

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

Conflicting views on Just Cravings late-night license application

 

Facebook video The Licensing Sub-committeewill next week consider a late night licensing application for Just Cravings for their premises at 150 Willesden Lane.

The application reads like an advertisement for the desserts:

Just Cravings is a dessert takeaway dedicated to offering a delicious selection of sweet treats to satisfy every craving. Our menu features a variety of handcrafted desserts made with high- quality ingredients, ranging from rich, indulgent chocolate treats to light and refreshing fruit-based delights. Customers can enjoy warm, gooey brownies, creamy cheesecakes, and classic waffles and crepes loaded with toppings, along with a selection of hot and cold beverages. Our establishment is committed to cultural diversity, creating an inclusive and welcoming space for all dessert lovers. The premises are square in size, and we are applying for a license for late-night refreshments only. No alcohol will be served on-site. We look forward to providing a safe and enjoyable environment for our customers to indulge in high-quality desserts at any time of the day or night.

Some local residents have complained of littering, noise, alleged drug use and much else while customers have rallied to support the black-owned business and its staff submitting 34 responses.

RESIDENTS

Dear Licensing Team, I am writing on behalf of local residents regarding the premises license application (No. 34282) for Just Cravings, located at 150 Willesden Lane, NW6 7TH. We wish to formally object to this application for a late-night license due to ongoing disturbances and violations of licensing regulations. For over five months—possibly longer—this establishment has been operating beyond 2:00 AM, despite not having a license for such hours. This raises serious concerns regarding regulatory enforcement. If the premises do not currently have permission to operate late at night, we urge the council to take immediate action to prevent further breaches. We invite you to visit the location any day at 2:00 AM to verify this matter firsthand. Since the shop has been operating beyond permitted hours, residents have experienced significant disruptions, including: Increased waste and littering in the area. Anti- social behavior, including groups gathering on neighboring roads engaging in drug use (including nitrous oxide) and leaving behind debris. Frequent disturbances due to loud altercations and reckless driving in and out of local car parks. Traffic congestion, with customers parking along Willesden Lane, causing obstructions and preventing buses from stopping at designated bus stops, particularly after 9:00 PM. Given the ongoing issues already affecting the community, all local residents strongly object to this application. The situation has already made daily life unbearable, and granting official permission for these extended hours will only worsen the problems. We urge Brent Council to: Enforce the current licensing regulations if the premises are indeed operating unlawfully. Consider residents' concerns when reviewing this application and reject any extension of operating hours. Consult with affected residents from REDACTED before making a decision. We trust that the council will act in the best interests of the community and enforce the necessary regulations. Please confirm receipt of this objection and inform us of any further steps in this matter.

 

CUSTOMERS

  

I am writing to express my strong support for JustCravings’ application to extend its operating hours until 2 AM. This business is a vital social hub, a boost to the local economy, and an example of the success of Black-owned enterprises in our community. JustCravings provides a much-needed venue where people can socialise in a safe and welcoming environment. Extending its hours would allow it to continue fostering community connections while contributing to the local economy. At a time when many businesses are struggling, we should be supporting those that are thriving; not unfairly restricting them. I have reviewed the objections to this application, and the primary concern appears to be littering. While this is, of course, an issue that must be addressed, it is not a reason to deny a business the opportunity to flourish. There are practical solutions to tackle littering, such as increased bin provisions and enforcement of waste disposal rules, which should be explored rather than using it as an excuse to block a business that adds value to the area. Furthermore, I cannot ignore the racist undertones in some of the objections. Claims that JustCravings’ customers are smoking cannabis or consuming codeine are baseless stereotypes, unfairly painting a thriving Black-owned business and its patrons in a negative light. These types of accusations appear to be part of a smear campaign rather than genuine concerns about public safety. If there were any actual evidence of wrongdoing, it should be dealt with through the proper legal channels, rather than being used as an excuse to deny a licence extension. Approving this extension would send a clear message that our community supports entrepreneurship, values diversity, and welcomes economic growth. JustCravings has the potential to put our area on the map, attracting visitors and further investment. It deserves our full backing. I urge you to grant this extension and support fairness, business success, and community spirit.

