Controversial Wembley Hospital site planning application back at Planning Committee on Wednesday August 5th

 

The Wembley Hospital site was marketed for the NHS in September 2024

 The proposed development of the site

 

There was a degree of panic at Brent Planning Committee's July meeting when the controversial proposals for redevelopment of Wembley Hospital having been passed on the chair's casting vote, was declared void when it emerged that a member of the committee had not been present during the whole consideration of the item. Removing his vote meant that the proposals were rejected. Planning Officers quickly moved to suggest the item be deferred and it will return to the Planning Committee on Wednesday next week.

The Officers' Report notes:

  

This application was presented to Planning Committee on 2 July 2026, with a recommendation to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement. The majority of members voted against the recommendation to grant planning consent, with members indicating they were minded to refuse the application due to the following aspects of the proposal (not all issues were raised by all members who voted against the recommendation to grant permission):

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing (3 members);

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

3. Lack of community space (1 member);

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children (1 member);

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing (2 members);

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity, including loss of daylight (1 member); and

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character of the streetscene; (2 members).

 

A decision was taken by Members to defer a final decision to a future committee meeting to enable officers to provide a further report setting out an analysis, assessment and testing of the potential reasons for refusal cited above by Members.

 

Their further report includes some small changes won from the developer, warnings that some reasons for refusal will not stand up to Appeal, and in some cases result in possible costs to the Council. Their recommendation remains approval incorporating the changes but they include draft reasons for refusal if committee members are so minded. No draft reasons are included for family housing: '...officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.'

I recommended you read the full report HERE to read the complete arguments but I summarise below:  

 

1. Insufficient provision of affordable housing

 

There is no evidence to substantiate the refusal of the application based on the insufficient provision of Affordable Housing as it has been demonstrated through the consideration of technical information by industry leading experts acting on behalf of the council that the proposal would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of Affordable Housing in line with the relevant policies. Without such evidence, the Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission at appeal on these grounds and is likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding this, if Members are minded to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient provision of affordable housing, then a reason for refusal has been drafted as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that is deliverable within the scheme and therefore would not make an appropriate contribution to identified local housing need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2. Insufficient parking provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets

 

Following the July Committee meeting, the applicant has proposed minor site layout changes which result in the provision of one additional on-site parking space, taking the total provision to 13 spaces. The additional parking space is not required to ensure that overspill parking does not occur (as this is mitigated through the parking permit restriction that would be secured). However, it does represent an increase that is in direct response to Members’ parking concerns with, and this increase can be supported when balanced against the

policy requirements set out above to move towards more sustainable modes of travel and for car-free development to be the starting point for all development in accessible locations.

 

A reason for refusal of planning consent must be contrary to a policy and result in identified harm. The proposal is in line with adopted London Plan policy T6.1, meeting minimum requirements for blue badge parking and being below the maximum parking standards. The site is in an accessible location with good access to public transport options, where Brent policy BT2 sets out that car-free development should be the starting point. With only 13 car parking spaces proposed on-site, the development would not be expected to lead to unacceptable congestion on the road network generally from trip generation and technical information to support this has been submitted to the council and reviewed by the Council’s own experts. To address the potential for increased parking demand on surrounding roads (and associated congestion), a parking permit restriction will be secured which is in accordance with Brent policy BT2 (b). A Car Park Management Plan would be secured through condition to ensure that car parking spaces are leased rather than sold which is a requirement of London Plan Policy T6.1 (B).

 

As such, the proposal is not contrary to the planning policies which relate to parking and congestion and would not result in material harm in relation to parking and congestion. The Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission on these grounds and at appeal would likely to be subject to the award of costs against the council for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of parking and the impacts of the development on congestion on the local streets then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development fails to provide an adequate level of on-site parking and insufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the resulting parking demand would not lead to overspill parking stress and congestion on surrounding streets. This would be to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network, contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and policies BT1 and BT2 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

3. Lack of community space

 

It is not feasible to provide community uses on all sites, with larger developments better suited to enable thedelivery of such facilities. A new community facility is being delivered with Brent Wembley Housing Zone development on the corner of the Wembley High Road and Cecil Avenue.

