Proposed Stopping-up Order near Olympic Steps – here we go again, and why this reflects what is wrong with Brent Council decision-making.

  Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

Legal Notice from the “Brent & Kilburn Times”, 19 March 2026.

 

My guest post on 1 January opened with an image like this one, giving notice of a Magistrates’ Court hearing on 22 January at which Brent Council would be applying to stop-up (that is, to extinguish the right of pedestrians and vehicles to pass across) two areas of highway near Engineers Way, and close to the Olympic Steps at Wembley Park. An update to a subsequent article, Does Brent Council really want to embarrass itself in Court?, reported that the Council had asked for that hearing to be adjourned. 

 

Hopes that common sense would prevail were dashed when a Council Officer informed me, a couple of weeks ago, of a new hearing date on 16 April. I waited until the formal notice (above) had appeared in our local newspaper, before responding to it:

 

‘I have seen the Notice in yesterday's "Brent & Kilburn Times" about the new hearing date of 16 April at 2pm for the Council's Section 116 application. As requested in the Notice, I am writing to formally advise you that I intend to appear at this Willesden Magistrates' Court hearing, to object to the application for a stopping-up Order.

 

The grounds for my objection are that the application under Section 116 is wrong in law, because the two areas of highway shown on the Plan are not "unnecessary".

 

I will use the illustrations in the document "Brent Council’s proposed Engineers Way S.116 Stopping-up Order areas in pictures", which I supplied you with a copy of on 12 January 2026, as evidence that it is necessary for pedestrians and vehicles to pass across the areas of highway which the Council seeks to stop-up. You should ensure that whoever will be representing Brent Council at the hearing has a copy of that document.

 

Even at this late stage, it would be possible for the Council to withdraw its application, as you must realise that it has little hope of success, on the basis of the facts and law. Please let me know, as soon as possible, if the application is withdrawn. Thank you.’

 

I received two brief responses from Council Officers:

 

‘Thank you for letting me know of your intention to attend the stopping up order court hearing. I can confirm, as explained in our previous correspondences, the Council is intending to request the magistrate to approve this order under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980.’

 

‘I can confirm that we have a copy of your submission from 12th January "Brent Council’s proposed Engineers Way S.116 Stopping-up Order areas in pictures" and will ensure our barrister has sight of the document prior to the hearing.’

 

So not only are the Council going ahead with the application, they will be represented in Court by a barrister (I will be representing myself!). Hopefully, Quintain Ltd will be paying the barrister’s fee, as apparently, they were the ones who asked Brent to make the application in the first place. 

 

View from the Olympic Steps, showing that one of the areas Brent seeks to stop-up (in red)  would block the entrance to Olympic Way East, and impede pedestrians from using the Engineers Way crossing between Olympic Way and the Olympic Steps.

 

You only need to look at the areas the proposed stopping-up order would apply to, as shown by even one of the images (above) in the evidence document I supplied in January, to see that it is necessary for pedestrians and/or vehicles to pass across them. Yet Council Officers and an important Council committee are supposed to have considered the details before agreeing that an application for a Section 116 Order should be made to the Court.

 

The committee involved was Brent’s General Purposes Committee, at a meeting as long ago as 7 March 2022. This is one example, of many possibles, which illustrates how the decision-making processes at Brent Council have deteriorated over the past decade or so. This can lead to ill-considered decisions, which often end up wasting money (sometimes £millions) and to poor services. In this case, it was obvious to me as soon as I saw the plan showing the areas involved that they were not “unnecessary”, so why was it not obvious to the decision-makers?

 

I wrote in October 2016 about the way in which Brent’s General Purposes Committee, which used to be a strong group of senior “backbench” councillors, had been “hijacked”. The title of that article was: Does Councillor Butt have too much power?. Here is an extract from it:

 

‘[Brent’s] Constitution (in its own words) ‘…sets out how the Council operates, how decisions are made and the procedures which are followed to ensure that decision making is efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. Some of the procedures are required by law, while others are a matter for the Council.’

 

“Responsibility for Functions” is an important area, which should mean that there are “checks and balances” to ensure that power is shared across the Council, so that no single person or group within it has too much (to guard against that power being abused). The Constitution gives the Leader, or the Leader together with the Cabinet, considerable powers, but there are also ‘functions which cannot be exercised by the Cabinet’, ‘functions not to be the sole responsibility of the Cabinet’ and ‘functions that may only be exercised by Full Council’.