Brent Travellers stand up for their community at Brent Cabinet following legal notice that would force some to move from Lynton Close site

 

The voice of Brent Travellers came over loud and clear in a presentation at Brent Cabinet yesterday. Elizabeth Corcoran, supported by Nancy Hawker (London Gypsies and Travellers Association), spoke eloquently on behalf of  residents of the Lynton Close Travellers Site.

The full presentation and the response from Cabinet member  Cllr Fleur Donnelly-Jackson can be seen in the video above.

The situation had arisen because of over-crowding at the site and a resulting fire risk. A conflict had arisen over the the introduction of a waking fire watch because of fears of strangers walking around the pitches and a waking watch hub being in the children's play area. Assurances that the fire watchers would be introduced to the residents had not been followed. The issue had not been resolved but the residents did want to ensure fire safety and re-open discussions.

Elizabeth advocated for the equal rights of Travellers as one of Brent's ethnic minority groups and said that their right to maintain their culture would be infringed by their displacement as a result of the compliance order. She spoke of the impact on children who had built up relationhips with teachers in their school. Many had additional or special needs and had waited years for support. The uncertainty was affecting the mental health and wellbeing of extended families. She cited the high suicide rates in Traveller communities. Bricks and mortar were not how Travellers wished to live and made them feel imprisoned.

She concluded:

I kindly urge the council to reconsider this course of action, to engage with our community and to find a better solution that respects our cultural beliefs and ensures our safety without uprooting.

Collaboration and understanding can lead to solutions that honour our heritage while addressing the safety concerns.

We have the elderly, the vulneable and those wih special needs, This is affecting their well-being. All we are asking is; work with us, help us find a safe and fair way for us to remain in our homes.

Let's talk about what can be done with respect and not removal. In conclusion I would ask for fire safety measures to be put in place and land found for a temporary caravan site in the face of this humanitarian emergency.

In response Cllr Fleur Donelly-Jackson said that she had made notes on the presentation and shared some of the concerns expressed. She said residents of Lynton Close were valued members of the Brent community. She said that the 28 day deadline to comply with licensing conditions was not an eviction notice but a request for the pitch holders to resolve the breaches of licence within 28 day.  

She said that the council knew that there are extended families living in their additional mobile homes and that what they were asking of these families was 'incredibly' difficult. However, it was important to stress that they don't have an automatic right to accommodation in Lynton Close in the same way that adult chidren living in over-crowded social homes don't have an automatic right to live in that home either.

The first duty of the council was to ensure residents' safety.

Cllr  Donnelly-Jackson welcomed the representatives' offer on the waking watch and confirmed that the council agreed in principle and officers would now work through the logistics and practicalities of putting the watch back in place.

The offical Cabinet Minute records Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt's comment:

In bringing the item to close, Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) also took the opportunity to assure the residents of Lynton Close of the Council’s willingness to continue working with them to mitigate the issues and safety concerns which had been identified with work also ongoing to find an appropriate alternative site that would work for the community and their requirements.  He also thanked residents for their cooperation in seeking to progress implementation of a Waking Watch scheme to mitigate fire risks on the site. In response to the comments raised regarding equity, diversity and inclusion, Councillor Butt assured those present that the traveller community was not regarded any differently from others in the borough and would be afforded the same rights, recognising the legally protected characteristic that the Council had a duty to consider.  He concluded his remarks by reminding residents of the community meeting which had been scheduled and would provide a further opportunity to hear from and respond to residents and outline the measures to mitigate the safety issues associated with the site whilst supporting the community and ended by once again thanking the representatives for taking the time to attend the meeting and ensure the views of the traveller community at Lynton Close were represented.

Brent Cabinet decides to go ahead with formal consultation on Malorees amalgamation despite overwhelming opposition at informal stage

 

Despite overwhelming rejection of amalgamation at the informal consultation stage, the Brent Cabinet today approved moving ahead to a formal consultation on the merger of Malorees Infant and Junior School. The schools are in Brondesbury Park ward.

 

Patrick Martin, speaking on behalf of NEU members said that in their view an amalgamation would add nothing of benefit to the schools. They already operated as a Federation with staff teaching across the two schools with a single governing body and senior management.

Operating as a 2 form entry primary school as a result of amalgamation would result in a loss of funding of up to a annual £186,000 and this for a school already in deficit. They were being asked to agree a voluntary 5% cut in the hope of refurbishment. This would impact on the educational provision for pupils.