 

Acknowledging the concern raised by Members it is proposed that the scope of the s106 Heads of Terms be broadened, so that the play space contribution of £50,000 could also be utilised for enhancements to nearby existing community facilities, if that was deemed a more appropriate use for the contribution at the relevant time.

 

The proposal is not considered to be contrary to adopted policy in relation to the provision of community facilities, nor is it considered that the proposal will result in material harm, and with no specific requirement for the provision of a community facility within this site, the council is unlikely to be able to defend a reason for refusal on this basis and at appeal may result in the award of costs for unreasonable behaviour.

 

Nevertheless, should members choose to refuse permission on this basis, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of the absence of community facilities, would fail to meet social infrastructure requirements by securing provision for needs arising from the development in relation to the provision of community facilities. This would be contrary to Policy BP7 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

4. Lack of on-site play space for older children

 

Considering the improved on-site play offer proposed and the remaining reduced shortfall for the 12+ age group that would be experienced by future occupiers, alongside the mitigation to be secured through the Heads of Terms, Officers remain of the view, that on balance, the play strategy is considered to be acceptable.

 

In view of the mitigation that has been agreed by the applicant, which as referred to above is to provide a contribution of £50,000 to address the identified deficiency in play space provision, Officers do not consider there to be reasonable grounds for refusal based upon lack of on-site play space for older children, which could be successfully defended at appeal.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of play and recreational facilities, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposal would fail to provide an adequate quantity of on-site play space for children aged 12 years and over, resulting in an identified shortfall. The lack of sufficient on-site play and informal recreation would fail to adequately meet the needs of future occupiers, particularly older children. In the absence of sufficient on-site provision, the proposal would be contrary to policies S4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021) and policy BH13 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

5. Insufficient provision of family sized housing

 

The scheme presented to Members in July 2026 proposed that 26 of the 108 dwellings would be family sized (with at least 3 bedrooms). It was acknowledged in the main Committee report that this would represent a marginal shortfall (1 home) below the Local Plan BH6 policy target of 1 in 4 new homes to be family sized.

 

Notwithstanding this marginal shortfall the development, it was considered that the proposal would provide a meaningful contribution of much needed family sized homes (including family sized affordable homes). For these reasons, the proposed development was considered acceptable in respect of family sized housing provision.

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has proposed an increase in family sized housing provision to directly address Members’ concerns. An additional family sized 3-bedroom dwelling is proposed at ground floor level within block A, by converting a 1-bedroom affordable dwelling into a 3-bedroom affordable dwelling through the relocation of a bicycle store, which will result in the overall provision of family homes being 27 of the 108, meeting the 1 in 4 policy target. As referenced above, almost half of the affordable homes (45%) would now be family sized also, which is positive given the significant need for family sized affordable homes. The increased level of family housing proposed is fully in accordance with Local Plan policy BH6. As such, officers do not consider there to be any reasonable grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing proposed.

 

6. Harm to neighbouring amenity due to the loss of daylight

 

Following the July Committee meeting the applicant has sought to further demonstrate the relationship between the proposed townhouses, namely unit 101, and 15 Fairview Avenue, in response to Members’ concerns that the proposal would cause harm to neighbouring amenity.

 

An illustrative section analysis of this proposed relationship has been provided which shows that the boundary fence provides a degree of screening to the existing kitchen (side facing) window to 15 Fairview Avenue. It shows that the first floor and second floor windows of the proposed home that are directly opposite the kitchen window of No. 15 are bathroom windows and would be obscure glazed (which can be secured by condition), and that the bedroom

windows of the new houses would be at an angle to the kitchen window. The illustrative plan shows the smaller pane of each bedroom window is to be obscurely glazed which would further reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy (again this can be secured by condition). The same obscure glazing strategy is also proposed to the rear façade of unit 100.

 

One member was minded to vote to refuse permission due to the impact of the proposal on the light received by the kitchen window of No. 15. As discussed above, the proposal will have an impact on the amount of daylight that is received within the kitchen of No. 15, and that impact will be noticeable. However, the No Sky Line assessment shows that the levels of reduction are 6 % beyond the threshold set out within the BRE guidance.

