Brent Cabinet greet a glorious new dawn on South Kilburn on the appointment of Ballymore Ltd as the single developer for long-term completion of the project

 

As I listened to the self-congratulatory discussion at Monday's Cabinet meeting I could not help thinking that the Wembley Park branch of Spec Savers, very handy for the Civic Centre, must have run out of their stock of rose-coloured glasses. 

Admittedly an occasional dark cloud from the past was glimpsed in the glorious new dawn for South Kilburn that was painted with evangelical zeal by councillors and officers alike.

Cllr Robert Johnson (lead member for housing) kicked off the discussion by claiming he was the architect of the first South Kilburn Masterplan when he was a Brent Council officer. He said that the multi-site development of the last 10-15 years had been complex and lengthy and the appointment of a single developer would move things along faster.

Cllr Tina Amadi (lead member for community) who said she had a personal connection with South Kilburn, emphasised the importance of community facilities, culture, opportunities for young people and support for local organisations. It was essential for a continued neighbourhood where people feel connected, supported and proud to belong. She said this was something we haven't necessarily seen in South Kilburn. People used to  be proud to be from South Kilburn and regeneration should bring that back, an emphasis on pride in place.

Cllr Amadi asked if officers and perhaps Cllr Kelcher could expand on how residents and local community organisations could shape and monitor the first years of social value and how progress would be reported  to the community. Replying Jehan Weerasignghe, the officer who authored the Cabinet paper, said that in the procurement process Ballymore had made ongoing engagement front and centre of the community offer and that was why they were recommending their appointment.

He said the partnership would last through several economic cycles and more 'than a couple' of political cycles and that is why 'we need a partner we can trust, that values input from the community.'

Cllr Amadi did not follow up on this rather inadequate answer to her question.

Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of the  council, mentioned some of the problems the council were facing in South Kilburn at present that had given rise to the single delivery partner idea to move things forward at pace.  It would address some of the issues the council could have addressed earlier that had been acknowledged in the report. Affordable housing was part of the offer and there would be one estate management that would end the divisions between different parts of the development.  He said the emphasis would be on quality, pace of delivery, resident experience, affordability, stewardship and accountability to deliver what the council intended.

Guardian August 2026

 BBC London  September 2026

 

Financial aspects of the deal were excluded from publication but the contract which may last another 15 years has been reported as being worth £1bn. The Cabinet paper did not cover the risks associated with the council putting all their eggs in one single partner basket, or refer to some of the difficulties that Ballymore have had elsewhere LINK. More generally the discussion took place with little mention of issues of financial viability in the face of rising interest rates, material shortages and delivery delays leading to higher costs, and labour shortages. These factors are likely to impact on the eventual balance of tenures. Currently the private market is finding it hard to shift flats and affordable housing, including social housing, is encountering financial viability challenges.

The Cabinet decision is subject to call-in and the deadline to do so is Monday October 19th.

In response to the appointment of Ballymore, the local ward councillors, Cllr Paul Ryan, Cllr Suzanne Gallagher and Stephen Malonga of the Green Party said in a statement:  

We as local councillors hope that this decision can mark the beginning of a new chapter in South Kilburn regeneration. 

Local residents have unfortunately had an experience of regeneration that has been defined by limited community engagement and unacceptable build quality. New developments have been marred by water penetration, damp and mould problems, fire safety concerns and a wide host of other issues. This all while living in a permanent construction site with dwindling community spaces.

We hope that Ballymore Ltd will not replicate the failings of their predecessors and will prove to be an integral part of the rebuilding of the South Kilburn community. We look forward to engaging with Ballymore to understand how their 10-year social value strategy can benefit local residents.

 

Wembley Matters asked long-term South Kilburn resident, Pete Firmin, for his view from the frontline after he watched the livestream of Monday's Cabinet meeting; 

  

I'm told that screaming at the screen is bad for me, bit it’s an inevitable consequence of watching Brent Council deciding on the next phase of the regeneration of South Kilburn. Reading the Council's background document to the decision adds nausea to the mix.

 

As a South Kilburn resident for the last 40+ years, I've lived with regeneration going on around me since the earliest consultations. Its hard (impossible?) to reconcile the reality with the picture given by Cabinet members and Council officers.