A previous successful bid for a multi use games area (MUGA) had been stopped when plans for a rebuild seemed to be likely.  Rebuild as an option seemed to be in doubt given the economic situation and resulting building delays and increased costs.

Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, was unable to be physically present and was then unable to  connect online so Muhammed Butt, Council Leader, read out her statement.

 She startd by offering to meet opponents of the amalgamation and said that its advantages included access to the DfE Schools Rebuilding Programme for both the infant and junior school.

Merging the schools would provide financial resilience and a robust case had been made by the Governing Body. She acknowledged the alarm and anxiety of parents and NEU members but said there would be no redundancies or worsening of conditions of service. There was no danger of academisation as had happened at Byron Court. The merged community primary school and foundation junior school would reopen as a maintained primary school: Malorees Primary School.

Shirley Parks, Director of Education, Partnership and Strategy,  took questions in the absence of Gwen Grahl. She said that the funding reduction took account of changes in the national formula and  assumed a new building.

Changes in the local area, including the situation regarding Islamia Primary and the attraction of a new building would  mean the school roll would probably increase [funding is per pupil].  The schools were now in the active DfE rebuilding  programme for consideration between April and December this year.

There had been parental concern that because the two schools were currently separate that a small number of infants were unable to get a place in the junior school. As one school they would be guaranted a place.

The Governing Body was confident that it could manage the funding reduction over a period without impact on staff

Amalgamation would ensure that the new school would help build one community and the school would only have one Ofsted inspection [one for each part of the school at present] relieving stress on staff.

Interestingly, the documentation revealed that there was no parent governor on the Governing Body at present. This is similar to the Byron Court situation where parents were not fully represented on the governing body.

 

The extent of the land for the two schools

Cllr Muhammed Butt concluded by assuring the delegation that there were no plans to build  homes on the Malorees land. The Junior School Foundation would transfer their land to Brent Council. The situation at Kilburn Park, also a Foundation School, was different as the redesignation of the land for non-education purposes was a result of the South Kilburn regeneration.

On the issue that a 200 plus on-line petition against amalgamation had not been included in the documentation, Butt said that this was because it had not come via the usual route. It had been checked and the issues raised had been addressed in the Cabinet report.

There were no questions or comments from Cabinet members before they voted to go ahead with a one month formal consultation. 

If amalgamation goes ahead (likely whatever the outcome of the formal consultation) the combined school would open as Malorees Primary School at the beginning of Summer Term, 2026. 

Brent SEND provision receives positive Ofsted report with some significant areas for improvement

 Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission inspected Brent children's special needs and disability provision  between 27th January and 31st January 2025 and their report has now been published.

Generally the service is doing well but there are significant areas for improvement including long waits for children needing neurodevelopmental assessments, diagnosis and provision,  delays in home equipment assessments  needs and the timeliness and uptake of the mandated antenatal check and six- to eight-week reviews.

SUMMARY

The local area partnership’s special educational needs and/or disability (SEND)

arrangements typically lead to positive experiences and outcomes for children and young people with SEND. The local area partnership is taking action where improvements are needed.

 

What is the area partnership doing that is effective?

 

◼ Leaders across the partnership understand very well the needs of children and young people with SEND and their families. They have high ambitions and a relentless focus to continue to improve services for children and young people who have SEND. They frequently review the experiences of children and young people and take swift action to address and manage need. There is a strong strategic partnership working, and leaders take highly effective innovative approaches to planning and supporting needs.

One example of this is the development of a new continence service, as this was previously lacking in the offer for children and young people with SEND.

◼ Leaders across the local area partnership work extremely collaboratively with children and young people with SEND, parents and carers, and key stakeholders to develop and review key strategies, policies, action plans and services. These include the Brent parent carer forum (BPCF), SEND information, advice and support service

(SENDIASS) and education partners. Leaders greatly value their feedback, contributions and involvement to improve services for children and young people with SEND. For example, the local area partnership invested to develop a fully inclusive social club requested by children and young people with SEND. The young people’s forum identified resources in the community to provide many inclusive social and leisure activities.

◼ Leaders across the partnership work well to plan and commission services jointly to meet the increasing needs of children and young people in the local area. They use data effectively to help the wider partnership identify and respond to need. This makes sure that there is a robust service to support children and young people with SEND across education, health and social care. For example, there has been significant investment in resources which includes new education provision, increasing the speech and language offer and improving the social care transitions pathway.