 

While the impacts are acknowledged, it is considered that they are considerably outweighed by the benefits of the development that are set out within paragraphs 358-373 of the committee report and include the provision of a significant number of new homes, with one in four of those homes being family sized and 11 of the homes being proposed as affordable homes.

 

Notwithstanding the above, if Members are minded to refuse permission, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development, by reason of its siting and proximity to the side facing kitchen window of 15 Fairview Avenue would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupiers of this property.

 

7. Impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene

 

Any historic association with the Barham Family, who originally donated the land to build the Old Wembley Hospital or the Copland Sisters, who funded the establishment of the hospital through the Copland Charity, is not legible when one views the site. The Council’s Heritage Officer has judged that these historic associations on their own do not represent an element of heritage significance special enough to justify retention.

 

In summary, the proposals would accord with relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including 203 and 216, and policies BHC1 of the Local Plan and HC1 of the London Plan. Overall, the harm/total loss of the Non Designated Heritage Asset(NDHA) could be overcome by public benefits delivered on the site. It is important that the lost buildings, which played an important role in the area’s history, are recorded. This has been done in part through the agreed Level 2 Building Recording and a condition is recommended that that an interpretation panel and/or plaque be placed on site to explain the former role the hospital played in the community (including its founding via a local charity and its use during the Second World War).

 

Impact on the character of the streetscene

 

Where building heights then step up to four/five/six-storeys, in terms of scale, this responds appropriately to the larger civic buildings. In terms of character, the proposed multi-tonal bricks are reflective of the surrounding residential context. Facades are broken down and well-articulated, including the feature brickwork detailing. Architectural inspiration for the scheme has been derived from the surrounding Metroland context, as well as the listed Wembley Fire Station, located nearby, built in an art-deco style. This inspiration is clear to see across the proposed scheme, and demonstrates the level of regard that has been had to the surrounding context.

 

In summary, the character of the proposed development represents a considered and appropriate response to the surrounding context. Officers consider the overall approach in terms of design and appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics, and in design terms the requirements of Local Plan policy BD1 are satisfied.

 

Nevertheless, if, having regard to the discussion above, the Planning Committee are minded to refuse the application due to the concerns raised, then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:

 

The proposed development by reason of the demolition and loss of the existing non-designated heritage asset and the form, appearance and character of the proposed development would fail to preserve or appropriately respond to the significance of the heritage asset, resulting in heritage harm to Brent’s historic environment. Furthermore, the proposed development would fail to respect the prevailing character of development in the area, resulting in harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan (2021), policies BD1 and BHC1 of the Local Plan, and heritage and design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to conserve heritage assets and secure high-quality design that responds positively to local character and context.

 

Given that to all intents and purposes this was public land, the question is, are the public getting a good deal? 

Wembley Housing Zone – Estate Management Company and The Pages. Will the arrangement leave Brent Council at risk?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Work in progress on the Cecil Avenue site (aka The Pages Wembley), 9 June 2025.

 

I was in the High Road on Monday, and discovered that the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development at Cecil Avenue is now being marketed as “The Pages Wembley”. More on that later, but Cecil Avenue is also on the agenda for next week’s Brent Cabinet meeting, over an Estate Management Company.

 

Readers may remember that although Brent Council owns the Cecil Avenue site, and received full planning consent for the development there in February 2021, it was not until March 2023 that it entered into a WHZ partnership agreement with Wates. Work did not actually start on site until February 2024, and by that time I’d found out (through a Freedom of Information Act request) that under this “partnership”, 150 of the 237 homes would be for Wates to sell, and of the 87 Brent Council homes, only 56 (half of them family size units) would be for letting at London Affordable Rent level. Of the other Brent Council “affordable” homes, 28 would be for shared ownership and 3 would be sold at a discount from market price.

