EXPOSED! – Improper bias by Brent’s Planners over the Hazel Road application.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1. The Victorian mission hall (now Harriet Tubman House) and Community Centre in Hazel Road, NW10.

 

How often have you heard complaints that Brent Council’s Planning Officers appear to favour developers, rather than the local community? Well now there is clear evidence that they have done that, in a blatantly unfair way, in the case of the application (ref. 25/0041) by the Making The Leap (“MTL”) charity to demolish a heritage Victorian building, and replace it with a larger four storey aluminium-clad building.

 

In January 2025, Martin published an article about opposition from Kensal Green Residents’ Association (“KGRA”) to these plans. KGRA asked Willesden Local History Society for help with the heritage aspects of the application, and as a result I prepared an alternative heritage statement (“my AHS”), which was shared with Wembley Matters readers in February.

 

This will be a long guest post, but I hope you will stay with it while I take you, step-by-step, through the evidence, to show the underhand way in which this application has been dealt with. 

 

Much of the evidence comes from Brent’s response (on 2 September, after taking the full 20 working days allowed) to a Freedom of Information Act request by Kensal Green Residents' Association. This asked for copies of the “feedback” on the application, given by Brent’s Planning Officers to MTL or its agents. The information was in thirteen separate pdf documents, with titles like ’07.04 corr_redacted’, containing copies of email exchanges between January and early August 2025. As some of the emails referred to my AHS, KGRA forwarded the response to me.

 

Most of the email correspondence was with Brent’s Planning Case Officer, and I have added extra redactions to the copies included in this article, so that this is not a personal attack on one Council employee. I will refer to the Planning Officer as “AB” (with “A” the first name and “B” the surname – you will see why!). It seems unlikely that the Officer was “one bad apple”, and more likely that what has occurred in this case is symptomatic of a wider culture which operates within Brent’s Planning Department.

 

Before I show you what was wrong with the handling of MTL’s application 25/0041, I hope you will forgive me for explaining the way in which planning applications should be dealt with. In Brent’s Case, this is set out in a Planning Code of Practice, which forms part of the Constitution (the rules which govern how the Council operates).

 

2. Two key extracts from Brent Council’s Planning Code of Practice.

 

Brent’s Planning Code of Practice makes clear that Officers must deal with planning applications fairly and impartially and comply with the standards set out by the Royal Town Planning Institute (“RTPI”) in carrying out their work. These are two relevant extracts from the RTPI’s ‘Practical Advice on Ethics and Professional Standards’:

 

3. Two key extracts from the RTPI guidance ‘Probity and Professional Planners’.

 

“Probity” is not a commonly used word, but it is a very important one (also repeated in the Local Government Association’s guidance to local planning authorities: “Probity in Planning”). It means carrying out your duties with a high standard of honesty and integrity, and according to the procedures and rules set out for those duties. Sadly, as I’m about to show, that was not the case with application 25/0041, which was submitted in January 2025.

 

4. Email of 6 January from DP9 to the Case Officer – application submitted.

 

DP9 are the planning agents handling the application on behalf of MTL. From the way in which the Case Officer is addressed by their first name, and the familiar tone of the email, the Senior Planner at DP9 appears to already know the Planning Officer who will be handling the application on behalf of Brent Council. This was probably because of pre-application advice which was sought before the application was submitted. That is a service which Brent’s Planning Department offers, and which potential applicants are encouraged to use (but see the note at the bottom of this advice).

 

5. The Pre-application advice section from Brent’s Planning website.

 

Not only is pre-application advice informal, with no guarantee that it will lead to a subsequent application being given planning permission, but Brent’s Planning Code of Practice makes clear that the advice given at that stage must not lead to pre-determination or bias in the way in which the application is dealt with by Brent’s Planning Officers.

 

6. Extract from the Pre-application Advice section of Brent’s Planning Code of Practice.

 

The January 2025 correspondence, which followed from the 6 January email at 4. above, was mainly about the “validation” of application 25/004, and also involved a Technical Support Officer. Although Brent’s planners did not accept that the application was valid until 16 January, they agreed (at DP9’s request) to backdate the validation date to 7 January. That date is when the time limit for deciding the application starts to run. 

 

It was expected that the decision would be made at Delegated Team Manager level, and it appears that MTL were hoping its application would be approved within the time limit, so that work could begin in April 2025. However, by the end of January there were already enough objections, mainly from local residents but also from Queens Park Ward councillors, to ensure that the application would have to be decided by Brent’s Planning Committee. Many had been submitted by email, and DP9 wanted copies:

 

7. Email from DP9 to the Case Officer on 4 February 2025.

 

After a chasing email from the planning agent, the Case Officer responded on 20 February, saying: ‘We would have to do a lot of redactions to remove personal information from the objections we’ve received which would be very time-consuming. So instead I think its best if I just send across a summary of the main objection points received from these objections in question - would this be ok with you?’ 

