2nd Brent Reggae Album Covers Exhibition Curator's Talk tonight: Harlesden Library - drop-in for free from 6.30pm - 8.30pm

 

Highly recommended, The first one was informative. hilarious at times and very, very friendly.

Brent Property Strategy moves closer to market rents and terms, impacting on affordability for voluntary organisations

 There was a time when Brent Council was not entirely sure of what property it owned - surprises kept popping up. They even found they were paying bills for properties that were leased to other organisations.

Now with the Council hit by financial problems their property strategy is seeking to maximise rental income based on market conditions. They already have problems collecting current rents so it appears likely that some organisations will not be able to pay the increased rate. In Quarter 2 2024/25 the outstanding debt across the borough totalled £824,090.  Repayment plans covering £450,453 have been established, with a maximum repayment term of two years. 

Brent Council report:

Efforts are actively being made to address the remaining balance of £373,637, including legal action, rigorous enforcement of rent repayment schedules, and the write-off of irrecoverable debts.

The tough, market-led approach is also being applied to lease renewals:

There are currently 48 outstanding lease renewals, managed through negotiated agreements and the issuance of formal Section 25 notices, which enforce statutory lease renewal timelines. So far, 14 Section 25 notices have been served, with the remaining renewals set to receive notices to ensure leases are renewed within the required timeframe. To be effective, the Council must fully leverage available legal tools, including Section 25 notices, Section146 notices, and forfeiture proceedings, to regularise leases, recover debts, and ensure compliance. Current analysis suggests that tenants who fail to comply in one area are likely to also show non-compliance in other aspects.

Rents will be based on current market conditions: (my emphasis)

 

Following a comprehensive lease review, ten out of fourteen outstanding rent review memorandums for non-expired leases have been prepared, with notices issued to initiate the rent review process. The remaining memorandums will be completed shortly. This review is expected to increase rent by approximately £60,000 per annum. Rent reviews for expired leases are strategically aligned with the lease renewal process, where final rents will be determined through independent market valuations and negotiations. This approach allows us to negotiate terms that reflect current market conditions and support long-term strategic interests, supporting sustainable outcomes.

One North Wembley voluntary organisation that was served a Section 25 notice has been in touch with Wembley Matters. They were given just 6 months to try and negotiate a new tenancy. The increase Brent Council wanted was from £1,500 per annum to £75,000 per annum. The organisation will not be able to afford that and will likely have to close. Early indications of the approach were seen in proposals for the Barham Park buildings LINK (there is a Barham Park Trust Committee meeting on Tuesday 10th September. No agenda has been published as yet.)

Given that level of increase  many other organisations would have to close and presumably the property will go to commercial interests.

Cllr Mili Patel's Cabinet Member Forward to the Agenda item states: 

The property strategy sets a course for adaptation, evidence-based decision- making, embracing change, and reimagining the potential of our property assets. Central to this strategy is a proactive approach to asset management, ensuring every decision supports our Borough Plan 2023-27 and paves the way for a more equitable future for all of Brent.

The Council’s budget and the Medium-Term Financial Plan (MTFP) for future years depend on rent income from the assets. Therefore, the assets must generate sufficient income for maintenance and upgrading, which ensures the successful delivery of Council services from the assets in the long term.

 Brent Council chart from Strategy document (Brent Council spelling)

The Council's property is varied and excludes schools etc but as can be seen in area office accommodation, presumably in Brent Civic Centre, is largest in area. The Council has been trying to let out two floors but recognise that the changed working environment (working from home) means that there is less demand for office space.

 The Property Strategy sets out its approach to the review:

Appraise every asset on its own merits for efficacy.

Segmenting the portfolio allows us to tailor strategies to maximise value and reduce risks associated with different asset types. Our approach revolves around four pivotal themes. This methodology categorises properties based on similar characteristics into distinct segments to

allocate resources efficiently. The four segments and their strategic focus are shown below.

•• Strategic Hold

•• Actively Manage

•• Invest

•• Dispose

By adopting this segmentation approach, we are not just managing properties; we are strategically stewarding assets to serve the aims of our Borough Plan. Properties will be placed into strategic themes using a thorough asset review process and scoring methodology. The stages of this process include reviewing the following:

•• Strategic relevance

•• Financial and social benefits

•• Condition and energy efficiency

•• Accessibility

•• Risks

•• Opportunities

 The full 24 page Property Strategy can be read HERE

The Pageant of Empire, 1924 – Part 1: Wembley and Westward Ho!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant

 

 

1. Extract from the programme cover for Part 1 of the Pageant. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

Today, we are used to Wembley Stadium staging spectacular shows (most recently Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour), but 100 years ago another huge entertainment event had just ended. It was part of the British Empire Exhibition, and this is the first of two articles which I hope will give you a taste of it, starting with the leading role played by the ordinary residents of Wembley.