 

One area of particular concern is the General Purposes Committee, which ‘carries out a number of functions on which the Cabinet cannot take decisions, including public rights of way, setting the Council Tax base and approving staffing matters’.  The committee has eight members, and the Constitution used to say that at least one of these must be a member of the Executive (the previous title for the Cabinet). That proviso, which gave a very strong hint that most of the committee should be made up of back-bench councillors, has been removed, and for the past few years seven of the eight members have been Cabinet members, with the official Opposition Leader as the eighth.

 

Cllr. Butt is Chair of the General Purposes Committee, and of its Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee. This has given him considerable influence over the Council’s senior staffing structure, who is appointed to the Senior Officer posts, and the terms on which they are appointed.’

 

Whereas the General Purposes Committee used to hold “full length” meetings, when councillors would discus and decide matters publicly and transparently, they now start just half an hour before the Monday morning Cabinet meetings.  There were six substantive items on its agenda for the meeting on 22 March 2022. The minutes show that it began at 9.30am, and record that ‘the meeting closed at 9.49am’! 

 

 

I did follow-up my October 2016 guest post with an email to Brent’s then Chief Executive, who chaired the Council’s Constitutional Working Group (of which the Council Leader is also a member), suggesting that it:

 

‘should consider ways to ensure that the functions of the General Purposes Committee and its sub-committees are carried out independently of the Council Leader and the Cabinet. This is not just something which affects the present personnel, or situation on Brent Council, but a question of good governance.

 

The Leader and Cabinet already have considerable powers in those roles, and yet there are more than fifty other elected councillors whose knowledge and experience could contribute to the functions carried out by General Purposes Committee, if the majority of seats on that committee, and its Chair, were to be reserved under the Constitution for members who are not in the Cabinet. I believe that this would also ensure a better balance of power within the Council as a whole.’

 

The reply I received to my detailed email was short:

 

'Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email. The Chief Executive notes your concerns about the constitution of the General Purposes Committee. The Chief Executive and I consider that the composition of the Committee is satisfactory from both a legal and operational perspective.

 

Best wishes,

 

Chief Legal Officer'

 

Both the Chief Executive and Chief Legal Officer at that time had been chosen by the Senior Staff Appointments Sub-Committee, chaired by ………. you’ve guessed who.

 

Would a properly (in my view) constituted General Purposes Committee, which could spend more time considering reports presented to them by Officers, and would have had time to look at the plan which was one of the appendices to the Stopping-up Order Report, have agreed the recommendation ‘to approve the submission of an application to the Magistrate Court’? I can’t be sure, but I believe it was an avoidable error, which has wasted a lot of Council Officer time.

 

Willesden Magistrates’ Court. (Image from the Courts Service website)

 

We will find out whether it really was a bad decision when I see Brent Council in Court, on the afternoon of Thursday 16 April!

 

Philip Grant.

Another visit to the former Wembley Town Hall (now the Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill), and its wartime history.

Guest post by local istorian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The new Wembley Town Hall (Photograph from “The Architect’s Journal”, 26 January 1940)

 

Last September, I wrote about a visit to the former Brent Town Hall during Open House weekend, as part of the 10^th anniversary of the Lycée International’s opening in Wembley. In December, they kindly invited me back for a tour of parts of the building which weren’t included during the public open day, particularly the basement. You may think this would not be of much interest, but please read on, as I uncover some of Wembley Town Hall’s wartime secrets!

 

The start of work on the new Town Hall, for the combined Urban Districts of Wembley and Kingsbury, was reported in the “Wembley News” on 23 July 1937: ‘The first sod of the site in Forty Lane, where Wembley’s new Town Hall is to be built, was cut on Tuesday morning by Councillor H. Gauntlett, Chairman of the Town Hall Committee.’ This photograph shows a surveyor setting out the site for where the basement of the building would be, a few weeks later:

 

A surveyor at work on the Town Hall site, 31 August 1937.

 

Although the outbreak of the Second World War was still two years away, the potential threat from German rearmament, and Hitler’s territorial ambitions, was already realised. The original plans for the Town Hall, prepared by the architect Clifford Strange, were amended to include a reinforced concrete roof for the basement areas, which could be used as shelters in the event of air raids.

