Wembley Matters reader and contributor Philip Grant wrote to Cllr Muhammed Butt, leaer of Brent Council, about the closure of the Northwick Park Hospital Hydrotherapy Pool. This is Cllr Butt's response:
Dear Mr Grant,
Thank you very much for your email regarding the closure of the hydrotherapy pool at Northwick Park Hospital and for sharing the recent article and context with us.
As you rightly pointed out, the decision to close the hydrotherapy pool ultimately rests with the North West London University Hospitals NHS Trust. However, we completely understand and share your alarm about the potential impact this closure may have on Brent residents who have come to rely on this valuable service.
Our Lead Member for Public Health and Adult Social Care, Councillor Neil Nerva, will be reaching out to the Trust to gain a clearer understanding of the rationale behind this decision and to learn what, if any, mitigating measures are being considered. We firmly believe that the voices of patients, staff, and the wider community should be taken into account in any major changes to local health services.
Additionally, Barry Gardiner MP is raising this issue at the highest levels within the NHS, following representations from concerned residents and stakeholders. We welcome this intervention and will remain in close contact with him to support efforts to ensure there is proper engagement and consideration of alternative solutions.
Thank you once again for bringing this matter to our attention and for your continued advocacy on behalf of the community.
I am grateful to Maya, Rochelle and Family for permission to use this video showing children's excitement and curiousity when engaging with nature.
“Bringing nature into the classroom can
kindle a fascination and passion for the diversity of life on earth and
can motivate a sense of responsibility to safeguard it.” David Attenborough
I happened to be at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre (WHEEC) yesterday when the doors to the classroom block were locked for the very last time after a youth group had left.
The dilapidated block will be demolished to be replaced by a SEND 16-25 Skills Centre that was planned to include a classroom for the WHEEC.
That is now in jeopardy after the withdrawal of Thames21 from running the Centre.
I agree, as a former teacher and an environmentalist, with what David Attenborough said. We cannot expect children to fight to maintain our biodiversity if they have not had a chance to experience it using all their senses. This becomes even more important at a time of climate and ecological crisis.
I have set up a petition supported by Brent Parks Forum and Brent Friends of the Earth calling on Brent Council to search for ways of continung the service. If you are one of the very many Brent residents whose children have used the Centre, or remember the thrill of using it yourself, or just recognise what a great resource it is, please sign the petition and pass the link on to anyone else who may be interested. Please note the petition cn be signed by anyone of any age so do encourage your children to sign if they are interested
We the undersigned petition
the council to scope out all opportunities to maintain primary
provision at the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre following the
withdrawal of Thames21 as a provider.
We residents and people who work or study in Brent * call on
Brent Council to undertake a full scoping exercise to enable the
work of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre (WHEEC) with
primary age children to continue. This work, which has been going
on for more than half a century is even more important at a time of
a climate and ecological emergency. It is imperative that the
generation that will be dealing with this emergency in the future
are enabled to experience and appreciate the natural world that is
now under threat.
The scoping exercise should include talks with Careys, the local
groundworks company that previously made a bid for the Centre and
other local companies, organisations or charities that wish to make
a commitment to children’s education and combatting climate
change.
The Council should also revive the Consortium who were
interested in a shared resource that would be based at the new
build 16-25 Skills Centre to be used at times outside school hours
including evenings and weekends.
A primary classroom with separate entrance and toilets should be
provided within the new 16-25 Skills Centre for use by the WHEEC
during school hours and school term times (60 primary pupils per
day) as envisaged in the current plans. Thames21 withdrew from the
WHEEC in July 2025 because they could no longer sustain the losses.
Running costs should be less in a shared 16-25 new build Skills
Centre compared with the dilapidated wooden classrooms that are due
to be demolished.
Rental income could be earned both from letting out space at the
Centre at evenings, weekends and during school holidays and from
letting out the grounds for activities such as camping for guides,
scouts, and Woodcraft Folk.
*Guidance from Brent Council:
A petition can be signed by a person of any age who lives, works or
studies in Brent.
If you are signing a paper petition as a resident of the borough a
check will normally
be made that you are a registered elector in the borough. If you
sign a petition as
someone who is studying or working in the borough you should
provide either your
home address or an address relevant to the petition i.e., your
place of study or work.
If you add your name to an e-petition you will be asked for a
personal e-mail address
and your post code. You may only sign any one petition once.
Started by: Martin Francis
This ePetition runs from 25/07/2025 to 05/09/2025.
Below is a video from Brent Council itself celebrating the Centre published some years ago.
Staff at
Northwest London University Hospitals Trust have lodged a collective formal
grievance against the management over the closure of the Hydrotherapy Pool at
Northwick Park Hospital. The grievance claims that the Trust did not follow its
own HEART principles (Honesty, Equity, Accountability, Respect and Teamwork).