 

The Pageant of Empire was described as ‘an historical epic’, setting out to portray the history of the British Empire. It was performed in three parts on successive evenings, twice each week, during late July and August 1924. I have not written about it before, partly because I feel uncomfortable about how that history was told, but in this centenary year of the Exhibition, I felt that I should “bite the bullet” (and many of those were fired as Britain’s Empire was built!).

 

Plans for this Pageant at the Exhibition had been drawn up by senior representatives of Britain and its Dominions (principally Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) for many months, and the Government had promised £100,000 towards its cost (through the Department for Overseas Trade). The first that most people in Wembley heard about it, however, was in April 1924, less than two weeks before King George V opened the Exhibition.

 

2. Front page article from “The Wembley News”, 17 April 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

Wembley Council had been asked by the Exhibition organisers to set up a committee, which would undertake to stage one of the major episodes in Part 2 of the Pageant (to be performed on Tuesday and Friday evenings). It was chaired by Dr Charles Goddard, Wembley’s Medical Officer of Health, assisted by R.H. Powis, a local contractor and County Councillor, and included a group of local councillors. Their task was to recruit around 2,000 volunteer performers, and get them ready, within three months, to take part in the Pageant. 

 

3.  Article from “The Wembley News”, 12 June 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

4.  Article from “The Wembley News”, 26 June 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

In return for giving up much of their spare time to take part, performers were offered free entry to the Exhibition throughout the weeks when the Pageant would take place, and six free tickets for reserved seats in the stadium, so that their family and friends could watch the show. An added attraction, perhaps negotiated by Dr Goddard, who was the prime mover behind the project, was that a share of any profits made from the Pageant of Empire would go towards funds being raised for a proposed Wembley Hospital.

 

5. Pageant of Empire performer’s certificate, given to Miss E. Rogers. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

By the middle of June, Wembley had set up a Pageant of Empire office in the High Road, to deal with recruiting performers, and all the administrative details required to organise their participation in the event, which would have an Elizabethan theme. School teachers and organisers of local Societies were asked to offer contributions to the performance, such as folk dancing or a “mystery play”. Ladies who did not feel able to take part in the Pageant itself were encouraged to spend any available morning or afternoon at St John’s Church Hall, to help Mrs Bannister, Mistress of the Robes, create the 2,000 costumes which were needed.

 

6. The Day and Robinson families in their Pageant costumes. (Brent Archives online image 2684)

 

By July, rehearsals for Wembley’s section of the Pageant, “The Days of Queen Elizabeth” (remember, there had only been one English Queen of that name in 1924!), were taking place. The stadium could not be used for these, so they were held in King Edward VII Park. When the 2,000+ Wembley cast members finally got the chance for a single dress rehearsal in the Empire Stadium, the local newspaper reported that: ‘Owing to its immensity, many of the performers themselves feel that at times there is considerable confusion.’ 

 

The Pageant was meant to start its six-week run with Part 1 on Monday 21 July, with Wembley performing the opening scene of Part 2 the following evening, but because of bad weather preparations in the stadium were delayed. The first night was actually on Friday 25 July, and it was Wembley’s performers who stepped out into the stadium to open the show. One critic wrote: ‘The costumes in the Elizabethan Episode are most gorgeous, and from the seats in the Stadium the effect is wonderful.’

 

7. Article from “The Wembley News”, 31 July 1924. (Brent Archives – local newspaper microfilms)

 

The pageant scene performed by Wembley residents represented a festival day in London in 1588, culminating in Queen Elizabeth arriving at St Paul’s Cathedral for a service giving thanks for England’s victory over the Spanish Armada. The action is described in detail in the programme: ‘The life of a Tudor feast day is shown in dances, quarter staff, the joust of knights ….’  After all these crowd scenes, a trumpeter and herald announce the Queen’s procession (hence the ‘300 Horsemen Wanted’, although a few of them were horsewomen in disguise!) with various lords and other dignitaries. ‘…and lastly, in her chariot, THE QUEEN ELIZABETH, followed by the ladies of her court on horse, and her Yeomen of the Guard.’

