The proposed building
The proposed Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park has aroused some strong feelings on either side with debate on Wembley Matters and Next Door. In particular read the comments as well as the Letters: LETTER:
We have not been told the whole story about the Gladstone Park Health Hub and
LETTER: Gladstone Park Medical Centre - Is there a Phase 2? What is it?
Cllr Mary Mitchell, Green councillor for Willesden Green ward where the Hub is planned to be situated, has been carefully considering the issues involved.
Cllr Mitchell writes:
As Brent Council prepares to consider plans
for a new Health and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I have written to the
Leader of the Council, Cabinet Members and the Chair of the Planning Committee
to set out a number of concerns that I believe should be addressed before the
application is determined.
To be clear, I support the expansion of
local GP services and recognise the need for improved healthcare provision
across Brent. However, I am not yet convinced that building on Metropolitan
Open Land is the only way to achieve this.
My letter calls for greater transparency
over how the site was chosen, fuller assessment of alternative locations,
clearer evidence of the project’s environmental and community impacts, and a
more informed public consultation before decisions are taken on the use of
protected public land and nearly £3 million of public funding.
I hope the letter contributes constructively
to the debate and helps ensure that residents have access to the information
they need as this important planning application progresses.
Full text below:
To Cllr Muhammed Butt, the Leader
of the Council, Cllr Saqib Butt, the Chair of Brent Planning Committee, Cllr
Matt Kelcher, Lead Member for Planning and Regeneration, and Cllr Liz Dixon,
Lead Member for Community Safety and Public Health.
As we imminently expect the
submission of the full planning application for the proposed Willesden Health
and Wellbeing Hub in Gladstone Park, I wanted to set out my concerns, building
on those I raised in my emails of 26 March and 28 April to the former Cabinet
Member for Regeneration.
I fully recognise the need to
expand GP provision in Cricklewood, Willesden Green and across Brent and
support these efforts. However, there are a number of significant concerns that
this plan raises, which I hope can be addressed through the provision of
additional information to support the planning process, and made public to
residents to ensure adequate transparency and scrutiny.
I believe that the Planning
Committee should seek the following information before determining the
application.
1. Confidence in the assessment of alternative sites
The proposed site is the former
Gladstone Youth and Community Centre at 162 Anson Road, adjacent to the
children’s playground. Although buildings currently exist on the site, it is
designated Metropolitan Open Land.
Metropolitan Open Land benefits
from the highest level of planning protection in London with Policy G3 of the
London Plan affording MOL the same level of protection as Green Belt. Any
proposal seeking to override that designation on the basis of “very special
circumstances” must therefore be supported by compelling evidence and subject
to exceptional scrutiny. Although every planning application must be determined
on its own merits, approval of development on MOL in this instance would
inevitably be cited in future proposals affecting similarly protected land.
At a time of increasing
biodiversity loss, urban heat stress and surface water flood risk, it is
essential that this designation is only overridden where the justification is
clear and robust. It is therefore essential that the evidence underpinning
site selection is robust, up to date and available for public scrutiny.
The Committee should require
publication of a more recent NHS Estates options appraisal demonstrating why
this site is the only viable location. The most recent feasibility work
referenced dates from 2023 and, importantly, Brent Council confirmed on 14 May
by email that it “does not hold the full NHS/applicant site-wide assessment or
options appraisal.” It is difficult to conclude that the “very special
circumstances” test has been met if the underlying evidence is unavailable.
The Council should also
demonstrate that it has independently assessed alternative locations rather
than relying solely on the NHS Estates process. If it is prepared to provide
public land to facilitate the relocation of Willesden Green Surgery, it should
be able to evidence that no other suitable site exists to serve residents in
the Church End, Neasden Stations and Staples Corner growth areas.
In particular, I would welcome an
explanation of why this flagship Integrated Care Centre cannot be accommodated
within one of Brent’s designated regeneration areas.
For example, Site Allocation
BSSA2 within the Church End Growth Area Masterplan already identifies provision
for a 1,855m² health facility. Likewise, the Council should explain why
existing assets, such as the former Neasden Library within the Neasden Growth
Area, have not been considered appropriate alternatives.
The Committee should also clarify
why a single flagship practice serving upwards of 20,000 patients is considered
preferable to a distributed “hub and spokes” model using smaller premises,
potentially including Council-owned buildings such as 395 Chapter Road, a
designated health centre that currently stands empty. Such an approach could
reduce travel distances for patients while aligning with the Government’s
“Health on the High Street” agenda.
2. Transparency about the scale and type of the proposed development,
and the decision-making process that has led to this partnership between the
Council and the Willesden Green Surgery
The Committee should receive full
transparency regarding the process through which this site was selected and the
basis upon which a 150-year peppercorn lease is proposed, enabling a private
enterprise to profit from public land.