The basement had a “secret tunnel”, linking it to the gardens alongside Forty Lane. It is shown on the original plans as a ‘fresh air intake duct’, and that may well have been its purpose, allowing air into the underground area which included the Town Hall’s boiler room. But it was also big enough to allow people to walk along, in single file, if the building had been bombed and staff sheltering there could not escape through the normal exit. I was able to walk along it a short way, before it dipped down and was flooded!

 

                The doorway to the “secret tunnel”, and inside the tunnel itself.

 

War was declared on 3 September 1939, after Germany’s invasion of Poland, and by the end of the year staff had moved into the new Town Hall, and an Air Raid Precautions control room had been set up in the basement. A telephone exchange, linked to Wembley’s eighty A.R.P. warden posts and other wartime emergency services, was manned 24-hours a day throughout the war, with a staff room beside it where the Council volunteers operating it could rest when not on the switchboard. These were still marked on a post-war basement plan.

 

Extract from a Town Hall basement plan, with exchange arrowed.

 

But did the basement exchange have a wider wartime use than just for local A.R.P. services? In her commentary on the building in a book about the Lycée in 2015, Mireille Rebaté, the Head of School, wrote that it ‘played a major role as a secret communication hub during the Second World War.’ I’m not sure what her source of information was for that statement, but I do know from research on the Borough of Wembley’s Distinguished Visitors Book that a range of senior military figures came to the Town Hall during the war, and that their visits were not reported publicly in the local newspaper! Here is a small selection of their signatures in the book:

 

Some of the military “top brass” who visited Wembley Town Hall in WW2.

 

One of the reasons I looked through the Distinguished Visitors Book was to see whether Winston Churchill had ever visited the Town Hall, as the Lycée was named after him. His signature was not in the book, but in May 1943 an “All Star Ball” was held in the Grand Hall to raise money for a wartime charity fronted by his wife. Mrs Churchill’s Red Cross Aid to Russia Fund benefitted when around three hundred residents paid to join stars of film and stage at the ball. The stars signed lots of autographs, in return for a one shilling donation towards the fund for each, and hosted an auction of celebrity items. However, as the “Wembley News” reported, ‘The cigar box, autographed and presented by Mr Winston Churchill, was withdrawn, owing to its reserve price not being reached.’

 

Newspaper advert for the “All Star Ball”, and Clementine Churchill addressing the crowd at a Wembley Stadium wartime charity football match for her “Aid to Russia” Fund.

 

The Town Hall basement would not have been large enough to shelter all the Council’s staff, so a large space with a reinforced roof was created under the Grand Hall. According to Muriel Lander, who was a 17-year-old typist in the Borough’s legal department when they moved to Forty Lane from offices in St John’s Road at the end of 1939, it was ‘a vast, steel-doored bomb shelter.’ She told a “Wembley Observer” reporter in 1996 that they had to go down to the shelter when a whistle was blown to warn of a possible air raid. ‘A lot of the older Council staff were scared, but I took it in a light-hearted way because I was so young.’

 

Muriel Lander (right) and her typist colleagues at the Town Hall during WW2.
(Brent Archives – “Wembley Observer” newspaper microfilms)

 

Muriel also recalled that she and her colleagues had to take a turn at fire watching, because of the risk from German incendiary bombs. If you were on that duty, you slept fully-clothed on a Z-bed in your office, and when the sirens sounded an air raid warning, you ran up to the Town Hall roof and stood by with a hose, in case a fire bomb landed on the building.

 

The large shelter at the Town Hall was also available for local residents or passers-by to use, accessed by the service road from Kings Drive. The service road, at the back of the main office building, was used for deliveries, including coal or coke to fire the boilers, which would have been tipped through large manholes down into the basement fuel store beside the boiler room. The service road ended at a building, which was literally “the end of the road” for some Wembley residents, the Borough’s mortuary!

 

Plan of the Wembley Town Hall mortuary building.

 

The National Health Service was not set up until 1948, so that when the Town Hall was built it was Wembley Council’s Medical Officer of Health who had responsibility for carrying out post mortems, when deaths in the borough required them. My visit did not include the mortuary, as it is no longer there!

 

Something else no longer there is the entrance (or exit?) of the “secret tunnel”, at the Forty Lane end. It has been blocked off, and no one now knows where exactly it came out. You can’t go very far along the tunnel from the basement, because its lower section is flooded, but it still had to be checked (by a French Security Service frogman!) before the then French President, François Hollande, came to officially open the Lycée in September 2015.