 

8. Scenes from Wembley’s Elizabethan Episode. (Screenshots from a British Pathé newsreel film)

 

I only have the names of a small number of the around 2,300 local residents who took part in the Pageant, either as performers or members of the choir. However, it was reported that Dr Goddard had the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and one of the “stars” at the climax of the drama, Sir Francis Drake, was played by R.H. Powis!

 

As the 31 July article above records, the following Tuesday evening’s performance of Part 2 ‘was abandoned owing to the rain’. However, weather permitting, the Wembley cast performed at the Pageant each Tuesday and Friday evening through to the end of August (except when they gave two shows, at 2.30pm and 7.30pm on Saturday 16 August, rather than one on the previous evening). And as a thank you, for all who wished to take part (tickets cost just 2s/6d!), a ball, in their Elizabethan costumes, was held from 11pm to 5am in one of the Exhibition’s Amusement Park dance halls, immediately after their final performance on 29 August.

 

That is my “local history” story, and I’ll move on to the history of the British Empire, as portrayed in the three parts of the Pageant. The events included in it, and the dates they occurred, are correct, as you would expect when the Pageant’s historical adviser was Sir Charles Oman, a distinguished military historian and Professor of Modern History at Oxford (as well as being the Conservative Member of Parliament for Oxford University from 1919 to 1935!). 

 

It is how the stories of those events were told, and what was omitted from the history, that I am not comfortable with. That will not come as a surprise, because the British Establishment wanted to paint a picture of the Empire being “a good thing”, as I showed in my earlier article on why we should commemorate the British Empire Exhibition in its centenary year, The Government was keen to ensure that this message reached all levels of society, so 19,000 free tickets (mainly for standing on the terraces) were available to the public for each performance.

 

Part 1 of the Pageant, which finally premiered a week late, on Monday 28 July, was entitled “Westward Ho!”. It opened (as did the other two parts) with “The Empire March”, specially written for the Pageant by Sir Edward Elgar, who had also composed musical settings for a series of poems by Alfred Noyes, played by 110 musicians drawn from three top London orchestras.

 

9.  Sheet music for The Empire March, and the music programme for Part 1 of the Pageant.
(Source: Brent Archives, ref. 19241/PRI/3 – BEE primary source material)

 

Part 1’s opening prologue is set in 1496, and shows King Henry VII and his court approached by a deputation from Bristol. The Mayor of that city introduces John Cabot, who gives the King a gift of furs brought back from a voyage across the Atlantic. King Henry agrees to give him a Royal commission, urging him (and this may be poetic licence) to ‘go forward in his quest of the new found land.’  This is the event credited as the beginning of the British Empire. That scene is followed by a parade of “Pioneers”, described as merchant adventurers (although the victims of their activities might have called some of them robbers and pirates!).

 

10.  Postcard of the Newfoundland Pavilion at the British Empire Exhibition.
(Brent Archives online image 0988)

 

The small Dominion of Newfoundland (it did not become a province of Canada until 1949) staged the first Pageant scenes in Part 1. Cabot landed there in 1497, and had some contact with the indigenous people already living on the island. Because of the huge stocks of fish found in the seas off Newfoundland, fishermen from several European countries came to work there. It was not until 1583 that Sir Humphrey Gilbert was sent to take possession of the island, in the name Queen Elizabeth, ‘lest it should be forgotten that Newfoundland was English soil ever since the day that the Bristol adventurer landed there.’

 

On that basis, Newfoundland should have belonged to Iceland, because the Norse navigator, Leif Erikson, landed in Vinland, as he called it, nearly 500 years before Cabot! But at least the Pageant scenes staged by Canada begin with that country being claimed on behalf of the King of France in 1534 (that is, if you ignore the claims of the existing inhabitants who had been living there for several thousand years before then).

 

Canada was part of the French Empire for more than 200 years before scene 4 of its Pageant portrayed the British military campaign in 1759, which saw victory over the French at Quebec, and the land become part of the British Empire. Then comes scene 5, from which the following description is taken:-

 

11.Extract from the programme for Part 1 of the Pageant. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

‘When the thirteen original Colonies of North America seceded from the British flag ….’ That is the only reference, in this section of the Pageant about the western hemisphere, to the fact that British people had colonised parts of what is now the United States. And there is nothing at all in the Pageant of Empire about the British colonies in the West Indies, or the trans-Atlantic slave trade that was the foundation of much of the wealth that flowed, to a few, from the British Empire.