 

South Kilburn regeneration started in 2004, and was supposed to finish by 2029. It is now scheduled to finish by 2041. That's 37 years (at least, not counting overruns) of disruption, noise dust, movements of heavy vehicles. Yet there is very little recognition by the Council of the effect this has on residents, especially when it is compounded by the fact that Brent Council persuaded HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate. HS2 that is currently carrying out measurements in the area to check whether buildings are moving as they tunnel further towards Euston. Having dumped the vent shaft on us, Brent refuses to provide any reassurance (or communication of any kind) to residents affected.

 

What about the new flats built under regeneration? The Council document says, "In line with the South Kilburn Promise 933 South Kilburn tenants have moved into modern, comfortable, spacious, well insulated and award-winning homes that meets their housing needs." That would be the homes which are by and large smaller and more expensive than the demolished ones, virtually all of which have been plagued by damp and mould. Homes which have scaffolding up for years with 24-hour fire watch until flammable cladding is removed. Homes which have had emergency heating, roofs which leak. Not to mention the 2 blocks which have to be completely refurbished because building them was such a botch job. Yes, there have been awards – by planners and architects to planners and architects for the designs. Ask those living in them what they are like? When residents tell you they would move back into their old flat if they could, that says a lot.  This gets described as “In a small number of developments however residents have experienced build quality issues.”. That would be pretty much every new block.

 

What else has regeneration delivered? We read “Significant investment has been made in delivering amenities and social infrastructure including a medical centre, pharmacy, affordable workspace studios. A purpose-built community facility including an enterprise hub, nursery, family wellbeing centre, community halls, community kitchen and café is being built at Granville and Carlton Centres. Sustained investment in public realm including tree planting, landscaped courtyards, pocket parks and play areas has been made across the redeveloped sites in the neighbourhood. These amenities and infrastructure are having a profound impact on community life and has been transforming the South Kilburn neighbourhood.” Perhaps the author couldn’t be bothered to refer back to what was promised at the start of the regeneration of South Kilburn – 2 new medical centres (we have one, delivered many years after it was promised), a new community centre (no sign of that, not sure why the rebuilding of the already existing Granville and Carlton centres should be seen as fulfilling that promise), a new youth centre (no sign) and – yes we do remember – “no more tower blocks”.  It fools no-one to refurbish existing facilities and then claim they are new, instead of actually providing what was promised. Even within the claimed `success' of the Granville and Carlton Centres, community space has been reduced. Green space is often behind locked gates or not maintained, what were public spaces have been privatised and new planting is not monitored. And have people forgotten the block with "poor doors", where social tenants have to use a different entrance to those who have bought their flats?

 

What else has regeneration brought us? One of the biggest effects is the destruction of community. When long-standing neighbours are moved (some several times), they lose touch. They may no longer know where their old neighbour lives, and they certainly are no longer next door. All the old blocks had community rooms where residents could socialise, discuss problems with their landlord etc. None of the new blocks have.

 

Regeneration has also brought increased anti-social behaviour of many kinds, since Brent neglects the area, leaving it to developers, and fails to secure blocks which have been emptied prior to demolition, leaving them open to those creating marijuana farms and other criminal activity.

 

Rarely., if ever, does the Council admit to any of these problems. Its "South Kilburn Regeneration News" magazine only prints good news, never anything admitting to problems. Never once has Brent said to South Kilburn residents "we promised x, but unfortunately circumstances have changed". Instead, they hope we have forgotten.

 

Would all this be worth it if the regeneration addressed the housing crisis? That could be discussed if that was ever what it was about. But right from the start, Brent only said that it would build as much social housing as was here in the first place. The rest is private, for sale on the market or at market rents. Yet by the Council's own admission, the majority of the 50,000+ people on its housing waiting list cannot afford more than social rents. This next phase of regeneration will only see a small proportion of homes for social rent built, the others will be passed to a U.S. private equity company to sell or rent as it wishes. So much for the Council's claim that South Kilburn regeneration is dealing with the housing crisis.

