Uncovering the history of Church End and Chapel End, Willesden – Part 1

Responding to readers' requests, after the popular local history series by Philip Grant, for some local history of the south of the borough this is the first of a new local history series, by Margaret Pratt of Willesden Local History Society.

Church End, in the Parish of Willesden, has grown from a small medieval hamlet surrounding the church of St. Mary, Willesden. The main routes to other parts of the Parish converge here. Church Road, leading to Harlesden, meets Neasden Lane (to Neasden!), and Willesden Lane (later the High Road) to Willesden Green and Kilburn.

1.     A pictorial map of Willesden in 1840. (Based on a map in “The Willesden Survey, 1949”)

Other villages in Willesden (“the hill of the spring”), such as Neasden (“the nose-shaped hill”), Oxgate, and Harlesden (“Herewulf’s farm”), date from the Anglo-Saxon period, and were already established settlements at the time of the Norman Conquest. Willesden and Harlesden are mentioned in the “Domesday Book”, commissioned by King William I in AD1086, to record all his newly acquired lands, and the tithes, or taxes, due to be paid.

2.    A copy of the entry for Willesden in the Domesday Book. (From “Brent: A Pictorial History” by Len Snow)

There is no mention of any church in the Domesday survey. The reason could be that Willesden lands were already under the control of St. Paul’s Cathedral, at Ludgate Hill in the City of London. St. Paul’s had been gifted the Willesden lands in late Anglo-Saxon times, and now “farmed” them. Farming, in the medieval period, also meant the collecting of tithes (one tenth of the income and produce of land that was owned), to provide the monks and Canons of the Cathedral (‘canonici S. pauli’) with their food and living expenses. 

The tithes collected would not appear on King William’s list, nor would most churches, as they did not pay any taxes. There could have been a small wooden Saxon church on the site at Church End, a base for the priests who would minister to the 300 or so parishioners of Willesden at the time. However, there is no documentary evidence to prove it.

What is a matter of record is that a small rectangular stone church was built by AD1181, when an “Inquistion,” or visitation, from St. Paul’s records the church and its contents. The church had been built on the rising land to the east of the marshy ground bordering the River Brent, and fed by the Mitchell and Harlesden Brooks. It was soon increased in size, by around AD1200, when side aisles and a tower were added to the original structure, and was known as St Mary’s Church by 1280.

3.     St Mary's Church, Willesden, in a print by E. Orme, 1799. (Brent Archives online image 703)

Willesden is rich in sand, gravel, clay and flint, like many places in the Thames Valley, but has no building stone. The loads of ragstone used in the construction of the church must have been brought for some distance, probably from Kent. The stone could have been shipped up the Thames, and then hauled up the River Brent from Brentford, on flat-bottomed rafts. Ingenious engineers of the time could have dammed off sections of the Brent to form ponds to make their task easier - unfortunately this is just conjecture! 

The 800-year history of St. Mary’s has been well documented (though not online) by our best local historians. Suffice it to say here that the church has weathered storms, wars, plagues, famines, times of social turmoil, pilgrimages, the depredations of Henry VIII, neglect, restorations, and calls for its demolition. It still stands firmly on its plot, surrounded by the churchyard which is the resting place of untold thousands of Willesden people.

In 1830, the author Harrison Ainsworth, who lived at Kensal Manor, on the Harrow Road, described Church End as: “A very retired little village, with its church, rectory and vicarage, and about twenty cottages, housing , among  others, a bricklayer, a butcher and a general dealer; also a group of wooden poorhouse dwellings in the churchyard.”  Ainsworth used Willesden and its church as the setting for his novel about the 18^th century highwayman, Jack Sheppard. His “very retired little village” was to go through great changes as the century progressed.

4.    Jack Sheppard, thieving in the church, arrested in the churchyard and escaping from the Round House.
(Illustrations by George Cruikshank from Ainsworth’s 1839 novel “Jack Sheppard”: Brent Archives no, 1696/97/98)

The opening of the Paddington Arm of the Grand Union Canal, across the fields to the south of Willesden, in 1801, brought new transport opportunities to the area, and industries such as brickworks, gasworks, and rubbish removal appeared alongside the canal. The Great Western, and London to Birmingham Railways appeared, again to the south of Willesden, in 1838. The first railway to be built across Church End was the Acton branch of the Midland and South Western Junction Railway in 1868, which cut off the village from the farmland to the north. 