 

That is all I will write about Part 1 of the Pageant of Empire. However, I should mention that, even though it was seen by nearly one million people, the Pageant made a loss, so that Dr Goddard’s Wembley Hospital project received no funding from it. One reason for the loss was the bad weather for much of the five weeks that performances ran, and it is perhaps fitting that one of the advertisers in the programme booklets was Burberry, “The All-British Weatherproof Worn in All British Possessions”!

 

 12.  One of the advertisements pages from the Pageant programmes. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

If you have found this article of interest, please look out for the second part of it in around ten day’s-time, when the Pageant heads Eastward then Southward, before a grand finale.

Philip Grant.

 

LETTER: Cllr Butt, this is no laughing matter. South Kilburn residents held in contempt

 

Alpha House, South Kilburn

Dear Editor,

The Brent and Kilburn Times recently splashed an article about conditions at Alpha House in South Kilburn LINK. I wrote a letter to them about the way Brent Council treats its residents but unfortunately it was not published.

This is what I wrote:

Thank you for highlighting the scandal of how Brent Council treats residents of our flats. The fact that Council leader Mohammed Butt can say that grass and bushes have now been - badly - cut does not alter the fact that residents were given several different dates when it would happen and it didn't. On other occasions we got no response at all to queries, as was the case when we asked about the scaffolding on Alpha House. Numerous enquiries by TRA officers and residents simply went unanswered. 

 

Councillor Butt's comment that we should make a complaint is ridiculous when we have already made known our concern to numerous council officers, councillors and our new MP with no substantive response. Indeed, when I saw Cllr Butt recently and raised the issue with him, he just laughed.

 

Such is the contempt with which Brent Council holds residents of its properties.

 

Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association.

Extra Event Days petition to be presented to Brent Cabinet on September 9th

 

Summer 2025

 

The Liberal Democrat petition on additional Wembley Event Days will be presented to the next Brent Council Cabinet on Monday September 9th. This means that the petition will be heard before Wembley Stadium's planning application for extra events goes to Planning Committee.

The aim is to persuade the Council that this matter is so important  that they should hold consultation meetings with local residents and businesses so that they are fully aware of the impact of events now and the potential disruption of extra days. This was done when Tottenham Hotspur applied to use the stadium. A Planning Committee with limited time for residents to speak is not sufficient.

If residents wish make their own representations about the impact extra event days would have on them personally they could write to Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, at: cllr.muhammed.butt@brent.gov.uk

 THE PETITION (Now closed):

We the undersigned petition the council to Consult and to Listen to concerns of local residents and businesses about the impact of increasing the number of "Large" Events at Wembley Stadium

Plans for the new Wembley Stadium were approved in 1999 with a limit of 37 Large Events per year. A few years later Brent Council allowed an increase to 46 Large Events per year. The Stadium owners have now applied for planning permission to increase this by another 8 to 54 Large Events per year.

 

Large Events at the Stadium have a major impact on the lives of local people and business - especially when as many as three events are held on 3 successive days.

 

We call on Brent Council (jointly with representatives of the FA) to carry out an extensive public consultation with Brent residents and local businesses on the social and economic impacts of Wembley Stadium Large scale events before the Planning Application is considered by the Brent Council's Planning Committee.

 

We believe that local people and businesses have the right to be properly consulted and informed about these possible changes and for their views to be assessed and documented before any decision is made.

The petition will also be referred to the relevant Director and Lead Members as well as the appropriate Scrutiny Committee.

Vale Farm Swimming Pool re-opens after chlorine leak

Nine children and two adults were taken to hospital as a precaution today after a chlorine leak at Vale Farm baths.

The London Fire Brigade and  London Ambulance Serrvice  were called at 1.40pm after reports of the chlorine leak in the learner pool. The Sports Centre was evacuated as a precaution and road closures put in place.

 The pool re-opened at 4pm when readings returned to normal.

Chris Williams, area contract manager of Everyone Active who manage the Vale Farm Sports Centre, said:

The centre was evacuated at 1.40pm today after excess chlorine was released into the pool.

Some customers were taken to hospital as a precaution, and no colleagues were injured. The incident was isolated to the pool area, but we closed the whole building as a precautionary measure.

Safety is our top priority and we are taking this incident very seriously. We are conducting a full investigation into the cause and will implement necessary measures to prevent similar occurrences in future.