 

The next day, the Case Officer did send the Senior Planner at DP9 a large batch of information on the objections received, with an email beginning (after ‘Hi [first name], I hope you are well’):

 

8. List of main objection points from Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 21 February 2025.

 

I had submitted my AHS on 13 February, setting out why the application failed all six of the tests in Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1, and other Brent planning policies, and must be refused. My AHS was also referred to in the 21 February email, along with advice on how the planning agent should respond to it! This is what the Case Officer wrote:

 

‘Just further on the heritage element, you may have also seen an objector submit an alternative heritage statement online? This has been made in response to the formal submitted one. I have shared with our own heritage consultant who has advised that as it is well researched, an updated heritage statement should be submitted to consider the significance scoring as set out in the alternative HS.  It would also need to better justify the proposals as well as set out the benefits.  For example, in terms of 'good design', the need for a fit for purpose building and one that delivers public benefits.  The fact that it can't be delivered currently within the building and needs to be on this site (not elsewhere) etc.’

 

9. The Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 27 February 2025.

 

The Case Officer followed up that email on 27 February (see image 9. above), and it is clear from the second highlighted sentence that ‘we’ (Brent’s Planning Officers) were already getting ready to put the application forward to Brent’s Planning Committee. They would only do that if they were going to recommend that the application should be approved, despite all of the objections received showing that it failed to comply with Brent’s adopted Local Plan policies. In ‘trying to pre-empt some of the questions that councillors would have’, they were looking to find ways of justifying why the application should be approved, despite failing to comply with planning policy. That goes against Brent’s Planning Code of Practice, which is ‘designed to ensure that planning decisions are taken on proper planning grounds’!

  

There were exchanges of emails between the Case Officer and DP9 during March 2025 (on first name terms), and on 26 March the Case Officer sent the agent a copy of the pdf document version of my AHS (which had been redacted, to hide my identity). I have no objection to that action, as it was only fair that the planning agent should have the opportunity to respond to my detailed demolition of the application’s original heritage statement! 

 

10. The Case Officer’s email to DP9 on 4 April 2025.

 

The email on 4 April (see image 10. above) clearly shows that the Case Officer hoped to get MTL’s application decided at a Planning Committee meeting in early May, and was chasing for a revised heritage statement (which would be needed so that Planning Officers could claim that it answered the points raised in my AHS). That revised heritage statement was submitted with an email on 7 April, following a telephone call with the Case Officer, which DP9 had asked for ‘to discuss some items on the application’.

 

11. Email from DP9 to Case Officer on 7 April, sending applicant’s revised heritage statement.

 

The Case Officer responded by email on 8 April, saying:

 

‘Thank you for your call yesterday and for sending the revised heritage statement and the drainage plan which we will review.

 

As mentioned to allow for enough time for review and given that we do not have space at the May committee, we are therefore targeting the June committee for determination. Please can we agree to a time extension until the end of June (30.06.2025)?’

 

The revised heritage statement was loaded onto the “View Documents” page on the Brent planning website for application 25/0041 on 17 April. On the same date (the last working day before the Easter long weekend) there was this exchange of emails between the Senior Planner at DP9 and the Case Officer:-

 

12. Email of 17 April at 14:38 from DP9 Senior Planner to Case Officer.

 

 13. Email of 17 April at 16:24 from Case Officer to DP9 Senior Planner.

 

DP9 had to submit a revised version of their revised heritage statement after the Case Officer had pointed out that the document sent on 7 April still referred to the Barnet Core Strategy as the relevant local policy! The Case Officer’s final comment, that they’re hopeful of ‘reaching a positive outcome at committee’, confirms that Brent’s Planners intend to recommend that the planning application is approved, despite its failure to comply with a number of Brent’s adopted planning policies.

 

I had seen that there was a revised heritage statement when checking the planning website, and submitted another objection comment online on 28 April. This made clear that it was only a slightly revised version of the original heritage statement, and did not undermine the case I had made in my AHS of 13 February:

 

‘My AHS set out clearly, at paragraphs 4.2 to 4.8, how the proposals in application 25/0041 failed to meet the requirements of all six parts, a) to f), of policy BHC1, as well as Brent’s Local Plan policies DMP1, BD1 and BP6 South East. That is still the case, and those failures, both individually and combined, are very good reasons why this application must be refused.’

 

A few days later, on 2 May, the Case Officer sent this email to the person who had taken over responsibility for the MTL application at DP9:

 

 14. Email from the Case Officer to DP9 on 2 May 2025.

 

By saying that: ‘unfortunately we do not consider that [the April revised heritage statement] has fully addressed the matters raised in the alternative heritage statement’, the Case Officer is admitting that I had shown the application failed to comply with the Council’s heritage planning policy. It would not be possible for Planning Officers to recommend approving planning consent unless they could claim that my AHS had been disproved (or at least a key part of it).