 

An altogether laughable claim is that residents have been involved in plans. A little bit of tinkering at the edges of what Brent has decided it will do is not serious resident involvement. Alternative detailed proposals for retrofitting instead of demolition ignored. A popular campaign to keep the Granville Rec told it will have to settle for a far worse alternative. The lauding of the South Kilburn Community Panel rings hollow when the Council will not contribute a single penny to its running, unlike the £thousands being provided in St Raphs.

 

Reading Council documents or watching the Cabinet discussion bears little relation to this reality. Instead, we see  gross self-congratulation on display. These people are either deluded or know the truth and choose to ignore it.

 

When agreeing to give the £1 billion contract to Ballymore, nobody even mentioned in what passed for a Cabinet `discussion' the opposition there is to Ballymore's development in Kensal Green, or the fires in their East London development. Never let the real world intrude on Brent Council decisions.

 

 

50 years on, the Grunwick strike is still important

 

Grunwick Factories Strike Mural by Anna Ferrie and the Community, Chapter Road, Willesden*

Pete Firmin explores the ongoing significance of a dispute that began fifty years ago this week. First published by Labour Hub. Reproduced with the permission of the author and publisher.

 

2026 is an important year for the commemoration of significant British class struggles. As well as marking the General Strike of 1926, it is 50 years since the start of the Grunwick strike in NW London.

 

But why did a strike of a few hundred workers at a small firm in Dollis Hill have national importance? Why was it frequently an item on the national television news? Why did it see more arrests in an industrial dispute than at any time since the General Strike of 1926?

 

The Grunwick strike was extraordinary because the strike of mainly women of South Asian heritage received widespread support from the trade union movement. Previous strikes by migrant workers, such as at Imperial Typewriters in Leicester and Mansfield Hosiery in Loughborough got no such support but rather the hostility of other workers and little support from the wider movement.

 

Grunwick was a photographic processing firm in Dollis Hill. In the days before smart phones, cameras contained reels of film which had to be sent away to be turned into photos after taking the pictures, and these were then sent back.

 

Working conditions were dire, overtime was compulsory and often without warning. Pay was lower than the London average.. 

 

There was an attempt in 1973 to unionise Grunwick workers but it failed when they were sacked.

 

On 20th August 1976, Devshi Bhudia was sacked and three other young men walked out in protest. Jayaben Desai and her son Sunil walked out in protest at this unacceptable treatment by management. Within days other workers joined the picket line. The strikers were advised by the TUC to join APEX, the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff which declared the strike official.

 

From the start, the strikers had the support of Brent Trades Council, whose headquarters were close to the factory. That building became the strike HQ, and it was there a strike committee was first elected on 24th August.

 

The strikers faced the extreme hostility of Grunwick’s management throughout. They offered to take the strikers back if they dropped the demand for union recognition. When the strikers rejected this, the company sacked them on 1st September. ACAS, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, offered to mediate: management refused.

 

George Ward, the Anglo-Indian owner of Grunwick, got important support from the National Association For Freedom (NAFF, now the Freedom Association),  founded in 1975, and gained public prominence through its anti-trade union campaigns. John Gorst, Tory MP for Hendon North, a pre-Thatcher Thatcherite, also assisted Ward alongside NAFF.

 

The first demonstration in support of the strikers took place on 10th September, and on the same day Jayaben Desai and another woman were injured by a management car.. Arrests of pickets began in the same month.

 

In October 1976, APEX referred the dispute to ACAS; however, Grunwick management refused ACAS access to those still working (many of whom were said to favour unionisation). ACAS recommended union recognition, but Grunwick refused.

 

At the start of November postal workers refused to deliver Grunwick mail, a crucial part of their operation, After court action, the postal workers backed down.

 

From March 1977, picketing was stepped up and got widespread support across the trade union movement. Strikers picketed the TUC General Council for the withdrawal of essential services (gas, electricity, telephone) to Grunwick, but this was refused, other unions arguing they would need to be indemnified against court action. At its conference, APEX, hardly a militant union, called for the cutting of supplies to Grunwick.

 

In mid-June a week of action began with a mass picket and 84 arrests in one day. More Grunwick workers came out on strike and Cricklewood postal workers began an unofficial boycott of Grunwick mail. As mass pickets reached 1,500, printers at the Sunday Telegraph refused to print an article critical of the strike. Labour MP Audrey Wise and Yorkshire miners’ leader Arthur Scargill were arrested on the picket line. Busloads of miners had come to support the picket from around the country.