Given the value of both the
public land being given to the GP practice with no yearly rental costs, and the
proposed £2.97 million Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy allocation,
residents are entitled to understand on what basis this offer was made, and
whether this financial subsidy was also offered to other GP practices to enable
their growth.
The patient catchment should also
be clarified. Residents should note that the consultation catchment was amended only
two days before the close of the initial consultation period, on 30 March, to
include a 1.5-mile catchment area. This inevitably affects how residents
interpret the scale and impact of the proposal.
Wider detail of how this site has
been assessed and fits into the wider healthcare picture for Brent would
increase transparency and help to provide confidence in this plan. Is this Hub designed to be a
Neighbourhood Health Centre (with a minimum patient roll of 30,000 patients)?
Guidance from NHS England on Neighbourhood Health Centres (NHCs) in April 2026[1]
states that where new build centres are proposed, locations including town and
local centres and high streets should normally be preferred.
Where a new NHC is proposed away
from an existing community focal point, a local authority assessment may be
provided. There are requirements for Integrated Care Boards to propose a
pipeline of NHCs and how they are organised across the footprint to deliver
effective clinical strategies. If these activities have taken place, they
have not been made public.
Furthermore the ongoing financial
management and governance of the NHC should be made available, so as to assess the Council’s
role in financially supporting it. It is noted that there is no reference to
the establishment of an NHC in any public papers from the Brent Health &
Wellbeing Board, Brent Primary Care Executive Group, or the North West London
Integrated Care Partnership board meetings as would reasonably be expected.
3. A full assessment of impact
Before determining the
application, the Committee should require a comprehensive Travel Plan
demonstrating how patients from Church End, Staples Corner and the wider
catchment will access the site. This should assess public transport,
walking routes, parking demand and traffic impacts.
For some patients,
particularly those with mobility issues, attending appointments may require
multiple bus journeys despite the proposal being intended to improve access to
healthcare.
The application should also
include a robust assessment of footfall on the park and the local area and
knock-on impacts such as littering. The proposal represents a significant change in
the use of the site, from recreation and community use to a healthcare facility
operating seven days a week, employing between 50 and 100 staff and potentially
attracting up to 1,000 visitors each day.
Although the building is intended
to achieve a high BREEAM standard, this should not substitute for assessing
the wider environmental impacts of the development itself. Construction
impacts, biodiversity, urban heat, carbon emissions and surface water flood
risk all require careful consideration, particularly as the site is identified
as being at high risk of surface water flooding.
4. An updated and comprehensive view of community benefit
The proposal also involves the
permanent loss of an existing community site on open public land. While the
current buildings are no longer fit for purpose, this reflects decades of
underinvestment rather than an absence of community need. The former
community centre, with estimated repair costs of around £410,000, could potentially
have been refurbished or repurposed to meet any of the very real community
needs residents in Willesden Green and Cricklewood have, including youth
services and recreation. This proposal should therefore be considered in the
wider context of Brent’s continuing loss of community assets, including
libraries and community centres.
The Committee should seek updated
proposals for the café and first-floor community space, reflecting the feedback
received during consultation. Although Cabinet has already approved £2.97
million of Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding, the planning
process should still consider whether the community facilities genuinely
reflect identified local need.
Residents are entitled to
understand why this represents the best use of almost £3 million of developer
contributions when alternative investments across Willesden Green and
Cricklewood, including youth provision, crime prevention initiatives and the
refurbishment of existing community facilities, could potentially deliver
greater community benefit at significantly lower cost.
5. A new consultation process
Finally, I hope the Planning
Committee will ensure that residents are able to comment on the application
with all the relevant evidence before them. Without the Travel Plan,
assessments of footfall and environmental impact, and with the patient
catchment only expanded towards the end of the original consultation period, it
is difficult to conclude that residents participating in the first stage of
engagement were fully informed.
If Brent Council continues to
support this scheme, including through the allocation of £2.97 million of
Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding and the proposed grant of
public land through a long-term peppercorn lease, I would encourage those who
have championed the project including the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet
Member for Regeneration and Planning to engage directly with residents during
the planning process. To date, much of the public advocacy has fallen to the
Willesden Green Medical Practice. Those responsible for the Council’s decisions
concerning public land and public funding must be prepared to explain and
defend those decisions openly.
I remain fully supportive of
expanding healthcare provision for Brent residents. However, I am not yet
persuaded that the Council has demonstrated why this development must take
place on Metropolitan Open Land, why alternative sites have been discounted, or
why this proposal represents the best use of both scarce public land within the
boundaries of a much used and much loved local park and £2.97 million of
Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy funding.
I hope these issues will be
addressed before the application is determined, and I look forward to
continuing to engage constructively throughout the planning process to ensure
that Brent delivers both the healthcare facilities and the public spaces that
our growing communities need.
Yours sincerely
Councillor Mary Mitchell
Ward Councillor for Willesden
Green