Chapel End came into being when a brick chapel was built by non-conformist villagers in 1820. This was to the east of the Church End settlement, at the corner of Willesden Lane and Dudden Hill Lane. The name “Chapel End” was soon in use, and the residents felt themselves to be different from the people of Church End. A few years later the name “Queenstown” was also used, supposedly commemorating a visit by Queen Victoria. There does not seem to be any record of such a visit, so perhaps it was simply an attempt to commemorate Victoria’s Accession in 1837!

5.     Willesden's Fire Brigade, passing the 1820 Willesden Chapel, c.1900 (Brent Archives online image 1265)

The Queens Town name was used well into the 20^th century. The small original chapel, at the Dudden Hill Lane corner, was replaced around 1890 by a much larger Congregational Chapel, on the corner opposite Pound Lane, of the soon to be renamed Willesden High Road. The old chapel was used as a Sunday School, then demolished for road-widening in 1908.

6.     The Congregational Chapel, High Road, Chapel End, c.1900. (From “Willesden” by Adam Spencer, 1996)

During the 19^th century, people were attracted to Church End and Chapel End to find work, and needed somewhere to live. In 1810 the ownership of land in Willesden, and legal boundaries, were finally settled by the passing of an Act of Inclosure.  Landowners began to see the profit which could be made by selling off acres of farmland to developers for building houses. 

The land at Church End was part of the old Manor of Willesden’s Rectory Estate. John Nicoll of Neasden had purchased this Estate back in 1738, and after passing through several hands in the early 19^th Century, it was sold to The United Land Company, in 1869. In the same year, the company bought some land at Chapel End from the daughters of James Henry Read, who had died. This would later become the Meyrick Road estate. “Land for Sale” notices began to appear in the district, and developers and builders purchased plots at auction.

7.     Bramley's Farm, just north of Chapel End, c.1880 – one of the farms lost to housing in the late 19^th century.
(Photograph by Stanley Ball – Brent Archives online image 1261)

8.     Beaconsfield Road, Chapel End, 1960. (Brent Archives online image 2570)

Nine acres at Church End Paddocks were sold in 1873, then Church Farm Estate went up for sale in 1875. This consisted of 4 acres next to the White Horse, and became the Cobbold Road estate. Roads and building plots were also laid out at Beaconsfield Road. House building on The United Land Company’s estates was finished by the mid-1890s. Southward expansion from Chapel End was prevented by the opening of the Jewish Cemetery (1873), and Willesden New Cemetery in 1893, because St Mary’s churchyard was no longer large enough.

9.     Willesden New Cemetery, early 20th century postcard. (Brent Archives online image 7255)

To the disappointment of the directors of The United Land Company, Church End and Chapel End did not provide them with big profits. Their stated aim was to build first-class estates which would attract investors, but the plots of land were small in size, so small houses were built, and the area became working-class. It was Church End Ward that elected the first Socialist member of Willesden Council, in 1904! The quality of the building work varied, but many of the terraces of small houses have survived into the 21^st Century, and have stood up well to being modernised and extended.

Amenities such as shops and laundries flourished, especially along Church Road and Willesden High Road. Other buildings such as public houses, meeting rooms, schools and cinemas were put in place alongside the housing, and some of these landmarks have survived to the present day, while others live on in people’s memories. We will explore these landmarks in Part 2, next weekend.

Margaret Pratt.

Developers' free for all: Stop Dominic Cummings Stripping Away Our Rights - Sign the petition

If you think developers are getting away with murder in Brent at the moment - you ain't seen nothing yet if these proposals go through.

This petition has been launched  recoognising the damage that will be done to our urban environment if planning controls are limited even more.