 

At the end of June, Labour Home Secretary Merlyn Rees praised the police on a visit to the picket line. This was despite widespread support in the Labour Party, both locally and up to the National Executive Committee, for the strike.

 

In July ’77, the postal workers were suspended, which meant no postal deliveries at all in the London NW2 area. The postal workers’ action was called off at the end of the month only after they were instructed to do so by their union leadership and fined by the union for initially disobeying.

 

During the postal blockage, NAFF ran `Operation Pony Express’ to get mail from and to Grunwick out..

 

On 11^th July a mass picket and demonstration were supported by 20,000.

 

Recourse to the law had mixed results for the strikers. A court of enquiry under Lord Scarman was set up at the end of June ‘77, and called in August for union recognition and reinstatement of the strikers. In mid-July the High Court supported the ACAS report calling for recognition, but at the end of July the Appeal Court overturned the High Court decision and declared the ACAS report invalid. In December, the House of Lords, at the time Britain’s highest judicial body, confirmed the decision against ACAS. Throughout, when decisions went against them, Grunwick refused to comply.

 

Mass pickets of up to 3,000 continued, but at the end of September Roy Grantham, APEX General Secretary, attacked the call for a resumption of mass pickets, and the strike committee were threatened with disciplinary action if they supported them.

 

Despite this, further mass pickets took place in October and November. On 7^th November there were 113 arrests and 243 pickets were injured.

 

On 21^st November ’77, strikers held a hunger strike outside the TUC HQ calling for support.

With Grunwick management adamant they would not allow recognition, the law apparently against them, and a lack of official union support, the strike committee announced the end of the strike on 14^th July 1978.

 

The timeline alone does not give the full flavour of the dispute: the resilience of the strikers, the magnificent solidarity shown by the wider movement, up against police brutality and the obstinacy of a company determined to deny its workers their basic rights, backed up by a ruling class determined to beat down the workers’ movement.

 

When Thatcher came to power in 1979, she quickly moved to restrict the rights of unions even further, something our leaders have refused to seriously challenge over the intervening decades.

 

The Grunwick strike showed the immense ability of workers to resist and the power of solidarity across sectoral and, importantly, racial divides. But it also showed how when it comes to the crunch, we can’t rarely rely on our union leaders – or the law – to back us in that fight. We have to be prepared to fight on – and break the law – when they refuse.

 

Learning more:

 

There are a wealth of resources about the Grunwick strike available:

Books: 

Grunwick: The Workers’ Story, by Jack Dromey and Graham Taylor (Lawrence & Wishart).

Films:

The Great Grunwick Strike 1976-78, Brent Trades Union Council

The Year of the Beaver https://youtu.be/RBJZ9hkHmxo

This year, the 50th anniversary of the start of the strike, there are several commemorative exhibitions, including at the Working Class Museum and Library and at London Metropolitan University.

Over the weekend 17/18 October, Brent Trades Council is organising an event commemorating both the General Strike and the Grunwick Strike and discussing issues facing trades unionists today. For more details contact petefirmin@btinternet.com

 

Pete Firmin is Vice Chair of Brent Trades Council.

 

*Image: https://openverse.org/image/e51b2bd3-c06c-4bcd-9e01-1107f9cface3?q=grunwick+strike&p=2 “Grunwick Factories Strike Mural by Anna Ferrie and the Community, Chapter Road, Willesden” by Loz Flowers is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

Residents urged to take part in summer holiday consultation on far-reaching changes to Brent Housing Allocations Scheme

 

There are several ways of reducing the council's housing list - one is to build more council and social housing, something that Andy Burham has said he wants to do. Another way is to change the criteria for admission to the housing register to make fewer people/families admissible -  something that Brent has done in the past.  

