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
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.