THE PETITION - SIGN HERE

TO: Boris Johnson 

Please don’t strip back the right of communities to a say on what gets built in their area. Letting property developers do whatever they want will lead to badly designed and poorly located housing. We need smarter solutions to the housing crisis

EXPLANATION

 

Wave goodbye to your right to a say in what’s built in your local area -- if Dominic Cummings gets his way. We’ve got just weeks to stop him.

He's working on a plan to rip up the rules for new buildings in England -- and replace it with a US style scheme. It could fill neighbourhoods with shoddy flats and ugly office buildings.

But Cummings’ plan won’t affect every community the same way. City streets, not the countryside, will be the focus -- so people of colour will be far worse affected.

Cummings is trying to sneak this plan through as part of a coronavirus recovery programme -- and Boris Johnson just announced the first of the changes.

The full outrageous plans will be published within weeks. If no one seems to care, these changes will become law before we know it.

Dominic Cummings’ reckless US-style plan would take power over your local area away from expert planners with extensive local knowledge -- and give it to giant new “development corporations”. 

Remember, this is the same government who brought in a planning loophole that has allowed developers to build new flats without windows. Too many people are already trapped in poor quality housing.

But more than a million homes given planning permission in the last 10 years haven’t been built. So ripping up England’s planning rules to give power to profit hungry developers won’t fix things.

We need to build a huge public backlash right now-- can you add your name today?

 

'It feels almost like prison': the developers building homes with no natural light
The Guardian. 19 December 2019.

England’s planning system set for shake-up
Financial Times (paywall). 10 June 2020.

Boris Johnson heralds biggest reform of planning laws since the war
The Times (paywall). 30 June 2020.

Let’s not diminish our places in the name of ‘economic stimulus’
Local Government Chronicle. 9 June 2020.

Brent Council: No evidence of rise in Covid19 cases in the borough & no plans for a lockdown

Wembley High Road (Credit: Amanda Rose)

Brent Council, on  a post on its website, has sought to reassure residents in the face of reports that the borough is facing a lockdown after events in Leicester:

You may have seen news reports that Brent could shortly be put into a local lockdown. The situation is constantly monitored, but public health data does not suggest that cases are rising in the borough and there are currently no plans for a local lockdown.

However, it remains important to follow the latest government guidelines. Please keep your distance and get tested if you display symptoms.


Professor Kevin Fenton, London Regional Director for Public Health England, also commented on the reports, saying that:

The number of new cases of coronavirus is under close, active surveillance across the country and small fluctuations day by day are to be expected.

The increases in some boroughs that have been reported are mainly sporadic and are being uncovered as we scale up testing and contact tracing activity across the city.

Importantly, the overall levels of coronavirus in London remain low and steady. We’re working closely with all local authorities to prepare for and manage any potential local clusters and outbreaks and our epidemiological analysis will play an important role identifying if there is a significant sustained increase in the community.

As we carefully emerge from lockdown, it is important now more than ever that Londoners continue to follow government advice on social distancing, self-isolation, wearing face coverings, and practicing good hand hygiene, in order to keep the number of new cases in London on its way down. If you have a new continuous cough, a high temperature or a loss of, or change to your sense of smell or taste, stay at home and arrange a test immediately.

A teenager has been charged with the murder of sisters Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman in Kingsbury

From OWL Messaging, Neighbourhood Watch

Danyal Hussein, 18  of Guy Barnett Grove, SE3 will appear in custody at Westminster Magistrates’ Court today (Thursday, 2 July) charged with: the murder of Bibaa Henry; the murder of Nicole Smallman; possession of an offensive weapon.

Hussein was arrested at his home address in the early hours of Wednesday, 1 July and subsequently charged as above.

This follows an investigation by homicide detectives from Specialist Crime.

North West BCU Commander Roy Smith said:  

I would like to thank the local community for their support both with the investigation and the police activity at and around the scene. I know that colleagues from across the Met have been working tirelessly on this investigation. My officers will remain on patrol in the local area providing continued reassurance – please do stop and speak with them if you have any questions or concerns.

Police were called to Fryent Park, off Slough Lane, at 13:08hrs on Sunday, 7 June to a report of two women found unresponsive. 

Officers and the London Ambulance Service attended the scene and they were pronounced dead at the scene. 