 

These are the main recommendations in the Report to Brent’s Cabinet, and the “Cabinet Member Foreword”, which gives the Council Officers’ “spin” on why they want our top elected councillors to agree the recommendations they have made:

 

 

 

All of the WHZ Council flats in Ujima House and the Council’s London Affordable Rent homes at Cecil Avenue will come under Brent’s Housing Revenue Account, but the Estate Management Company (“EMC”) will also require payment of service charges from tenants living on that site. As the services provided by the EMC are quite broad, and it appears that it will hire a managing agent to carry out some or all of those services, tenants at the Cecil Avenue site are likely to face quite high service charges on top of their “genuinely affordable” rent.

 

 

As ‘Wates have experience of setting up similar companies’, Brent will let them take the lead on setting up this EMC, but once Wates have sold all 150 of the 237 homes at Cecil Avenue (which our Council allowed them to have under the 2023 partnership agreement) they will walk away from the EMC. ‘Brent Council will then have full control, ownership and responsibility for the Company’, which in turn means that the Council will have full responsibility ‘for repair and maintenance of the structure’.

 

I may be a pessimist and a cynic, but I can’t help feeling that this will leave Brent Council, through its by then wholly-owned EMC subsidiary, at risk of a situation similar to that experienced when it had to bail out its First Wave Housing subsidiary over Granville New Homes. Those homes had been built through a partnership between Brent and the developer, Higgins. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Wates workmanship is on the same level as that of Higgins on that 2009 South Kilburn project!)

 

 

Turning to “The Pages”, when I was in the High Road, trying to take photographs of the Cecil Avenue site hoardings across the street (through the traffic tailed back from road works at the Ealing Road junction!), a visitor to Wembley asked me if I knew why the development had been given that name. Was it because it used to be a printing works, or something like that? I said it was the first time I had seen “The Pages Wembley” name, that there used to be a school on the site, and my guess was that it might be a reference to the Page family, who were major landowners in the area several centuries ago.

 

Sure enough, when I searched for "The Pages Wembley” online, I found that: ‘The name is a nod to the Page family, who became major landowners in Wembley in the 16th century.’ I also found that Savills are already marketing the private homes here on their website. This is a small sample of what is on offer:

 

Composite of images from a Savills video and Savills sales website.

 

It is interesting that the top image, from the video, shows that it was issued by Savills International Realty Limited, and the black letters under the Savills name in their logo appear to be in Chinese characters! Echoes of Brent’s “partnership” development at Willesden Green Library? The video showcases Wembley as a “world class location”, and most of its filming appears to have been done at Quintain’s Wembley Park development, with just a handful of CGI pictures of what “The Pages” is meant to look like when it is completed, which should be in late Summer or Autumn 2026 (not March/April 2026, as implied in the video)!

 

The opening line of Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”. (Image from the internet)

 

I can’t help thinking that the link between Brent Council’s development at Cecil Avenue and the Page family is ironic. The last of the wealthy Wembley Pages were four brothers, who were contemporaries of Jane Austen (the 250^th anniversary of whose birth is being celebrated by the BBC at the moment). As I showed in Part 2 of The Wembley Park Story, in 2020, they seemed to have overlooked the important truth that rich families needed to produce an heir, to pass on their wealth to. The will signed by the final Page brother left all of the family’s wealth to his solicitor (or so the solicitor claimed – he went on to live in one of their mansions in Sudbury, and became a governor of Harrow School). 

 

It is a truth (almost) universally acknowledged that a London Borough has thousands of people in want of an affordable home to rent. And if you look at some of the signs on the hoardings outside “The Pages” in the High Road, that is what you would think Brent Council was building there.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet made its formal decision on the WHZ development in August 2021, they knew what the borough’s housing needs were. These had been spelt out in the Brent Poverty Commission report, whose recommendations (including borrowing when interest rates were low to build more Council homes, especially those for social rent level, which was all that many local people could afford) the Cabinet had accepted less than a year before. 

So what was ‘the Wembley Housing Zone Vision’ which they were delivering? I think that the deal they signed with Wates has “swindled” many Brent residents in housing need out of a home that they could have had (and could have had by 2024, if the Council had not gone down the “developer partner” route). What do you think?

Philip Grant.