 

François Hollande at the official opening of the Lycée in 2015.
(Courtesy of the Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill)

 

The photograph above is from the book about the building, “Un Espace d’Histoire & de Futur” (a blend of heritage and future). I found my visit to the former Town Hall’s basement, and its links to local World War Two history, very interesting, and I hope you have enjoyed reading about it too.

 

Philip Grant.

Two exhibitions celebrating diversity in Brent!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

   

The “Celebrating Brent’s Somali community” display at Kingsbury Library.

 

One of the best things about living in Brent is the rich diversity across the borough. This is reflected in the way we may look, dress, speak and worship differently, yet can all live side by side as ordinary human beings, and enjoy a great variety of shops, eating places and cultural activities.

 

Brent Museum and Archives, working with volunteers from the community, currently has two small exhibitions in local libraries which celebrate parts of this rich mix. As you may not know about them, I am writing a short piece to share this information, so that you can go and enjoy these displays if you wish to (and I hope you will).

 

There have been Somali people in Brent for more than forty years. The colourful “Celebrating Brent’s Somali community” has been on display at Kingsbury Library since January, and is likely to be there until at least after the school Easter holidays (something to do with your children?). It features a variety of objects from the parts of East Africa where Somali peoples originate from, and shares the stories of some Somali community figures in Brent, including a local councillor. Well worth a visit if you are in the area, or perhaps attending one of the other events which Brent Libraries put on at Kingsbury Library.

Part of the “Portraits of Brent” exhibition at the Willesden Gallery.

 

“Portraits of Brent” is a new exhibition at the Willesden Gallery, on the ground floor of Willesden Green Library. It shares stories of Brent residents whose backgrounds are from South West Asia and North Africa, including portraits of them and objects they have contributed which reflect the cultures their families have brought to our area. Alongside these exhibits is a beautiful modern painting depicting the House of Wisdom, a medieval public library and centre of learning in Baghdad, which was destroyed in a Middle Eastern war (not recently, but more than 750 years ago!).

 

The exhibition’s welcome board.

 

The “Portraits of Brent” exhibition will be available to visit until late April. It is part of a range of exhibitions reflecting various communities which make up Brent’s rich tapestry (I can remember earlier ones featuring Brazil, the Caribbean and Romania, and there have been others as well). These are helping to ensure that the Brent Museum and Archives collections represent everyone in our borough (not just the White British like myself!).

 

I hope you will take the chance to visit these exhibitions, which help us to enjoy the diversity we share in Brent. I believe that diversity is a strength for our community, and that we can and do live and work well together in a multi-cultural society, unlike the former Conservative Home Secretary – twice removed! – who grew up in Brent, and has now transferred her ambition for power to Reform UK! Her political prejudice has no place in our borough.

Philip Grant.

The 2025 Wembley History Society Christmas Picture Quiz - the answers!

 Introductory blog for Christmas Picture Quiz answers, by local historian Philip Grant:

 

Thank you to everyone who entered into the seasonal spirit and took part in last weekend’s 2025 Wembley History Society Christmas Picture Quiz. (If you haven’t tried your quiz skills yet, please click on that “link” and have a go before you look at the answers!)

 

I hope you’ve enjoyed the quiz, and I’m sure that, like me, you are very grateful to Martin for providing such an interesting and varied selection of posts on his “Wembley Matters” blog. The answers document is below, at the foot of this guest post.

 

I included an extra question when introducing the quiz. I wonder how many of you knew, or worked out, that the 1930s speedway rider from New Zealand was Wally Kilmister (seen here with his Wembley Lions team mates in 1937)?

 

 

His sports shop near the stadium (part of which was later turned into a model shop) was at 6 & 7 Neeld Parade, although Wembley Triangle would also be an acceptable answer. This photograph showing it was taken from the top of a new office building under construction in 1963, which became Brent House.

 

 

 

You may have noticed that the photograph for question 3 was of a tile mural, but I’m sure that most of you recognised who it showed (some years ago, a 10-year old girl who saw the picture immediately said: “That’s Michael Jackson!”). That mural scene, along with around a dozen others in the Bobby Moore Bridge subway outside Wembley Park station, has been hidden from view since 2013, because of advertising leases issued by Brent Council to the developers, Quintain. Although the footballers’ scene, including the plaque unveiled by Bobby Moore’s widow in 1993, was put back on public view in 2019, Quintain were then allowed to cover the other subway murals with light boxes, for at least another five years.