◼ Children and young people with SEND who access the disabled children and young people’s service receive a highly effective offer. Social workers understand the needs of children and young people with SEND very well. They provide individualised care to help keep children and young people with SEND in their local communities. When needs escalate, children and young people with SEND are provided with the right care in specialist residential settings.

◼ There is a strong commitment from leaders across the local area partnership to address health inequalities for children and young people with SEND in Brent. The local area partnership works cohesively with Brent Health Matters to provide targeted interventions to engage with families. An example of this is the proactive approach by leaders to provide information to communities for whom education is harder to access so they can educate them about SEND with the aim of reducing stigma. Further work has been carried out to improve access to oral hygiene services and raise awareness about the benefits of vaccinations for children and young people with SEND.

◼ The dynamic support register is well established and embedded across health, education and social care systems to support children and young people with SEND who are most at risk of hospital admission. Professionals from multi-agencies have effective discussions to share knowledge and raise awareness of wider support networks. These contribute to making sure the needs of children and young people with SEND are supported in a timely and appropriate manner. Children and young people with SEND who are at risk of admission to hospital or placement breakdown are referred for support from a key worker and the positive behaviour service, which are transformational for children and young people with SEND.

◼ For children and young people with SEND who are electively home educated or are educated otherwise than at school, there is a very well-coordinated approach between professionals from multi-agencies to secure positive outcomes. For example, the portage team works very effectively with the early help team to support children and their families to access services. This includes providing support to access health appointments, food banks and assessments. Children and young people with SEND who are educated otherwise than at school have a good range of packages in place to support their learning and development, which includes therapeutic support where needed.

◼ There are a range of services and support groups within Brent that provide families with support and guidance. For example, the family well-being hubs provide a range of community-led services for families and their children in areas such as education, health and well-being. SENDIASS, along with the BPCF, provide invaluable advice and support to parents they greatly appreciate.

 

What does the area partnership need to do better?

 

◼ Case officers do not update most children and young people’s education, health and care plans (EHC plan) in a timely way after annual reviews except for the most vulnerable. This means that children and young people’s plans do not accurately reflect their current needs. In most cases, any potential negative impact on children and young people with SEND is mitigated by case officers ensuring updated assessments and relevant information on a child or young person’s progress, such as social care and health reports, including annual review paperwork, are appropriately shared across the system to ensure that effective decisions are made. The lack of updating does not negatively impact the support a child or young person with SEND receives, including when they move to a new setting. Leaders have suitable plans in place to address this issue.

◼ Children and young people with SEND experience lengthy wait times for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessments and specialist therapeutic interventions.

CAMHS have made progress to reduce the time that children and young people with SEND wait through investment in resources such as additional clinicians. For example, they use artificial intelligence to reduce the administration time taken to produce reports. Further to this, they have developed a post-diagnostic website to support those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Leaders across the partnership have suitable action plans in place to reduce the time children and young people with SEND wait for support from CAMHS.

◼ Children and young people with SEND wait too long for assessment of their home equipment needs by social services occupational therapists. This means they do not receive specialist equipment in a timely manner.

◼ Children who require an assessment by the community paediatric service experience long waits to have their needs assessed. Those who are assessed and require a neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessment, experience a further wait. Although parents are signposted to the Local Offer for parenting groups and support services, they still wait too long. Despite leaders’ efforts to reduce wait times, the current service remains unable to meet current needs.

◼ Due to capacity issues in the health visiting team, the service is not reaching desired levels of antenatal or six-week checks. This limits the opportunities for health clinicians to swiftly identify need at the earliest opportunity, although an action plan is in place to address this.

 

Areas for improvement

 

The local area partnership should update EHC plans in a timely manner after annual reviews and at significant points of transition to make sure that EHC plans reflect the current needs of the children and young people with SEND accurately.

 

The local area partnership should improve the timeliness and uptake of the mandated antenatal check and six- to eight-week review.

 

NHS North West London ICB should reduce the lengthy wait times that children and young people with SEND experience for neurodevelopmental diagnostic assessments, specialist therapeutic interventions in CAMHS, and community paediatrician assessments. The local area partnership should reduce the lengthy wait times that children and young people with SEND experience for assessments of their home equipment needs.