 

Wembley Park: Out go the skips - in come 759 students in 7 accommodation blocks

 

Proposed student buildings

 

The light industry that surrounded Wembley Stadium is fast disappearing as developers buy up land and two storey premises are replaced by tower blocks.

The latest is an unpromising elongated site,  presently used by Glynns Skip Hire as a waste management facility with storage containers, off Fifth Way. It has very limited access.

Architects have managed to wedge in proposals for seven student accommodation blocks along with a cafe and student facilities. The developer has called it Wembley Edge rather than Wembley Wedge!

The elongated site is explained that the site was part of the 'Never-Stop' railway at the British Empire Exhibition and included a railway station.

The proposed buildings would range in height from 5 to 15 storeys, with building G the furthest north representing the tallest at c.53m. Building A is 11 storeys, building B 14 storeys, building C 11 storeys, building D 13 storeys, building E 14 storeys, building F 11 storeys and building G 15 storeys. Five storey shoulder elements link A and B as well as D and E together. Togather they prvide 759 student units some studio and some in a cluster with shared facilities.

 

Brent Council has established that the waste management business could be transferred to an Alperton site. Nearer sites were discounted as they too could be targets for development.

 

Opposition has come from nearby light industrial businesses fearing a possible negative impact on their own development potential and has resulted in Savills who submitted a Town Planning Statement  on  behalf of the developer, using the Brent Planning Portal to submit a 'Neutral Statement' responding to criticism.  This is very unusual and something I have not seen before:

 We write to respond to the comments made by Dandi Living (dated 20 August 2024) in respect to the above planning application. Dandi Living's comments suggest that the Wembley Edge proposals are being progressed prematurely and without enough consideration of the potential impact on, and relationship with, the adjacent site at Latif House, a site which Dandi Living has a legal interest in. 

The current Wembley Edge proposals are the culmination of extensive pre-application consultation with the local planning authority, GLA, local community and key stakeholders and other consultees between 2020 and submission of the planning application in March 2023.

 A public consultation website, webinar and two public exhibition events were held in 2022, to which Dandi Living provided no feedback. Since submission of the planning application, further detailed discussions have been held with officers, including regarding opportunities for the wider development area with Brent's urban design officers. Again, we note that Dandi Living provided no detailed comments on the application proposals until August 2024. 

Due consideration has been given to the potential for development to come forward on surrounding sites, including the Latif House site noting it's inclusion within the Growth Area, and the First Way site allocation. The proposed layout responds to the urban grain and is set back from the western boundary. The layout ensures that the primary windows serving the proposed student accommodation are over 9m from the site boundary with the Latif House site, and that direct outlook from windows to this site boundary is over 10m. Other secondary windows are high-level obscured windows so as to preserve the amenity of any future development on the Latif House site. 

Any constraints created by the Wembley Edge proposals on Latif House would be typical of development in a built-up urban environment and would not hinder or prohibit the site from being developed in the future. The public realm created as part of the proposals adjacent to Latif House is for service and emergency access only, but this could potentially form part of a larger public realm once neighbouring developments come forward in a cohesive way. 

Turning to Dandi Living's comments relating to daylight, it is not accepted that the Wembley Edge proposals significantly constrain the Latif House site. Any areas of reduced daylight availability to Latif House would likely be limited to a small area of the lower floors directly facing Wembley Edge (as it can be typically expected in a high density urban environment). London Plan Policy D6 requires development to 'provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context' and the NPPF requires local planning authorities to 'take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight'. BRE Guidance is also clear on this matter, seeking for daylight availability to be maximised as far as possible, but noting that it is only one of many policy considerations which must be finely balanced. In this policy / guidance context, providing that any future proposals at Latif House are designed to maximise daylight within those lower rooms which front Wembley Edge, both developments could successfully co-exist from a daylight perspective. 

We consider that the Wembley Edge proposals are suitably designed so as not to prejudice the future development potential of the Latif House site.

 

Brent Planning Officers report on the light issues and appear to agree with Savills:

 

Under the BRE guidance the proposed development will have an adverse impact on Arch View House, Kelaty House and the Waterside. That said, the BRE guidance represents best practice guidance, it is not mandatory, and it is a well established approach that the guidelines should be interpreted flexibly, taking into account the need to make efficient use of land to meeting housing needs and site context characteristics.