In 2024 Brent launched a campaign urging homeless residents to move out of Brent to move to affordable private rented accommodation elsewhere in the country. LINK

Following a re-registration exercise aimed at people on the D Band - families who do not qualify to bid for homes under the Locata system - it appears that some still wished to remain on the list nevertheless and so Brent now wants to remove that band entirely, Alongside this a 'one offer' rule would be introduced. Families would be expect to accept that offer and if they don't could be moved down the priority list or lose access to further offers.  This is likely to put pressure on families to accept an offer even if it doesn't match their needs and be interpreted as 'accept or else'.  Additionally bedroom sharing rules are proposed to be changed so that same sex members of a household who are over 21 years old will be expected to share a bedroom rather than have separate rooms.

None of this would reduce the actual housing need but would improve the figures that recently have been publicised to the detriment of Brent's reputation.  

Brent Council has launched a consultation on its proposals during the summer holiday - not an ideal time!

 

Pete Firmin, a long time Brent tenant and campaigner said:

   

I encourage everyone to fill out this consultation. As ever, Brent may ignore comments, but if we don't submit any, they can claim there are no objections to their proposals. 

 

The big flaw behind their proposals is that they are proposing to restrict the access to Council housing at the same time as the new Prime Minister is saying he wants a massive council home building programme. So, instead of cutting access, Brent should be encouraging that. 

 

The individual proposals in the consultation are awful: 1) abolishing band D on the waiting list - i.e. telling people they are rejected as having any chance of ever getting a Council home. Compounded by the comment in the accompanying papers by the statement "There are lots of resources to help you find a suitable home in the private rented sector, including family homes and shared housing." Have they actually looked at the cost of private rented? They know most of the people on Brent's waiting list are there because they cannot afford the rents the private sector is asking for. 

 

2) Proposing that those on the waiting list are only made one offer. There are too many examples of people being made unsuitable offers, such as flats inaccessible for disabled applicants, distance from children's schools etc for this to be acceptable. 

 

3) "The council is proposing that same-sex adults aged 21 and over who are part of the same household be expected to share a bedroom". Really? Is that even a serious proposal?

 

So far only 11 people have taken part in the consultation. Go to LINK to take part. The consultation closes on September 13th 2026.

BRENT COUNCIL FAQS ON THE PROPOSALS

 

  

Green councillor seeks specific assurances on potential defects and repairs in the South Kilburn regeneration, and sales to 'predatory, rent seeking, private equity firms'

 

 

The Brent Green Group of councillors are clearly intent on delivering their local election manifesto pledging that they will ensure scrutiny and accountability of Brent Council decisions.

Cllr Paul Ryan (Green, Kilburn) has followed up his supplementary question to Cllr Kelcher* (Cabinet lead for Regeneration) on South Kilburn (above) with the letter below which is awaiting a response. This follows Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Council of a resident's view of regeneration issues in South Kilburn.

The Council is due to appoint a single development partner for the remainder of the South Kilburn  Regeneration in September.

THE LETTER 

Dear Cllr Kelcher,

I am writing to you to follow up on some of the questions posed to you and the impassioned deputations made by South Kilburn residents at the latest Full Council meeting in relation to South Kilburn regeneration and the upcoming awarding of the single delivery contract.

I would firstly like to thank you for communicating your willingness to further engage with South Kilburn stakeholders to reach a decision and a contractual framework that is most beneficial for the residents of South Kilburn and I hope that this is something that can be demonstrated and borne out in the coming days, weeks and months.

Unfortunately due to the time constraints of full council meetings we were unable to fully engage with many of the issues raised, so I am writing to seek clarity and more detailed and extensive responses to some of the issues raised.

Contractor Accountability

I am sure you noticed that, in both the questions I posed to you and the deputation presented by local resident Pete Firmin, the issue of structural defects and a lack of stringent build quality are pervasive themes throughout South Kilburn regeneration. Unfortunately, I and may residents feel that your abridged answer did not sufficiently address the issues raised, so I would like to use this opportunity to get a more detailed and specific answer.

The points that you, and the broader Neighbourhoods and Regeneration team have raised regarding the need for the prospective single-delivery contractor to be a long-term collaborative partner is well taken but, considering the history of defects and negligence throughout South Kilburn regeneration, will you be seeking clear contractual guarantees that the cost of any potential repairs arising as a result of structural defects will explicitly and exclusively rest with the contractor responsible for those defects. Additionally, is the Council placing mechanisms in place to ensure these repairs are carried out in a swift manner.