The centre reopened at 4pm today and the pool will reopen at 6.30am tomorrow, after thorough safety checks. We sincerely apologise to all affected customers and will provide an update as soon as we can.

 

Woodcock Hill community rise up against plans for a 20 metre phone mast in a wildlife corridor.

 

The group of trees affected by the mast planning application

The mast and cabinet. The mast is twice the height of the tallest trees

 

The planning application for the erection of a 20 metre telecommunication mast in Woodcock Hill has encountered tough local opposition. The location is a rare green space that locals, working with St Gregory's School, had hoped to turn into a community garden. There are 31 objections on the Brent Planning Portal including from St Gregory's School, the CPRE, Friends of Woodcock Park and Northwick Park Residents' Association.

There are concerns about the stability of the bank next to the Wealdstone Brook if tree roots are damaged by escavation and the bank is an Environment Agency flood asset.  The area is known to suffer from subsidence and sink holes. Beneath the land there is believed to be a trunk sewer, gas lines, a water main and telecommunication lines. 

The group of trees is part of a wildlife corridor and the area around Wealdstone Brook is designated a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.The mast is proposed to be situated in a woodland of 5 trees, including 4 oaks 10 metres tall in front of a mix of Prunus, False Acacia, Ash and Maples. They are 40 metres from the facing houses on Kenton Road

Many residents in the streets surrounding the site say that they did not receive a consultation letter, despite Brent Council claims that they were sent, and the site notice was not posted until the school holidays had started.

PLANNING REFERENCE 24/1890

Location Street Record, Woodcock Hill, Harrow Proposal Prior approval for installation of a 20m monopole supporting 6 no. antennas, 2 no. transmission dishes, 2 no. equipment cabinets and ancillary development thereto on land at Wealdstone Brook rear of 75-79 Woodgrange Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0XG

OBJECTORS

CPRE London is a membership-based charity with 2500 members across London, concerned with the preservation and enhancement of London's vital green spaces, as well as the improvement of London's environment for the health and wellbeing of all Londoners.

We are writing to object to the above application on the following basis:

 - The height and bulk of the proposed mast is out of character with the local area.

- We are also concerned that the development could damage trees and disturb the nearby wildlife corridor, home to a variety of wildlife including bats and more than twenty species of birds.

The Friends of Woodock Park have objected as follows: 

The Friends of Woodcock Park are objecting to the planning application for the installation of a mobile phone mast.

The mast is not in keeping with the local environment. It is on the edge of Woodcock Park and in a residential street.

We are very concerned about the installation of a phone mast in such close proximity to St Gregory's High School and also to Bright Start Nursery School located in the Methodist Church opposite the proposed location. As you are aware St Gregory's School is within 100m of the proposed site, however the School is currently using the car park in Woodcock Park for temporary classrooms whilst the RAAC problem is dealt with in the main school. Pupils in these temporary classrooms will be in closer proximity to the mast. Students will have to walk past the proposed mast twice a day to enter the School, increasing their exposure to high intensity EMF radiation from the 5G masts. This exposure will impact their health and well-being.

Brent should adopt the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and not have 5G Masts near schools. Brent would be liable for any potential legal actions taken in the future. in her letter of 27 February 2020, to the minister at the Dept of Digital Culture Media and Sport (DDCMS), Wera Hobhouse MP quotes DLA Piper - solicitors to Public Health England (PHE) now UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), who themselves rely in ICNIRP guidelines - as saying:

"A public body must determine how much weight to put on the PHE guidance. Equally that body must determine what other evidence from your client or other members of the public or interested parties to consider in making any decision. If it be alleged that a public body now or in the future acted unlawfully in placing reliance on the guidance, that cannot retrospectively taint the guidance with illegality." This underlines the fact that, if you rely on ICNIRP, it is the council - not the ICNIRP guidance or its issuer - are liable. And, do you as a council know that the ICNIRP 1998 guidelines state that the prevention of harm and advice about interference is beyond the scope of ICNIRP?

The proposed location is on valuable green space, managed by Brent Parks, not on the Highway. The masts should not be installed on park land. Have they permissions to install here? Brent Parks have already agreed a project for a community flower garden in this same area. It will be more difficult to maintain the grass area around the mast, thereby increasing costs to Brent Council.

The cabinets will attract graffiti and fly-tipping both already a problem in this area, at more cost to the Council.