 

However, the Case Officer did not leave it to DP9 (or the apparent author of its heritage statements, The Townscape Consultancy) to consider how they should respond, for a second time, to my AHS. They actually told them, in the final highlighted paragraph, what they should write! That would not deal with the whole of the case I had set out as to why the application must be refused, but it would allow Planning Officers, in their Committee Report, to make the argument that the application fulfilled the requirements of the crucial paragraph e) of Brent’s heritage planning policy BHC1. And when the second revised heritage statement (“RHS2”) was submitted, its paragraph 1.3 was almost a copy of the final paragraph of the Case Officer’s 2 May email!

 

15. Extract from the May 2025 revised heritage statement on behalf of the applicant.

 

The RHS2 was sent to the Case Officer on 27 May, by the Associate at DP9 who had taken over from the Senior Planner. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that statement at the end of this post, if possible, so that anyone who is interested can read it.

 

16. Email from DP9 to the Case Officer on 27 May, attaching the second revised heritage statement.

 

The Case Officer replied to that email the same afternoon, thanking the Associate at DP9 for the document. In the final paragraph of their email the Case Officer wrote:

 

‘Moving forward, we are looking at future committee dates and we have a target for the July committee which is set for the 9^th July. However, I will confirm this with my manager and this date may depend on whether a re-consultation for the revised heritage statement is necessary. I will keep you informed.’

 

It was correctly decided that a new public consultation period was necessary, and the Case Officer sent out letters about this on 10 June 2025:-

 

17. The top section of Brent’s re-consultation letter of 10 June 2025.

 

The re-consultation was specifically so that anyone who wished to could comment on the RHS2, which had been submitted on 27 May, and the letter went on to say: ‘Comments should be made by: 10 July 2025.’ However, the RHS2 was not published on the online “View Documents” planning webpage for application 25/0041 until 9 July!

 

18. Extract from the “View Documents” menu for application 25/0041 on Brent’s planning website.

 

Was this just a “clerical error” by Brent’s Planning Department, or was it a deliberate attempt to try to prevent any further objections to the RHS2, which said what the Case Officer (and others?) wanted, as set out in the email of 2 May (see image 14 above)? I do know that an email I sent to the Case Officer on 10 June, with a copy to the Head of Planning (“HoP”), should have alerted them to the fact that the RHS2 was not available to comment on. I wrote:

 

‘Dear A B,

 

Application 25/0041 - Harriet Tubman House, 28 Hazel Road, NW10 5PP

 

Can you tell me what is going on over this application, please?

 

Today I have received eight emails from RegenAdminservices, each with a copy of a 10 June letter from you attached, telling me about a "new" consultation period for this application. 

 

I went to the webpage, and could not see anything new, but when I read the letter more closely, I saw that the only "new" item was the revised heritage statement, which was received around eight weeks ago! I submitted a comment in response to that revised statement around 28 April, showing that it was only marginally better than the pathetic original attempt at a heritage statement submitted as part of the initial application.’

I received no reply to that 10 June email to the Case Officer, and it was only when I was checking the website for application 25/0041 in late July, for anything “new”, that I discovered the RHS2, which had only appeared there on 9 July. I also saw this on the “Important Dates” page:

 

19. The “Important Dates” page for application 25/0041, as shown on 28 July 2025.

 

The redacted emails supplied by Brent, in response to KGRA's FoI request, show that on 25 June the Case Officer had written to DP9 saying:

 

‘The revised heritage statement is out for consultation, and we are aiming for a committee date of the 6th August, however the latter is subject to the progression of a draft legal agreement. I am about to instruct our legal team on this and I will inform you of the heads of terms shortly.’

 

That legal agreement, about which there was further correspondence, was the Section 106 agreement which would be required as part of the planning consent, involving various financial contributions and undertakings from the applicant. However, other problems emerged, which meant that the application could not go to the August Planning Committee meeting:

 

20. Email of 22 July from the Case Officer to DP9.

 

Network Rail had made an early objection to the application, because of the possible effect of the proposed demolition, and construction of a new building, above railway tunnels that run under the Hazel Road Open Space and part of Harriet Tubman House. The Case Officer was telling the planning agent that this objection had to be withdrawn ‘before we can take this to committee’ – in other words, before we can recommend Planning Committee to approve the application.

 

At that stage, the Case Officer did not see the heritage objections (there were others beside my own) as a problem, because no one had raised objections to the RHS2 (for reasons which are obvious above!). However, on 19 August I did submit a further detailed objection comment (‘in response to the Revised Heritage Statement submitted in July 2025’ – not knowing then that it had been submitted in May!). I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that document at the end of this article, if possible, for anyone who wishes to read it.

 

My August objection comment disproved the claim that the RHS2 rebutted the method of scoring the heritage significance of the Victorian building (I had used the method adopted by Brent’s Planning Committee in July 2015!), and the claim that the demolition would only cause a low to medium level of harm to the heritage asset. As yet, there has been no published response to my latest objection. 