Private Equity

During the full council meeting, I raised the decision authorised by Neighbourhoods and Regeneration that would allow Countryside Properties to sell 143 new build units in SK to US private equity firm Principal Asset Management. Unfortunately you did not respond to this during the Full Council Meeting, but can you now confirm if the Council will commit to ensuring that, in the midst of a housing crisis, it will not allow any more units in South Kilburn regeneration to be sold to predatory, rent seeking private equity firms. 

Granville Rec

In response, to Leslie Barron's deputation in relation to protecting Granville Rec, you did not provide assurances that this vital community space would be protected and intimated that the Save the Rec activists present should be cognisant that this land would be used for social family housing. This has been interpreted by some residents as a cynical attempt to override the wishes of local residents by portraying them as opponents to social housing.

Is there express guarantees that any construction on the Granville Rec will all be social housing? Additionally, considering the scale and scope of investment in South Kilburn regeneration, have efforts been made to move these units to an alternative location?

Can you also assure local residents, that if the Granville Rec is destroyed, that they will be provided with an alternative space that is similarly bio-diverse? Will this space provide a comparable amount of unobstructed, uninterrupted green space that can feasibly fulfil the existing functions of the Granville Rec; namely a community garden and social space. If these guarantees cannot be provided, can you assure residents that you will endeavour to do everything in your power to ensure that this vital community space is protected.

Community Engagement

I appreciate that as Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Regeneration, you have quite an extensive portfolio. However, considering the enormity and impact of this project, would you be willing to attend a walking tour of South Kilburn arranged by the South Kilburn Residents Panel. This would give you an opportunity to understand the concerns and trepidation of residents and would be a show of good faith to demonstrate that they have a collaborator in the Council who is willing to listen and engage with them.

I look forward to receiving your detailed and thorough responses to the above and to continue working with you and delivering for South Kilburn residents at this critical juncture.

Kind regards,

Cllr Paul Ryan

Councillor for Kilburn Ward

Cllr.Paul.Ryan@brent.gov.uk

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

       

LETTER: Regeneration has made no difference to deprivation index in South Kilburn

 

 

Dear Wembley Matters,

 

The government has just released its "English indices of deprivation 2025" https://deprivation.communities.gov.uk/ . The media has been full of this story, looking at the most deprived areas of the country, making for depressing reading. The site allows you to put in your full postcode and find where it fits in the national picture, narrowed down to areas with about 1,500 residents.

 

Its not a competition, no area should have to endure the multiple deprivation revealed, but I thought I'd look a bit closer to home. My part of South Kilburn is rated among the 20% most deprived areas of the country. This despite 20 years of regeneration which, we were told, would raise the standard of living in the area (the rest of South Kilburn has roughly similar results). One Councillor at the start of regeneration was always keen to tell us how bringing in people with higher salaries would raise the standard of living for everyone in the area (an understanding of basic arithmetic was never their strong point). Rather, it has made no difference. Hardly surprising, given the poor quality of the new housing, the general neglect of the area by the Council and the fact that they have introduced expensive housing into the area.

 

Given Brent Council now tells us that regeneration of South Kilburn will continue for another 30 years, your readers may understand the cynicism of residents who feel that whoever is benefiting, it's not them.

 

Pete Firmin, South Kilburn resident

 

Tenants seek further information on Brent Council's follow-up to council housing management failures

 

Wembley Matters has recently pubished guests posts by Brent Council tenants of the St Raphael's and South Kilburn Estates  LINK as well as the findings of the Regulator of Social Housing on brent Council's serious failings in housing management.

Asif Zamir of St Raphael's wrote to Spencer Randolph, Brent Director of Housing about the issues. His reply is below along with Asif's response.

 

Dear Asif Zamir,

 

Thank you for taking the time to write on behalf of the residents of St Raphael’s Estate and sharing your concerns regarding the condition and safety of your homes on the estate. I want to begin by acknowledging the distress that the recent findings from the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) judgment, have understandably caused. Please know that we take these matters extremely seriously, and yours and all of our tenants safety and well-being remain our highest priority.

 

When we identified inconsistencies in our safety data earlier this year, we acted swiftly and responsibly by referring ourselves to the RSH. This was not a decision taken lightly, but we believed it was the right and transparent course of action to begin addressing the issues at hand with the seriousness they deserve.