They were sisters, Nicole Smallman, 27, and Bibaa Henry, 46, who lived in Harrow and Brent respectively. 

Enquiries established that they died in the early hours of Saturday, 6 June.

A post-mortem examination conducted on Tuesday, 9 June gave the cause of death for both women as stab wounds”.

Lockdown in London sees pollution halved at commuter hotspots

From Global Action Plan

New research by Environmental Defense Fund Europe (EDFE) and Global Action Plan has found that three commuter hotspots in London, such as Borough High Street, have shown an average decrease in nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) of 30% compared to 9-17% across Greater London. Additionally, these busy areas saw up to 50% drops in pollution during rush hours.  

EDFE analysed pollution data from the Breathe London monitoring network during morning (8-11am) and evening (5-8pm) commuting hours in the first four weeks of lockdown, finding reductions of: 

·       Borough High Street, at the base of London Bridge: 37% morning and 47% evening 

·       Cowcross Street, near Farringdon Train Station: 38% morning and 43% evening 

·       South Street, adjacent to the major transport thoroughfare of Park Lane: 32% morning and 50% evening 

These three sites were also in the top five of overall NO₂ pollution reduction locations for the Breathe London network. NO₂ is a toxic pollutant produced when fossil fuels such as diesel, petrol or natural gas are burned. 

In order to keep air pollution down, particularly during rush hour, Global Action Plan is calling on businesses to offer remote working to employees to ease pressure during peak travel times. 

Additional research also shows that Londoners are more concerned about the air pollution since lockdown and are keen for it to stay low. A recent survey by Global Action Plan, commissioned by urban health foundation Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, finds: 

·       72% of Londoners noticed cleaner air during lockdown  

·       70% of Londoners want government and local authorities to tackle air pollution and traffic more urgently than before the coronavirus outbreak 

·       40% of Londoners are more concerned about air pollution since the coronavirus outbreak 

·       80% of Londoners would like to work remotely after lockdown to some extent 

·       73% of Londoners are happier not dealing with rush hour 

As part of Global Action Plan’s call for continued remote working through the Build Back Cleaner Air project with Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Charity, they are helping businesses emerge safely and sustainably from the coronavirus pandemic. The project is offering businesses free support through the Business for Clean Air Initiative which launched on June 24^th. It’s the UK’s first free initiative to help businesses prioritise the most impactful ways to cut air pollution and make a green recovery post lockdown. Companies can sign up for free, here: https://bit.ly/2V44hpl 

Shirley Rodrigues, Londond Deputy Mayor for Environment and Energy, says:

Toxic air contributes to thousands of premature deaths in London every year and there is emerging evidence linking air pollution with an increased vulnerability to COVID-19. The Mayor has taken bold action with measures such as the world’s first Ultra Low Emission Zone and Low Emission Bus Zones, and they are already transforming the air we breathe. 

London’s recovery from this pandemic must be a green, fair and prosperous one, and it’s clear that Londoners agree. Our challenge is to eradicate air pollution permanently and ensure the gains we’ve made through policies such as ULEZ continue. The Mayor’s new Streetspace programme is fast-tracking the transformation of streets across our city to enable many more people to walk and cycle. By making the right choices we can all play a part in tackling our air pollution crisis.

Chris Large, Co-CEO at Global Action Plan, says:  

These findings are clear: air pollution clears up rapidly when we stop driving polluting vehicles. Children in some London boroughs average 10% smaller lungs than the UK average, and this stunting stays for life. Businesses can end this disadvantage to London’s inner-city children by committing to tackling air pollution.

Oliver Lord, Head of Policy and Campaigns, EDFE says: 

Last year, the Breathe London network recorded seriously elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution at some of the busiest commuter areas during rush hour. Lockdown has made a huge difference and shown how much it is in our hands to build back better.

Kate Langford, Programme Director, Health Effects of Air Pollution, Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charity, says:  

We know that air pollution disproportionately impacts some people’s health more than others, including children and people with long-term conditions. There is also emerging evidence that COVID-19 leads to long-term lung damage and the groups disproportionality impacted by the virus are likely to be affected by air pollution as their lungs recover. This research makes clear that Londoner’s want the cleaner air and safer streets they have experienced in the last few months to remain, and that all parts of society including employers and businesses have a part to play in making the cities we live in healthier.