 

  

 21. Email of 7 August from the Case Officer to DP9.

 

The most recent email from the Case Officer, obtained through the FoI request, is dated 7 August (before my latest heritage objection comment), said that Planning Officers were ‘aiming to get this case heard at the September planning committee.’ But it was not on the agenda for that meeting, and the request for ‘an extension of time until the 31^st October 2025’ suggests that they hope to get the application approved at the next meeting, on 23 October.

 

Thank you, if you have had the patience to read through this article, and the copy documents I have displayed in it. I hope you will agree that the evidence shows a lack of both impartiality and fairness by Brent Planners, through their Case Officer in particular, in dealing with the MTL application 25/0041.

 

There were numerous valid objections, from the local community, pointing out failures to comply with planning policy over the size of the proposed building, it being totally out of character with the Victorian street, overlooking and loss of sunlight to neighbouring properties, among other reasons. All of these objections were treated as if they did not matter – they could be argued away in the Officers’ Report to Planning Committee, either as minor and “acceptable” breaches of Brent’s Local Plan policies, or that Officers “consider” that those policies were complied with. (How many times have we seen that in other Reports!)

 

On my own objections, over the failure to comply with Brent’s heritage planning policy, the applicant’s own heritage statements could not make a strong enough case to show that their application met the necessary requirements. The Case Officer actually told them what they should write, so that Brent’s Planners could claim that my AHS of February 2025 should be discounted. The evidence is there, in the Case Officer’s emails to the planning agent of 21 February and 2 May (see image 14 above). That action is the opposite of the requirement in Brent’s Planning Code of Practice that Officers must consider and decide planning matters ‘in a fair, impartial and transparent manner.’

 

Throughout the email evidence, which has only come to light because of a Freedom of Information Act request (thanks to KGRA!), it is clear that the Case Officer has been biased in favour of approving the planning application, and that their Manager(s) have done nothing to prevent this. Not only has there been bias, that appears to have been the attitude from the time application 25/0041 was submitted in January 2025, so there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there was pre-determination by Brent’s Planners, that they’d already decided it should be approved. That would be a serious ‘procedural impropriety’ (to use the words of the Planning Code of Practice), or in plain English downright dishonest, and potentially unlawful.

 

Having seen the evidence, I felt that I must share it publicly, to expose what has gone on in the Council’s Planning Department over the Hazel Road application. It was unacceptable behaviour, and must be challenged and dealt with if Brent is to have a fair and honest planning system.

Philip Grant.

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

LETTER: Brent Friends of Palestine: Still Active, Still Speaking Out

 

Dear Editor, 

On behalf of the Brent Friends of Palestine (BFoP) Committee, thank you to everyone who emailed Queens Park Residents Association (QPARA) to express your dismay at BFoP not being allocated a stall at the annual Queens Park Day on 14.9.25. This was despite BFoP having a stall there in 2023 and 2024. 

 

The BFoP stall at Queens Park Day aimed to promote the Palestine Trauma Centre UK and the therapeutic work it delivers with children and families in Gaza, and in particular their Days of Joy project. BFoP has fund-raised for this project for over 10 years. While at the stalls in ’23 and ‘24 committee members and supporters spoke to many interested people and gave out leaflets which informed them about the work of the PTCUK and how to donate to the fund supporting this work. Everything we did focused on the humanitarian issues affecting the children and their families in Gaza. 

 

Above the PTCUK Days of Joy display board on the stall we had the sign ‘Brent Friends of Palestine’; we included this because we are the local organisation that arranges fund-raising events for the PTCUK and publicises their work. We can only surmise that it was this sign that made the stall too political for QPARA. However we cannot find any communication from QPARA to tell us this, or ask us to remove the sign at future stalls. 

 

When QPARA initially rejected BFoP’s request for a stall in 2025, we reached out to them. In July one of the committee members and a QPARA member, who had helped out at the BFoP stall in previous years and is a keen supporter of PTCUK’s work, met with the Chairperson of QPARA. He was sympathetic to some extent and agreed that our committee member could talk to an open QPARA meeting. Unfortunately neither meeting changed QPARA’s decision to refuse the BFoP stall. 

 

In the end a small PTCUK stall was hosted inside the QPARA tent on the day. This was not organised by BFoP and we were not consulted. As we understand it, the QPARA member who had met with the Chairperson in July had been asked by QPARA if he would run the stall, probably as a result of the large number of emails QPARA had received regarding BFoP being denied a stall. As one of our committee members said ‘at least Palestine was mentioned somewhere on Queens Park Day’. 

 

This episode shows that we must continue to speak up on behalf of the Palestinian people. The horror in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, both of which are continually being shown on our screens, have to be challenged. Your support matters. 

 

We welcome you to fund-raising events for the PTCUK and at meetings held in the local area about the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are finalising details for a meeting in November and we will ensure it is publicised on the Wembley Matters Blog. 

 

Brent Friends of Palestine 

 

 

 https://www.palestinetraumacentre.uk/

A Visit to Brent’s former Town Hall (now the Lycée International de Londres Winston Churchill) in Forty Lane, Wembley.

Guest post by local historian Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Today 24th September is the 35th anniversary of the Town Hall being given Grade II listed status for its architectural and historic significance.