We are also concerned about the effect of this mast on the wildlife, especially the birds and the bats which forage along the Wealdstone Brook. and on the trees nearby. The Bat Conservation Trust recommend that "the erection of masts should be carefully considered, locating the mast on a part of the building as far from known roosting locations and flight paths as possible." The area around the Wealdstone Brook is designated a SINC site.

The higher frequencies used in 5G technology are known to be particularly damaging to insect and bird populations. A 2018 study showed how the shorter wavelengths in higher frequencies are absorbed more easily by insects' bodies, creating a heating effect. There were increases in absorbed power up to 370% when the insects, including honeybees, were exposed to these frequencies, with detrimental effects on their behaviour and health.

The installation of a mast on the opposite side of the park has resulted in at least 2 silver birch trees dying. These had to be removed this year at a cost to the council. The loss of trees at the proposed site would be very serious, as the roots hold the banks of the Wealdstone Brook together. No cabinets or masts should interfere with tree roots.

The area of Woodcock Hill itself is known to flood and this will add to the flood risk.

We believe the area is located over a trunk sewer. Confirmation should be sought from Thames Water prior to any approval, as they do not permit development over a trunk sewer.

This installation will not enhance biodiversity and may even have a negative effect, contrary to Brent Councils promotion and enhancement and use of the Blue Ribbon network: a. Proposals for development adjacent to river and canal edges are required to improve access to the waterways and provide an appropriate landscaped set-back which may include public open space. b. Developments adjacent to the Blue Ribbon network and other tributaries, or waterways with potential to negatively impact on its water quality will be required to contribute towards restoration and naturalisation of waterways, and seek to enhance water quality and biodiversity in accordance with the objectives of the Water Framework Directive and Thames River Basin Management Plan.

 Northwick Park Residents' Association object:

On behalf of the Northwick Park Residents' Association, we wish to formally object to the above-referenced planning application for the installation of a telecommunications mast on Wealdstone Brook, opposite 12 Woodcock Hill.

Our association represents the views of numerous residents, many of whom live within proximity to the proposed site. Our objections are based on the following key concerns:

1. Preservation of Valued Green Space and Wildlife 

The proposed installation site is located on a cherished green space that supports a diverse range of wildlife. Over the years, residents have actively collaborated with Brent Council to enhance this area by expanding flower beds and promoting biodiversity at this end of Kenton/Woodcock Hill. The installation of a 5G telecommunications mast on this land threatens to disrupt the delicate ecosystem, negatively impacting the flora and fauna that the community has worked hard to nurture and protect.

2. Environmental and Health Risks 

There is growing evidence that continuous exposure to non-ionising microwave radiation, such as that emitted by 5G equipment, has a detrimental impact on living organisms, including animals, birds, insects, and plants. For example, birds may abandon their nests, suffer from deteriorating health, and face increased mortality rates. Similarly, the bee population, crucial for pollination and agriculture, could experience colony collapse and navigational disruptions. The long-term effects on soil-based micro-organisms, plants, and trees are also of significant concern.

In addition to environmental risks, we are deeply concerned about the potential health impacts on residents. The EU report EPRS_ST and other scientific studies provide substantial evidence of the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF radiation in humans. We have linked these documents below (Sub517) that has been acknowledged by the Australian Government, highlighting the need for caution. We urge Brent Council to carefully review this evidence and to refrain from approving this application.

3. Proximity to St Gregory's School 

 
The proposed site is less than 100 meters from St Gregory's School, which is one of the top 50 schools in England, educating around 1,700 students aged 11 to 17. These students pass by the proposed installation, exposing them to potentially harmful levels of EMF radiation. The potential health risks to these young people, whose well-being should be a priority, cannot be ignored. The evidence attached to this objection further supports our concerns.

Conclusion 

 
In conclusion, the Northwick Park Residents' Association strongly opposes this planning application due to the significant risks it poses to the local environment, wildlife, and the health of residents, particularly the students at St Gregory's School. We strongly urge Brent Council to reject this application and to take into consideration the long-term implications for our community.
Should the Council proceed with approval, please be advised that Northwick Park Residents' Association, alongside the residents and parents of students at St Gregory's School and the wider community, will hold the Council fully responsible for any adverse health outcomes resulting from this decision.

We trust that you will give due consideration to our concerns and make a decision that prioritises the safety and well-being of our community.

Links:
EU Health impact of 5G https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/69001
2/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf

5G THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/109394/pdf/