Tributes paid to Bibaa and Nicole as Fryent Country Park is reclaimed by the community

It was windy on top of Gotsford Hill today so sound quality leaves a lot to be desired

The community came together today at a Memorial Service on Gotsford Hill organised by Holy Innocents Church, Kingsbury for Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry.

It was strange to be able to walk through the park for the first time since the murders. The meadows were golden, ripened by the sun, and meadow brown butterflies flew up ahead of me.  It was heart warming to see a cycling couple with their young child relaxing under one of the massive oak trees.

I could see the crowd at the top of the hill in the distance and then as I got closer there were signs of the police search with painted numbers on the ground as various points.  Even closer the hedgerows had been hacked away by the search teams and lined the edge of the meadows.

From the summit you could see lines of people, singly and in couples and groups, some with their dogs, climbing up the many paths to the top of the hill and once there exchanging subdued greetings.

I am no longer religious but I know people have been crying out for the opportunity to come together, despite lockdown, to come together and affirm community and their love for the park, but most importantly to stand united against the dreadful events that has taken place there so very recently. 

BREAKING: Arrest made in Fryent double murder investigation

From the Metropolitan Police


Detectives investigating the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman in Wembley have arrested a man overnight.

The 18-year-old was arrested at an address in south London on suspicion of both murders. He was taken into custody where he remains.

Detective Chief Inspector Simon Harding, who is leading the investigation at Specialist Crime, said:

“This investigation into the awful death of two sisters is of course a priority for the MPS and my officers have been working around the clock to identify the person responsible.

“Given the significance of this development, we visited the family in person today to inform them of the arrest. Our thoughts remain with them at this very difficult time.

“A team of forensic officers have been a constant presence at the park over the last few weeks carrying out meticulous fingertip searches at what is a vast and complex crime scene. Whilst that work has now concluded, smaller searches in outer areas of the park will continue. To date officers have recovered more than 1,000 exhibits – including property belonging to both Nicole and Bibaa, collected hours of CCTV and visited hundreds of homes and businesses. And those enquiries remain ongoing.

“I would continue to appeal to the public to come forward with any information they feel may be relevant to our investigation.”

Statement ends 

The statement was released just 2 hours before an open air memorial service is due to take place on Gotfords Hill, Fryent Country Park (1pm)

Brook Avenue, Wembley Park: The latest street to fall victim to high rise buildings

Guest post by a Brook Avenue resident

Proposals for the redevelopment of Wembley Park Station car park to build five new buildings between 13 and 21 storeys in height (456 residential units) have been submitted to the council. This is just the latest site highlighted for high rise, excessive density buildings that are slowly changing the face of Wembley as we know it. As a resident of Brook Avenue and having read the various local, London and national plans, I believe that the proposed development contravenes many of the policies set out in the plans and would have a serious adverse impact on the area. The site will be overdeveloped, compromising the quality of the development, character of the street and supporting infrastructure capabilities. If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, or even if you have been left feeling disenfranchised about the emergence of such buildings in Wembley, please read on. Details on how to get involved will be at the bottom of this post.

The 5 blocks will be 13, 13, 14,17 and 21 storeys in height, on a parcel of land that is far too small at 0.67 hectares. 

The site itself has been highlighted in numerous council plans as being “inappropriate” for tall buildings, as per the London plans guidance to grade sites on their “appropriateness” for tall buildings. Based on the council's own policies, the site is clearly not suitable for such buildings and should not be given approval. Given the significant detrimental impact tall buildings can have on local character, it is important that they emerge as part of a planned exercise in placemaking, rather than in an ad hoc, speculative way.