 

1. Brent Town Hall in 2009.

 

Last Monday, I was in the Council Chamber at Brent Civic Centre, presenting a petition to save a heritage building. Two days earlier, I had been in the Council Chamber at another local heritage building, the former Brent Town Hall in Forty Lane, Wembley. As part of its 10^th anniversary, the French Lycée was giving guided tours of this Grade II listed (since 24 September 1990) building, which I had last been in to attend a Planning Committee meeting in 2013, as part of Open House weekend.

 

2.The Council Chamber (still with that name) is regularly used for school meetings.

 

The building dates from the late 1930s, after Wembley and Kingsbury Urban District Councils had merged in 1934. A site of just over 2 hectares was bought, on a hillside between Kings Drive and The Paddocks, land which had previously been a polo club (with paddocks for its ponies), then used as a camp for a huge jamboree of Boy Scouts from across the British Empire, in conjunction with the Exhibition at Wembley in 1924. A promising young architect, Clifford Strange, was chosen for the town hall’s design in 1935, and work eventually got underway in 1937 (after a public enquiry over whether the Council should borrow £160,000 to fund the building – equivalent to around £14.5m now).

 

3.Ceremonial breaking of the first ground for the Town Hall in 1937.

 

The foundation stone was laid on 9 October 1937, and carries the name of the Urban District Council, even though it had received its charter, becoming the Borough of Wembley, a week earlier. Strange’s design, in Lincolnshire brick but with a steel frame, was different from many town halls of the same period because it was influenced by the work of the Dutch architect, Willem Dudok, and features from Scandinavian buildings. It has an asymmetrical plan, with the main entrance off-centre, and a “T” shape, with a frontage 350ft (106 metres) long and a large Assembly Hall stretching out at the back, behind the wide central staircase tower.

 

4.Aerial view of WembleyTown Hall, nearing completion in 1939.

 

One of the first things I learned on my visit to the building is that the Lycée, since purchasing the Town Hall from Brent Council and taking occupation at the beginning of 2014, has been very careful to preserve the fabric and features of the heritage building. This has meant long discussions at times with Historic England, and extra expense, but the results of their care are evident as you go around it. Even the framed school photographs, in the reception area as you pass through the entrance doors, are stuck (reversibly) to the marble wall, as no drilling is allowed. 

 

One original feature, just inside the doors, is the box office window, where tickets for Town Hall events were sold. The grand Assembly Hall, which would seat 1,200 people, was not just for show. It was a commercial entertainment venue, with a full programme of events organised by the Council’s own Entertainments Manager, and employing its own dance orchestra. Events were advertised weekly in the local newspapers – this example is from March 1952 (the same week that Wembley History Society was formed, when more than 100 residents answered an invitation from the Mayor to attend a founding meeting in the Council Chamber!).

 

5.A Wembley Borough Council entertainments advert.
(Source: Brent Archives local newspaper microfilms)

 

Going up the pale cream marble staircase, with matching marble walls and art deco style hand rails, on the left at the next level is the internal entrance to the Library. Wembley did not have its own library service, this was provided by Middlesex County Council, and the Town Hall Library until at least the 1950s was just a reference library, with the main public access via steps up from Kings Drive. I remember it as a normal Brent Public Library, where I would display posters advertising the History Society’s programme of talks, and where I organised two small local history exhibitions (including one celebrating the Society’s 60^th anniversary).

 

6.Part of the 2012 Wembley History Society exhibition in the Town Hall Library.

 

The Lycée still uses the library for its original purpose, but it is also more than that, including tables for playing chess, and a small display of “finds” from the grounds by its Archaeology Club. It is a bright and airy space, as you can see from this photograph.

 

7.The former Town Hall Library in September 2025.

 

Continuing up the stairs, you come to the large landing space in front of the Assembly Hall, which the signs the Lycée inherited tell you is still called the Paul Daisley Hall, named after the former Council Leader and Brent East M.P. who tragically died of cancer in 2003. This space is often used by students to congregate and chat during breaks, and the curved display cases on either side of the entrance to the Hall are currently hidden by protective sheeting. This photograph from 2012 will give you an idea of what they look like, and of the marble which they used to line the walls of the central staircase area in the 1930s.

 

8.One of the display cases beside the Hall entrance (used for the WHS exhibition in 2012)

 

At the edge of the photo above, you can just see a sign for the ladies’ toilets. Although those toilets have now been extensively modernised for use by the Lycée’s students, the original metal letters for the “Ladies Cloakroom”, fixed into the marble, have still been retained above the entrance. 

 

When you enter the Paul Daisley Hall itself, you can see what a large public hall it is, still with its original parquet flooring, which has been sanded and polished to show it at its best. However, as it is now used as an indoor sports hall, there are the markings for several courts, and the wood-lined lower walls of the lofty hall are protected by absorbent sheeting to protect them from damage. The stage area is also screened off, although this can be removed when the hall is used for performances.