They believe
the Trust failed to be truthful and open having instructed staff to not tell
patients about the closure contrary to the Duty of Candour. That failure to
properly inform patients and stakeholders worsened the situation when patients
asked for information and had to be refused even when there was highly visible
campaigning about the closure and an online petition.
The
Trust's determination to close the facility regardless was revealed in a letter
to Barry Gardiner MP from Pippa Nightingale the Trust CEO. Confirming the
closure, a month later than planned, on August 30th she wrote (my emphasis):
We are engaging with our
Patient and Carer Participation Group about the pool closure and will take into
consideration any concerns that are raised through that forum. While this
discussion will not impact upon the decision, it may affect the way in
which we manage or communicate the change.
Part of that
communication is to inform patients about other local hydrotherapy providers
including the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital. Nightingale claims this is a
larger facility with accessible steps and a hoist.
Staff
respond:
RNOH does have a hydrotherapy pool, but
it does not provide instructor led classes for self-funders, the capacity
required to take any further patients and lacks the required transport network
for patients. It is not in a position to provide similar services to those
provided at NPH. The statement that the Trust may develop partnerships with
public/private pools is vague and ignores the established fact that these pools
are not at the required temperature for patients with disabilities.
Current charges for self-funded
classes are double the price at RNOH compared to Northwick Park. The department
recognizes the higher than average poverty levels in Brent and the large number
of patients on low incomes in Harrow and have consistently reviewed their
pricing strategy in order to keep it financially sustainable for the Trust whilst
still affordable for the communities it serves.
Our own discussions with RNOH indicate they are not in a position to
increase their capacity to take on more patients and are not able to offer
classes on the scale that NPH currently does.
The grievance
notes:
Local authorities have the right to
scrutinise NHS service changes. If a local authority deems a proposed change to
be substantial, it can require a formal consultation.
The leader of Brent Council has
expressed concern about the closure and the fact that the Council were not made
aware, nor patients consulted. We are unaware of any opportunities that
the local councils, GPs or patient groups have had to review and scrutinise the
proposals to close the pool.
The
grievance challenges key aspects of the Trust's case on finance as well as the
Equality Impact Assessment and Health Inequalities Assessment:
The QEIA labels gender and religion
impacts as “neutral”, despite the closure disproportionately affects women,
including the only women-only hydrotherapy sessions in the area—essential for
cultural and religious inclusivity. This overlooks clear equity implications
and may not be compliant with the Equality Act 2010.
The
grievance document concludes:
Conclusions
As already demonstrated above, the Trust’s actions
to date have repeatedly shown little or no adherence to the Trust’s own values
of Honesty, Equity, Accountability, Respect and Teamwork.
Of particular importance is the lack of honesty in
communicating with the public, the unequitable treatment of patients with
disabilities for whom hydrotherapy may represent their only safe and effective
form of exercise, the lack of accountability of the executive team when invited
to discuss the proposed changes, the lack of respect demonstrated to patients,
staff and local communities and a complete lack of teamwork in regard to
finding a workable resolution.
Whilst we understand the difficult financial
position that the Trust is in and appreciate that difficult decisions must be
made, we believe there is no apparent immediate or longer-term financial gain
from this action. Even if there were any financial gains these should not, in
keeping with the ethos of the Francis Report, be placed at greater importance
than the long-term health of our patients.
We recognise that the Trust needs to increase
activity in key areas like cardiology but there is no evidence that closing the
hydrotherapy pool will improve activity in these areas. Contrary, evidence
would suggest that closing a major provider of exercise opportunities to those
at higher risk of cardiovascular disease (such as older patients and those with
rheumatological conditions) would increase the overall strain on those
services.
The Government’s 10-year plan emphasizes the
importance of physical activity and seeks to integrate it into the lives of
individuals, particularly in areas with high levels of health inequality. The
self-funded classes delivered in hydro offer a perfect example of what this
means in practice delivering high quality care to the community to assist
patients with chronic conditions manage their health independently.
Although we accept that within that 10-year period
it may be preferable for similar services to be offered in the community, such
services do not currently exist and to withdraw the services currently offered
without mitigating against this appears to be a breach to the Trust’s duty of
care to its communities.
In summary, we are seeking:
That the hydrotherapy service is maintained as is,
until an evidence-based review is undertaken, with financial transparency and
relevant clinical input. This will involve physiotherapy team managers,
consultants, and patient representatives, and if needed should be able to
investigate alternative models to keep the service open - while not
compromising the essential reform needing to be undertaken elsewhere in the
trust.