 

A further important point to note is that given the open and low scale nature of the existing site, it provides higher levels of light to surrounding receptors than would be expected in this urban location and higher density redevelopment of the site, which the site allocation policy supports, would naturally result in some adverse impacts to neighbouring receptors.

 

The identified impact to the properties should therefore be balanced against the benefits of the scheme overall, and Members should therefore consider whether those benefits do outweigh the harm.

As in previous planning applications Brent Planners insist (along with the GLA) that there is a demand for student accommodation and that it will contribution to Brent's housing targets:

Whilst the site allocation policy does not refer specifically to PBSA [Purpose Built Student Accommodation], this type of housing is acknowledged to relieve some of the demand for conventional housing, and this provision would contribute towards Brent's housing supply (at a ratio of 2.5 bedrooms to one conventional housing unit), at the same time contributing towards London Plan housing targets. The proposed provision of 759 student bedrooms would therefore equate to 306 new homes in Brent (on the basis of 2.5: 1 ratio), which would positively contribute towards the boroughs wider housing targets, and to achieving the indicative dwellings capacity of 1, 312 dwellings within the whole of site allocation BCSA9. To date within the wider site allocation planning permission has either been implemented, or granted (but not implemented) for 600 C3 dwellings on the Access Storage site on First Way (ref; 18/4767) and 678 student bedrooms (equivalent to 271 new homes on the basis of the 2.5 : 1 ratio) at the former Cannon Trading Estate site (ref; 17/3799). Combined, each of these schemes if consented and subsequently implemented, including the proposed development would deliver the equivalent of 1, 177 new dwellings across the site allocation, contributing positively towards the indicative site capacity for number of dwellings.

Brent Planning Officers, councillors (including Muhammed Butt, Council Leader) have been involved in meetings with the developers:

 

                          The future view of part of the development from Second Way

A submission to the Planning Committee by local historian Philip Grant provides a heritage footnote:

The site, as indicated in the Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment, owes its origin to the transport infrastructure put in place for the BEE in 1924. 

It was the site of the Exhibition Station, on the loop line specially installed by the London & North Eastern Railway to bring special trains for exhibition visitors into the heart of the BEE site. Running alongside the loop line on the site was the Never-Stop Railway, with its own station. This was a unique form of rail transport, operated by a continuous screw system, installed at the BEE and bringing visitors to and from a station near the north entrance, close to Wembley Park Metropolitan Railway station, to the south of the BEE site near Adams Bridge.

The private "access road", the possible use of which for construction traffic has led to a number of objections, was the BEE's Chittagong Road, running between the Indian and Burma Pavilions. This lead to the King's Gate Bridge, commonly called "Old London Bridge" during the exhibition, which spanned both the L&NER and Never-Stop Railway lines, which carried visitors to the eastern end of the Exhibition Grounds.

If The Edge site is to be developed, its heritage needs to be remembered as part of that development, particularly both railway parts of the BEE heritage and "Old London Bridge", which was at the southern end of that site.

I would request that a condition along these lines be included in any consent given to this application:

'The developer shall liaise with Brent Museum and Archives and Wembley History Society, to prepare and pay for an illustrated local history panel commemorating the British Empire Exhibition history of the development site, including the Exhibition Station, Never-Stop Railway and King's Gate Bridge. This local history panel shall be suitably installed in an open space area within the site, where it can easily be viewed by members of the general public, prior to the occupation of the new buildings on the site.'

Here is a silent film from British Pathe of the Never-Stop Railway:

 

The Planning Committee considering this application is on Wednesday 13th November 6pm at the Conference Hall, Brent Civic Centre or view on-line HERE

Tokyngton Library to be sold to Islamic Cultural Association

Council officers are recommending that the Brent Executive agree to sell off the closed down Tokyngton Library in Monks Park to the Islamic Cultural Association for an undisclosed sum. A bid by Tokyngton Homes is kept in reserve in case the preferred sale does not go through.