 

 

9.The Paul Daisley Hall, now used by the Lycée as a sports hall.

 

As you go up the staircase to the next level, there is a great view across Wembley Park through the large window which fronts the central tower of the building. Originally, it looked across to the twin towers of Wembley Stadium, and when I was there more than ten years ago you could see the new stadium. Now you can barely see the Wembley Arch, for all the tower blocks built during the past decade (whatever happened to ‘protected views’ of the Stadium!).

 

 

10.Wembley Park, from the central staircase window.

 

11.The 60^th anniversary memorial on the glass screen fronting the Council Chamber.

 

As you emerge from the stairs at the next level, the Council Chamber is in front of you, separated from the landing by a full height glass screen. This curved screen is another innovative feature of the late 1930s Town Hall, whose design includes elements of both modernism and Art Deco, and allows plenty of light into the Council Chamber. To the left on this floor are the three Committee Rooms, all wood panelled, with partitions which can be folded back to create one large room. The students in the group showing us round were reminded that this provided a good-sized exam room, but their “Professeur” said that it had also been used recently for a staff cèilidh (well, parts of France do have a Celtic connection!).

 

12.The Council Chamber from the public gallery.

 

I included a photo inside the Council Chamber early in this article, but we were also able to visit the public gallery on the top floor, to look down on it. The three arm chairs (apparently used by the Mayor and others during formal Council meetings – can any present or former councillors confirm that in a comment, please?) were left behind by Brent when the Town Hall was sold, as features of the heritage building. We were told by Laurent (pictured – the Lycée’s Chief Executive Officer, and proud guardian of the heritage building since 2014) that students are not allowed into the public gallery, as the railing at the front is too low for today’s safety standards, but can’t be changed because it is an original feature.

 

13.Inside and outside views of the former Town Hall’s roof garden room.

 

Another part of the former Town Hall, that I had never been in was what I will call the roof garden room. This is very much an Art Deco feature, which is set back from the three-storey right-hand office wing of the building. Although most of the windows in the building were replaced with modern-standard copies of the originals as part of its refurbishment before the Lycée opened in September 2015, the 1930s floor to ceiling windows in this room had to be retained. I don’t know what the room’s original purpose was, although at a guess I would think it was for official receptions of the Council’s guests.

 

14.A corner of the “Mayor’s Parlour”, with its original desk.

 

Nearby is the former Mayor’s Parlour, where the Mayors of Wembley, then Brent, would have their office and would also entertain guests. It has beautiful wood panelled walls, with curved corners, again an Art Deco feature. It is now the office of the Lycée’s Head of School, Mireille Rabaté, and includes the matching desk which was part of the original Town Hall, again left by Brent Council as part of the building’s heritage. And the photo on her desk is, of course, of Winston Churchill, after whom this bilingual international school is named. If you wish to read about the Lycée, you can find their website here.

 

Philip Grant.

 

The next Brent Council administration will inherit a perilous financial situation

 

 Cllr Jumbo Chan at Brent Full Council on September 15th 2025

 Cllr Jumbo Chan, who has quietly and assiduously been doing a very competent job as vice chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, took just 2 and a half minutes at Full Council to inform his fellow councillors of the upcoming serious financial issues facing Brent Council. There was no reaction or questions from his colleagues. Cllr Chan is one of the recently deselected councillors.

His Committee meets again on Thursday and will consider the Interim Auditor's Annual Report LINK , a report on Council's work on actions following the Social Housing Regulator's finding of serious failings in Brent Housing Management LINK, and the Council's Risk Register.

It is clear that whoever forms the next adminstration after the May 2026 local elections will face a very rocky, if not perilous ride.

 

 The biggest impact and most likely risks include the number of people needing homeless accommodation, the High Needs SEND grant deficit, financial resilience (including the Housing Revenue Account following the repairs needed in the light of the Social Housing Regulator's findings) and a decline in Council reserves. 

The Auditor's report, despite the bland language, suggests that without further cuts and revenue raising the Council might have to  apply for additional emergency government funding (Exceptiona Financial Support) at high interest rates.

AUDITOR'S REPORT 

Here are some of the key points (my highlighting in bold):

Background 

The Council faced continued financial pressures in 2024-25, with a £15.5 million overspend driven largely by rising temporary accommodation costs. While reserves were used to balance the General Fund, the situation remains challenging. Saving plans delivered targeted £8 million in savings. A balanced budget of £431.4 million is set for 2025-26, including an additional £15 million for homelessness, which will cover current demand based upon 2024-25 numbers. However, homelessness pressures are expected to grow, adding further strain. The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) also face financial pressure, with deficits and housing regulatory concerns highlighting the need for a robust, long-term financial recovery plan.

 

Key Recommendation 1

The Council must urgently take additional difficult decisions to ensure that a realistic budget can be set for next year and in the medium-term, so this can be delivered without the need to further draw on reserves nor Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) from central government 

 

 

The funding gap 

 

The difference between any council’s annual income and expenditure is the ‘funding gap’. The budget process aims to close this gap by identifying expenditure savings, additional income or using reserves to provide a balanced position. Any increase at the Council in demand or costs, higher than the growth forecast in the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), will require more savings or additional income to offset.