That the Trust recognises that it has acted in a
way that contradicts Trust values, damages trust from staff and patients, and
demanded that staff act in a way that we perceive as in conflict with the HCPC
standards that we are required to abide by. We want to see a commitment to do
better – and an apology to affected patients.
Back in March 2025 LINK when Brent Council decided that all dogs should be kept on a lead in Paddinton old Cemetery they undertook to:
[Consider] the creation of a designated
enclosed off-lead dog area within a section of the cemetery, subject to further
consultation with residents.
Today the issued a statement announcing their decision NOT to provide such an area:
Brent has confirmed that plans for a proposed enclosed area for dogs in Paddington Old Cemetery will not go ahead.
The decision was made following a comprehensive public consultation and review of community feedback.
More than 300 people, including local residents and grave owners, had their say. Almost two thirds of the respondents opposed the creation of a designated, secure space for dogs to exercise off-lead.
"We are grateful to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts during the consultation period," said Cllr Promise Knight, Cabinet Member for Customer Experience, Resident Support and Culture. "We received a significant amount of feedback highlighting both a degree of support and concern. Ultimately, and it became clear that the proposed enclosed dog area did not have broad enough support to justify moving forward."
Concerns raised included the potential impact on suitability of a dedicated dog exercise area within the setting of a cemetery, which many described as a place for peace, remembrance, and reflection.
Several respondents also expressed reservations of the potential for increased noise and activity in a space intended for quiet mourning. Other issues raised included the long-term management and enforcement of an enclosure for dogs, particularly in relation to dog control, maintenance standards, and the possibility of misuse.
While the enclosed area will not be developed at this time, Brent remains committed to ongoing dialogue with residents about how best to accommodate dogs and their owners in public spaces. In June, self-closing gates were installed on all access points leading into the designated off-lead dog area at Tiverton Green Park in Kensal Rise.
In a story filed today the London NW University Hosptal Trust at last made a statement to Grant Williams, local Democracy Reporter on the Hydrotherapy Pool Closure.
A spokesperson for the LNWUH NHS Trust told the Local Democracy
Reporting Service (LDRS):
“While we understand that the pool is a
popular resource for a small number of patients, it is mostly used by
private users. Hydrotherapy is not usually provided in acute hospitals,
and the new NHS 10-year plan makes a clear distinction between services
that should be provided in acute hospitals and those best provided by
community services.
“Our hospital resources must therefore be focused on faster
diagnosis, expanding surgical and outpatient services, and providing
effective ward care so patients can be discharged promptly and treated
equitably.”
The Malorees Orchard - the freehold was donated to the junior school by Network Housing
A week into the school summer holiday the Brent Cabinet will decide to go ahead with the amalgamation of Malorees Infant and Junior Schools at Mondays Cabinet despite opposition from the majority of respondents to the statutory consultation and the NEU group at the schools.
The Cabinet report outlines consultation responses:
There were 89 individual
responses to the formal consultation, compared to 115 during the informal
consultation. Three respondents sent two separate responses and for the
purposes of this analysis their comments have been grouped together and will be
considered as a single response from each.
In addition, a bulk
submission was received in the post of a duplicate letter that had been signed
by 46 respondents, 5 of whom also submitted an individual response.
Of the individual responses,
18 (20.2%) indicated support for the proposal which was more than in the
informal consultation and one from staff included12 signatories. 61 individual
responses (68.5%) indicated an objection to the proposal and 10 (11.3%)
commented on the proposal without indicating either support or objection.
Of the individual
respondents indicating an objection to the proposal:
43 expressed concern over
the financial impact resulting from the amalgamation.
38 suggested that the
consultation was either flawed or lacked clarity or transparency.
33 expressed concern over
the uncertainty of the rebuild project.
32 suggested that an
amalgamation had no benefit or was not in the school or children’s best
interests.
24 expressed concern over
the transfer of Malorees Junior School land to the council.
8 suggested that the
assumptions presented in the statutory proposal were either wrong or
optimistic.
One suggested that the
amalgamation would result in redundancies.
Five respondents indicated
an objection without including additional comments.
In a letter to the
Governing Board, 30 of the 67 staff at the school stated their objection to the
proposal due to the loss of circa £180K of funding from the school budget
because of the amalgamation, despite support for the whole school building
project. This view was shared with the Local Authority outside of the
consultation time frame by the school’s NEU representative.
The Authority admits to a mistake at the informal consultation stage (my emphasis):
The Q&A section of the
informal consultation document stated in error that if the majority of
respondents did not support the proposal, then it would not proceed. The
document should have made it clear that the merits of any concerns or arguments
would also be taken into account. This was raised as a concern at the Cabinet
meeting on 7 April, when the decision was taken to proceed to statutory
consultation.