 

The tile mural scenes on the east wall of the Bobby Moore Bridge subway at Wembley Park.

 

There was a chance to get all of the subway murals back on display when the lease came up for renewal in 2024. However, Brent’s Council Leader did not even give his Cabinet colleagues the chance to vote on the option which would have allowed that. In fact, the Cabinet members did not vote at all – they just stayed silent when Cllr. Muhammed Butt declared that the option he preferred (which would put slightly more money into the Council’s communications budget) had been approved.

 

There were probably a few of the questions that you didn’t know the answers to. If that’s the case, you have the chance over the Christmas / New Year break to discover more about some of the subjects via “links” I’ve included with some of the answers. These will take you to illustrated articles giving more information, if you want to take advantage of them.

 

If you were feeling competitive, and wrote down your answers, you can now see how many you got right. There are no prizes, but if you want to share your score out of twenty (just to let others know how well, or badly, you did), you are welcome to add a comment below!

 

The building in my “greetings card” above is St Andrew’s New Church, Kingsbury, and if you would like some church bells with your Christmas, you can read about and listen to them if you “click” on this “Wembley Matters” blog from December 2022. With best wishes for the festive season, and a happy and healthy New Year,

 

Philip Grant. 

 

 

Have a go at the 2025 Wembley History Society Christmas Picture Quiz!

Introductory Guest Post by local historian Philip Grant

 

Like most seasonal traditions, when this time of year comes round I feel that there has to be a Wembley History Society Christmas Picture Quiz.  [Well, there has been one each year since the Covid-19 lockdown in 2020, so it has become a bit of a tradition!] As in previous years, Martin has kindly agreed to share the quiz with “Wembley Matters” readers. The question paper is attached below, so please feel free to “have a go!”

 

There are ten pictures again this year, each with two questions. This time, the quiz is about sports and entertainment stars who’ve appeared at Wembley over the years. I drew up a list of “possibles”, but decided not to include this 1930s speedway rider, as only a few people would probably know who he was. However, if you want to see if you can find the answers, here is an extra star for you:

 

a)    Who was he?

b)    Where in Wembley did he run a sports shop for many years?

 

How many questions can you answer? The quiz is just for fun (no prizes!), and you’ll get the answers on this blog site next week. Don’t worry if there are some you don’t know, because the more questions you can’t answer, the more details you’ll discover in a week’s time. 

 

You are welcome to share the quiz (and later the answers!) with friends and family, or former Wembley residents, if you think they will enjoy it too. Good luck!

 

Philip Grant

 

 

Altamira and the Morland Gardens delay – Brent Council’s response.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From Brent Council’s adopted Local Plan Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Last week Martin published a guest post with the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Director of Property and Assets (Morland Gardens – (Happy?) Anniversary Brent! Why the delay?). I promised to let readers know what the Council said in reply, and here is the full text of the email I received on 18 November, with the names of Council Officers replaced by their job titles.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

RE: New Service Request: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - What are Council Officers' recommendations and when will they be published?  

 

Thank you for your open letter dated 10 November 2025, and note that [the Director of Property and Assets] has asked me to respond on the queries raised:

 

1. Please let me know the date by which Council Officers intend to make their detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens.

 

As you state in your open letter dated 10 November 2025, Cabinet approved the facility mix at Morland Gardens for affordable homes and youth facilities in June 2025. Please note that establishing the youth provisions/requirements is a crucial enabler to bringing forward a vision for the site that aligns with the Cabinet approved facility mix. The Council has therefore been liaising with a range of youth service providers to better understand what/how they would seek to use the building/site to meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough.

 

In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in with regards to increased borrowing costs, construction inflation, and compliance with new/enhanced building safety standards. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has recently issued its new Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 – 2036 and the Council will be reviewing this funding prospectus to see if it can provide the Council a viable route to bring forward affordable housing schemes on sites such as Morland Gardens. The SAHP funding window opens in February 2026 and closes in April 2026, so the Council will be able to confirm after this date if a grant bid for Morland Gardens has been included.

 

With the work currently being undertaken, the Council cannot confirm a date by which officers intend to make detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens until we are able to lock in the proposed youth service provisions for the site and the affordable homes funding opportunities through the SAHP.

 

2. Please also let me know (as some decision on this point must surely have been reached after two years of review) whether those recommendations will include retaining the heritage Victorian villa building, Altamira, as requested in the Willesden Local History Society petition which was presented to September's Full Council meeting, and supported then by councillors from across all three political parties.