 

The MTFS, dated February 2025, anticipates a cumulative budget gap of £28 million by 31 March 2029, highlighting increasing financial pressures. Chart 1 sets out the savings and growth delivered to date and projected over a six- year period.

 

• Forecast growth for 2026-27 to 2028-29 in the MTFS is reduced to approximately £26 million per year, which is around 50% lower than the £53.3m million growth budgeted for in 2025-26.

• Forecast savings for 2026-27 to 2028-29 are only marginally higher than those required in 2024-25 and 2025-26.

 

This indicates considerable pressure in the current MTFS with limited scope to absorb unforeseen cost pressures.

 

Current spending levels across the Council are deemed unsustainable and pose a risk to the Council's financial sustainability. Without additional income, additional savings (which links to Key Recommendation 2), or service cuts, the Council is at risk of delivering overspends which cannot be supported by remaining reserves.

 

Impact: If the Council fails to manage demand for services and deliver against budgets the reserves levels will threaten its financial sustainability. Exceptional Financial Support (EFS) may be necessary for 2027-28, which would entail borrowing at a premium to cover revenue costs.

 

Key Recommendation 2: It is critical that savings through the Embrace Change Transformation Programme are quantified and integrated into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) providing a pipeline of sufficient recurrent savings and income generation schemes supported by robust business cases through collaboration and business transformation.

 

 

Areas for Improvement - disposal of property assets

 

Using the property strategy to identify assets that are not operational and not required for service delivery could provide the Council with a pipeline of potential capital receipts which could support the financing of the capital programme. This could reduce long-term borrowing and mitigate additional financing costs. Any plans for asset disposal should be built into the Medium-Term Financial Strategy with realistic timescales, to mitigate potential Exceptional Financial Support needs in 2027-28

 

Improvement Recommendation 1

 

Area for improvement: Using the property strategy to make best use of assets, including the identification of non-operational assets.

 

 

Area for improvement: Strengthening the medium-term financial strategy to reflect and mitigate risks from the Direct Schools grant (DSG) and Housing Revenue Accout) HRA balances.

 

The statutory override on Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) deficits is extended to 2027-28, but the Council’s £13.6 million cumulative deficit remains unresolved, posing a material risk to the MTFS beyond the override period. Alongside pressures in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA), where compliance risks and rising costs threaten long-term sustainability, these issues require urgent financial planning and reserve management.

 

Evidence: Many councils are reporting significant deficits in their DSG accounts due to rising demand for SEND services, especially Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCPs).

 

Management has actively managed the cumulative deficit DSG position from a high of £15.9 million in 2021-22 to £13.6 million at 31 March 2025. It is a strong achievement to have reduced the cumulative deficit and curtailed significant increases, with £1 million received from the Department for Education to mitigate in- year overspends, helping to maintain the deficit and prevent further growth. The Council's DSG Deficit Management Plan has been updated to cover up to and including 2027-28, in line with the extension to the statutory override, by which time the forecast DSG cumulative deficit could be £20.3 million mitigated or £31.3m unmitigated. Uncertainty remains around how the DSG deficit will be managed if the statutory override is not extended beyond 31 March 2028, and this is not built into the MTFS.

 

Meanwhile, the HRA shows a provisional £2.1 million surplus for 2024-25, but long-term sustainability is threatened by housing stock refurbishment costs and debt.

 

The HRA faces significant risk, indicated by the Council's self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing which resulted in a “C3 – significant improvement needed” grading for failing to meet the Safety and Quality Standard in relation to accuracy and completion of fire safety data and housing repairs, highlighting compliance risks and potential cost increases.

Continuous monitoring and assessment are necessary as the Council develops a recovery plan which needs to be funded by the HRA reserve.

 

BRENT HOUSING MANAGEMENT 

The Brent Housing Revenue Account (HRA) had an underspend of £2m in financial year 2023-24 but will be under strain as a result of the works needed to satisfy the Social Housing Regulator and to ensure tenants and leaseholders safety, which is the main consideration.

 

The Action Plan on the issues raised by the Regulator was due early this summer and delayed until September the but still not published. The report before the Audit Committee threfore does not contained a costed programme to ensure compliance and we don't yet know its impact on repairs and rents.

 

Extracts from the report:  [My coments in square brackets]

 

The Health and Safety Specialist have been contracted to support ongoing improvement work, providing additional objective and independent oversight, as well building safety expertise.

 

Caldiston Ltd have carried out an independent forensic audit across all key compliance workstreams (including fire, gas, electrical, water, asbestos and decent homes requirements) which was completed in August 2025. The audit involved desktop reviews, staff interviews and validation of data from multiple systems in use by the service, including True Compliance, NEC, and LifeSpan. [Will audit and recommendations be made public?]