They argue that they went above and beyond what was legally required at the formal stage:
The formal consultation has
been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Education and
Inspections Act 2006 and by following the statutory process set out in
Department for Education guidance Making Significant Changes to Maintained
Schools and Opening and Closing Maintained Schools. During the formal
consultation process, the Local Authority and the Governing Board did more than
is required under the statutory process to listen to views and provide
reassurance to stakeholders to address concerns that information had not been
shared openly and transparently during the informal consultation. This includes
a meeting with parent representatives and providing parents with a detailed Q&A
document on 19 May 2025.
They admit that there may be refurbishment, rather than a completely new building for the amalgamated school;
Uncertainty over the capital
investment proposals: The Governing Board and Brent Council acknowledge the
responses that raise concerns about the certainty of the capital investment
proposals, including whether the schools will be rebuilt or significantly
refurbished. Whilst a new school building will always be a preference, and one
that will be advocated by the Governing Board and the Local Authority, a significant
refurbishment will also provide a vast improvement to the current buildings and
the learning and working environment.
They rely on undertakings from the DfE although despite current very tight budgets and escalating building costs:
The Governing Board and the
Local Authority have a written commitment from the DfE to the delivery of a
single capital investment solution for both Malorees Infant and Junior schools
as part of the School Rebuilding Programme if the schools are amalgamated as
one school by April 2026. While the full details of the project are not yet
known, the DfE is already progressing a one-school solution which has involved
to date undertaking significant survey work of both school buildings and sites.
The DfE has provided an indicative project timeline that anticipates the
project scope to be determined in the autumn term, for planning permission to
be submitted by June 2026, for construction works to start in September 2026
and project completion to take place by December 2027. The DfE is being
proactive in ensuring the capital build project moves forwards swiftly with the
full involvement of school leaders and governors in the decision-making
process. As more information on the project becomes available this will be shared
with children, parents and staff on a regular basis.
There has been confusion over the financial loss to the schools of amalgamation, tha basis of the NEU's fears, and the details are set out:
Financial Impact: Upon
amalgamation the combined school will only be eligible for one lump sum (an
allocation from the Dedicated Schools Grant provided to individual schools to
support fixed costs that is currently £170,000 a year) and one sports premium
allocation (£16,600 a year). The lump sum reduction will be tapered over 3
years starting at the earliest in the 2026/27 financial year. From the
financial year after amalgamation, as one school there would be a reduction of
30% of the lump sum currently allocated
to the Junior School plus the whole of the sports premium lump sum, equating to
circa £67,000 based on the current funding allocation. In the following year,
the school would lose 60% of the one lump sum (£102,000) and by 2028/9 the
whole of one lump sum.
Again the Council is confident that this can be handled:
Alongside potential savings
from reduced administrative and subscription costs, a significant reduction in
maintenance costs is expected following capital investment in the school’s
buildings through a single capital investment solution within the DfE’s School
Rebuilding Programme. The school currently incurs a minimum of £50,000 general
maintenance costs a year linked to the poor condition of the buildings that
will not be required going forward, with the current financial outturn confirming over £100,000 of
spend. These costs would continue to increase given the condition of current
school buildings. Capital investment will also make the school’s accommodation
more energy efficient, saving expenditure on energy costs (estimated as up to
£5000 a year).
The Cabinet paper argues that an amalgamated school will be more popular with parents and that pupil numbers would increase when Islamia (if?) moves out of the area to the Leopold site (consultation in progress).
The Council states that they have no plans for the additional land, including the orchard that they would take over and promise it would remain educational land, needing permission of the DfE to dispose of for any other purpose.
Cllr Gwen Grahl, lead member for schools, summarises the local authority's perspective:
Where infant and junior schools choose to amalgamate, this is supported by the Local Authority for the many benefits for children, staff and the school,including consistent leadership and teaching practices, a single overarching identity for the school and the wider community and strengthened sustainability through economies of scale.
I went for my weekly hydro session yesterday. The Physiotherapists have had the attached leaflet printed and are handing out to patients. They feel very strongly that the pool should be saved. I am told there has been no consultation with physios. The pool is used by patients from Rheumatology, Neurology, Musculo-Skeletal and Paediatric specialties.
All of the users yesterday were dismayed that the pool is to close. They have not been consulted.
Of course many of us could find swimming pools to exercise in (alone) but the water in those pools is much colder than that in therapy pools and for most of us, suffering from Rheumatological and other diseases this would prove counterproductive.
Everyone wants to fight the closure and we will do our utmost but the fact that the same Trust did away with the pool at Ealing Hospital sometime ago doesn't give me much hope!