 

As per the response to the petition from the Willesden Local History Society, no decision has been made on the retention or not of the Altamira building. Any decision will be based on the outcome of the above (youth provision identification, housing scheme requirements) for Cabinet to make a considered decision.

 

Thank you once again for your open letter, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

The response says why Brent is not currently building many new homes, and these words in the answer to point 1 are of more general interest: ‘In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in ….’ The reference to ‘social rent tenure’ is another example of the misrepresentation of “social housing” terms frequently coming from the Council’s Officers and members.

 

The only new genuine Social Rent level homes which Brent Council provides go to existing tenants who are moved to new homes because the Council wants to demolish their existing home. If you want to understand the different types of affordable housing, please read my November 2022 guest post Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply.

 

Illustration from Brent’s March 2025 Council Tax leaflet.

 

While I’m on the subject of the Council’s misleading information about affordable housing, you may remember my guest post from last April: How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26? It was in a leaflet sent to every Council Taxpayer in the borough, including a letter to residents from the Council Leader saying how well they had done. And the answer to the question of how many affordable homes Brent Council had actually delivered itself in 2024/25 was 26, not the 530 they wanted us to believe!

 

You will also notice from the response above that the proposed affordable housing at Morland Gardens may well depend on Brent getting financial help from the GLA’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-2036. But I can’t help wondering - what happened to the £107m of funding which Brent trumpeted that it had been promised from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026? 

 

From the GLA’s affordable homes website.

 

How much of that promised £107m was spent by Brent Council, and how many new affordable homes were built with that money? Wasn’t it meant to be helping to fund the regeneration of St Raphael’s Estate (see this June 2021 post: Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?)? How many new homes have been built so far as part of the long-promised St Raphael’s regeneration? (I don’t know – perhaps someone can give the answer in a comment below, please.)

 

Brent’s original 2020 Morland Gardens scheme was meant to use £6.5m in funding from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2021 (extended to 2023, because of Covid). That money was lost, but it could have been used instead for a Council redevelopment at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent before Morland Gardens in 2020, and would have provided 67 affordable homes. That project could not go ahead because of the flawed Cabinet decision to move Brent Start to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe on that site. You can read the details in my October 2021 guest post: 1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged.

 

It was hard not to get distracted by some of the contents of the Council’s response above, but I must get back to the main point of this guest post. Should I just accept what the Council Officer was saying, or should I reply? I chose the second option, and this is what I wrote:

 

‘Dear [Head of Capital Delivery},

 

Thank you for your email, in response to my open email of 10 November to [the Director of Property and Assets]. As the text of my open email was made public, both online and in the "Brent & Kilburn Times" (see below), I will seek to make the text of your reply, on behalf of Brent Council, publicly available.

 

The information given at point 1 is helpful in understanding the continuing delay, although this will mean another winter when the empty property can suffer further weather damage. That is not good stewardship of a valuable heritage building!

 

I am disappointed with the response to point 2, because it suggests that the only factors which will be taken into account in deciding whether Officers should recommend either retaining or demolishing the heritage building will be what is required for the proposed youth provision and housing scheme. That approach ignores the requirements of Brent Council's heritage planning policy BHC1, and its adopted Historic Environment Strategy, which both signal the importance of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in proposed developments affecting them.

 

I have referred to the section on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" before, but these words from it need repeating:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.'

 

The historic value of "Altamira" is huge. This was the landmark building at the entrance to an 1870s estate named Stonebridge Park. It was in at the birth of that district of our borough, and with its distinctive belvedere tower, it was one of the few original Victorian villas left standing when most of the street called Stonebridge Park was demolished to make way for the 1970s Stonebridge Park Brent Council estate.

 

Many of those 1970s buildings were demolished after less than 30 years, but "Altamira" is now 150 years old, and still in good structural condition, as well as being a beautiful example of Italianate architecture. It will be part of the Morland Gardens regeneration site, and it can be used for place-making purposes, helping to share the story of Stonebridge Park with young people, and the wider community, now and for future generations. That is why it should be retained, and why you and other Council Officers involved should decide to recommend its retention as part of your detailed submission to Cabinet.

 

Please keep me updated on progress with your review, and let me know if you need support from me (and the wider local history community) for an SAHP funding bid which includes retaining the heritage building. Best wishes,’

 

 

Philip Grant.