 

The audit aligned with officers' concerns, validating the referral to the regulator confirming that there were significant systemic issues, particularly in data management, governance, and policy implementation. The overall outcome of the audit was that the housing management service has inadequate assurance in relation to managing building safety and compliance.

 

Key recommendations from the audit include developing a comprehensivecompliance framework, resolving data integrity issues, closing overdue fire risk assessment actions, establishing central registers for smoke and CO detectors,and providing staff training on compliance processes. It is also recommended to implement dashboards for real-time KPI monitoring and align the Strategic Risk Register with actual risks.

 

The findings from the audit have highlighted and clarified several areas that the service had already identified as needing focus as well as some additional key learning. These findings will now feed into the development of a robust action plan for improvement. [Publication  when?] This action plan will also include root cause analysis (as recommended by The Regulator), to ensure permanent solutions are in place to prevent similar issues arising in the future and will form a key part of the agenda and monitoring for the relevant project board under the newly established Housing and Tenant Improvement Programme. 

 

Ongoing improvement work

 

Whilst the reflective audit work is vital for lesson learning and effectively mapping robust and long-term improvements to our management of building safety, it has been important to us as a service to ensure we are driving forward rapid improvements on the ground to strengthen oversight quickly and provide re-assurance for our residents
 

The Compliance Team have been onboarding additional contractors to expedite the completion of works as a consequence of Fire Risk Assessments, and as of 1 September it is confirmed that all outstanding high-risk fire actions in high-rise blocks have been satisfactorily addressed; either closed with evidence, completed and closed with evidence or work booked. [Figures for each category?]

The rebuild of True Compliance and the NEC asset register is underway [Expected completion date?], and additional governance has also been implemented around the management of data, in particular restricting property creation access which provides a more controlled approach to new properties being added to the system and feeding into compliance workstreams accurately.

 

The compliance team has been progressing with recruitment. A Compliance and Contract Manager, a dedicated electrical manager, a Quality and Delivery Manager and an interim Contract Officer all started in September. Two permanent Contract Officers are being shortlisted currently, all with a focus on compliance and safety.

 

Furthermore, the Housing & Tenant Satisfaction Improvement Board met for its initial meeting in September. [Please publish Minutes for transparency and accountability]

This Board, chaired by the Chief Executive, will oversee and drive initiatives aimed at improving the quality of housing services and increasing tenant satisfaction.

 

The Board will provide governance and oversight by monitoring the progress of improvement initiatives and ensuring compliance with housing standards. [Will results be pubished?]

 

Significant progress has been made in addressing the data issues highlighted in the audit report. Our priority has been to validate the ownership and the council’s compliance responsibilities of all properties on our Housing Database, NEC. This work is essential to build confidence in our data and provide a reliable foundation for reporting.

 

We are currently in the process of systematically reviewing each compliance stream, starting with Gas. This will confirm the properties that fall in or out of scope, and importantly, for what reason. Whilst the audit highlighted that confidence in the reporting number is low, we are using these figures as a baseline so that improvements can be clearly appreciated as our validation work progresses. This will result in the reported asset numbers changing as properties are validated and confirmed in work streams, and percentages fluctuating because of this.

 

This data correction work is not limited only to the properties we report on to the Regulator (i.e. council owned homes) but has been expanded to all residents in our properties e.g. leaseholders, i4B and FWH tenants etc. This ensures a consistent, council-wide approach that strengthens both safety andassurance moving forward.

 

A section of the report deals with financial considerations but not in detail:

 

Financial Considerations

 

 Like other local authorities, Brent is facing significant financial pressures and is continuously needing to look for efficiencies to address budget challenges. Some of the main challenges that could affect the long-term viability of the HRA Business Plan along with rent levels are major works and repairs.[How, increased rents and reduced works and repairs as in Kensington and Chelsea?]

 

As the Council adds more stock to its portfolio and complexities of new additional requirements to building standards are increasing, such as fire safety works and decarbonisation, the cost of major works are rising. At the moment, there is insufficient government subsidy available to address these changes.

 
 

The Asset Management Strategy and investment plans must be approached cautiously and allow for flexibility to scale back on schemes where required. Careful budget monitoring and financial planning are crucial. With a current 5.75% loan rate for the HRA, £1m in borrowing costs the HRA circa £28k per annum in interest costs.

 

The specialists that have been appointed to assist with the recovery of the compliance breaches, are currently undertaking an initial assessment of the situation with the intention of developing a recovery programme. [Cost of specialists?[

 

Upon completion of the initial assessment, a paper will be presented setting out the anticipated costs and financial implications. For comparative purposes, a registered provider with 21,000 homes that were in a similar situation, spent £2.3m on their recovery programme. [Brent Housing Management manages approximately 8,000 council homes, 4,000 leaseholds, and 31 Gypsy and Traveller pitches]

  

It should be noted that whilst operating under a regulatory notice, access to grant funding for housing developments may be reduced or ceased, until the council can evidence a position of compliance.