Wembley Area Action Plan

Areas inappropriate for tall buildings are highlighted in red

Historically, Brent is characterised by low to mid rise buildings, with any tall buildings being directed towards town centres. A 21 storey building on a road with mainly two and multi storey buildings would be completely out of keeping with the context and character of the area. The proposed developments will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia and as the London Plan, Chapter 7.21 states: “The building form and layout should have regard to the density and character of the surrounding development”. I'm sure over the years many of you have noticed a surge in tall buildings in Wembley, often in areas where they do not fit in with the suburban surrounding character. Whilst it is understandable that the push for taller buildings stems from a need for more housing, high density does not always have to mean high rise development. Perhaps efforts should be made for developments that both contribute to the required density and are also in keeping with the character of the area.

 A rendering of what the tallest block will look like as you enter Brook Avenue from Olympic Square

 Rendering of what the buildings would look like from verified view - Barn Rise junction with Eversley Avenue and ...

 ... Kingswood Road at junction with Elmside Road

The increase in density due to the developments would amount to serious ‘cramming’ on what is a quiet, residential, low density road. The buildings adjacent (Matthew's Close) were given an indicative capacity of 100 units in the Wembley Area Action Plan- so how can a site that is on the same street and is in fact 0.2 hectares smaller, be allowed to be built at the indicative capacity of more than quadruple that? The development would also intensify pressure on already burdened infrastructure such as schools and GP’s. The 456 units, which would house more than double that in people, would result in an increased demand for school places within the Borough, without providing any contribution to building new school classrooms. It would mean an increased pressure for the use of existing open space, without contributions to enhance that open space. The development only provides an average of 12.8sqm of private and communal amenity space per unit- this equates to only 64% of the local plan requirements, which would lead to greater pressure on the surrounding open spaces in the area (like what is currently going on with King Edwards Park). Where is the commitment from the council to create open, green spaces to accommodate the growing population of Wembley?

The proposal also makes no provisions for the loss of a car park which accommodates 200 visitors daily.  Brook Avenue is the most heavily parked road in Brent and the loss of the car park, as well as the addition of 456 new homes, will have a serious adverse impact on the street as well as the surrounding areas. Parking will spill onto Brook avenue (a street which already has issues with street parking) as well as the surrounding Barn Hill area. Without mitigation measures, the high levels of population growth anticipated due to the development will place serious pressure on the existing road network, particularly on event days.

The development will not make a significant contribution to Brent's housing needs as it favours one bed and studio flats as opposed to family homes. Brent’s predominant needs are more for larger sized (3 bed or more) family dwellings. Of the 456 dwellings that are proposed to be built, only 10% will be 3 bedroom, as opposed to the 25% that is required by the council. This is a clear lack of consideration for families which should be encouraged to stay and contribute to the establishment of a long term mixed and sustainable community in Wembley. The council's own policy states:

“It is not the intention of the council to build a large transitional location for single people and childless couples who may be forced to move on because there is no choice of family homes available”

The Development would also lead to breaches of the BRE Guidelines (Building Research Establishment) in terms of daylight and sunlight received by the neighbouring properties. It is understandable that existing levels of light cannot be maintained, but this should not be to such a degree that they breach BRE guidelines. The council should ensure that the quality of housing output is not compromised by the need to make the most efficient use of land.

The proposed development will pose both a literal, and metaphorical encroachment on residential suburbia. It seems that this development, like many others emerging all around Wembley, puts quantity over quality. Under the guise of “making the most efficient use of land”, other equally important criteria have been ignored, such as quality, capacity of the street, parking, impact on amenities etc. It should not go remiss to mention that should the council expect it’s policies to be taken seriously, it should lead by example, and not repeatedly contravene it’s own plans through granting permission for development where it would otherwise be unsuitable. If a building that violates so many local and national policies is granted planning permission, what will this mean for the future of Wembley?

Through the strive for the ‘regeneration’ of Wembley, the council has seemingly overlooked the thoughts and opinions of the people who make it what it is: its residents. I urge you all to get involved to help make our voices heard. I will leave you all with a quote from the Emerging Local Plan, Paragraph 4.51:

Meeting indicative capacities should not be used to justify overriding other policies where it would result in creating poor developments.

Get involved:

If you are a resident of Brook avenue or the surrounding area, you can object to this development either by writing your comments on the council website (the application reference number is 20/0967) or emailing your objection to Toby.huntingford@brent.gov.uk .

Resident of Brook Avenue