 

Since then, we have taken a number of urgent steps. We appointed an external health and safety consultancy with experience in supporting organisations in similar situations. They have engaged directly with the RSH and are supporting us in making rapid and lasting improvements. Their work includes helping us to verify and update our compliance data and to ensure all necessary safety checks are clearly recorded and acted upon.

 

We have also commissioned an audit of our systems and data, due to conclude in mid-July. This review will identify the root causes of the failings and inform a detailed recovery plan, underpinned by clear timelines and actions to ensure accountability.

 

In the meantime, we are reviewing all compliance data and building safety actions using a risk-based approach, prioritising high-risk issues. To help us move at pace, we are increasing capacity in our teams, including recruiting additional officers and contractors dedicated to this work.

 

We are also taking visible action across the Borough and on St. Raphael’s Estate. Over the coming weeks, residents will see more surveyors and contractors on estates as we carry out:

 

A new round of Stock Condition Surveys to update our understanding of the condition of every home

Fire Risk Assessments for all blocks of flats on estates

Pre and post-inspections to make sure building safety actions are completed to a high standard

We will communicate clearly and in advance about any visits to our tenants homes or buildings, and we are committed to improving how we engage with you going forward.

 

Finally, I want to reiterate that Brent Council is fully committed to learning from these failings and to restoring your confidence in the safety and quality of your homes. We know that words alone are not enough, you deserve to see real, sustained improvements, and we are determined to deliver them.

 

Thank you again for sharing your concerns.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Spencer Randolph

Director – Housing Services

 

 

 

Dear Spencer Randolph,

 

Thank you for your prompt response to my letter and for acknowledging the concerns of St. Raphael's Estate residents following the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH) findings. We appreciate your transparency in referring Brent Council to the RSH, and we understand that steps are being taken to address the issues.

 

While we acknowledge the measures you've outlined, including the appointment of an external consultancy, the audit of systems, and increased capacity within your teams, the residents of St. Raphael's Estate require reassurance and immediate, tangible results to ensure their safety.

 

The recent fire on St. Raphael's Estate in May, which tragically led to the tragic loss of life of our neighbours, has significantly heightened anxieties among residents. This incident demands an urgent and thorough investigation into why the building experienced accelerated combustion and further to this why the fire was not contained and spread to the ajoining property.  We need clear answers regarding potential concerns with insulation, cladding, or the overall build quality of the affected building and others on the estate. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about a potential correlation between this tragic incident and the previously identified lack of safety data from Brent Council.

 

While the planned surveys and risk assessments are a welcome step, residents need to see these actions translated into fast results. The fear of another incident is very real, and waiting for audits to conclude in mid-July and for the implementation of recovery plans does not alleviate the immediate anxieties.

 

We urge Brent Council to:

 

Prioritise the investigation into the St. Raphael's Estate fire, providing residents with immediate updates on preliminary findings regarding the cause of accelerated combustion and any links to building materials or construction.

 

Share a clear and accelerated timeline for addressing the most critical safety issues identified by the RSH and through your ongoing reviews, particularly those related to fire safety.

 

Demonstrate visible and proactive measures on the estate now, beyond just surveys, to address any immediate high-risk concerns.

 

Establish a direct and ongoing communication channel with residents to provide transparent updates on progress and address specific concerns arising from the fire and the RSH findings.

 

We understand that systemic changes take time, but the safety and peace of mind of St. Raphael's Estate as well as residents from wider Brent cannot wait. We look forward to seeing swift and decisive action that translates your commitment into demonstrable improvements in the safety and quality of our homes.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Asif Zamir

 

 An old map of the original estate

 

Meanwhile Pete Firmin, a tenant on the South Kilburn Estate,  has submitted a Freedom of Information request on the remit and makeup of the housing Advisory Board. LINK

  

Dear Brent Borough Council,
 

I understand a Housing Advisory Board has been set up. Can you please tell me:

1) Its remit.
2) Its composition - who is on the board and their qualification for doing so.
3) If there are residents on this board, how they were recruited and what qualifications they were required to have to be on the board.
4) All correspondence relating both to the establishment of this board and the recruitment of its members.