Cllr Butt's office response to John H's case re heating and temporary arrangements - they are 'actively pursuing' a solution

 I wrote to Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council about the issue of John H, the South Kilburn resident about the lack of repair of his heating after 15 visits from Sureserve and the unsuitability of the initial offers of alternative accommodation.

This is the response from his Office:

 

Dear Martin,

 

I am responding on behalf of Cllr Butt.

 

 

Thank you for flagging this case with his office and for setting out the position.

 

Having looked into the matter on behalf of Cllr Butt, I can see that Cllr Donnelly-Jackson has pursued this issue throughout the Christmas period, raising it repeatedly with housing officers and the partnerships team that liaises with housing associations, including Octavia. To avoid any duplication of that effort and to ensure continuity, Cllr Donnelly-Jackson will therefore remain the lead councillor on this piece of casework.

 

Cllr Butt is aware of the position and will support Cllr Donnelly-Jackson in escalating the matter with senior management at Octavia where needed, with a focus on ensuring that any temporary arrangements reflect John’s health needs and required disability adaptations.

 

Thank you again for your advocacy on John’s behalf: please be assured that the case continues to be actively pursued.

 

 

Why does Brent want to Stop-up “highway” near the Olympic Steps?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Philip for his many valuable contributions over the past year, 

 

I don’t make New Year resolutions. If I did, one of them would probably be not to get into any new entanglements with Brent Council in 2026. And I would have broken it already, after seeing this Legal Notice in the 18 December edition of our local newspaper.

 

The Notice said that the Council would be applying for a Stopping-up Order for an area of highway, including pedestrian areas near the Olympic Steps. That seemed an odd thing to do, as such an order would extinguish all rights of way over that land. I’m interested in the history of Wembley Park, and actually wrote an illustrated article, The Olympic Way Story, for Brent Council in 2017! I wanted to see what area of land the application affected, but to do that I would have to go to the Civic Centre ‘during normal office hours on Mondays to Fridays.’

 

A copy of the Notice, on a lamp post at Engineers Way, 22 December 2025.

 

So on Monday 22 December I went to the Civic Centre to inspect the Plan and Draft Order, and did see one notice about the proposed stopping-up on a lamp post. But when I asked to inspect the documents, staff in the Library did not know anything about them, and after a half-hour wait to be seen at the Civic Centre’s “Welcome Desk” (reception), staff there did not know about them either, and could not find them in the cupboards behind the desk.

 

I sent an email to the address of the Council Officer listed in the Notice as soon as I got home, and that Officer in Brent’s Development Services department sent me pdf copies of the documents the following day, also saying that they ‘were given to both Civic Centre reception and Wembley Library on the 12 December 2025 for public viewing.’ As I believe it is important that local residents have easy access to the Plan and Draft Order, I will ask Martin to attach copies at the end of this article.

 

When I saw what was involved in the Order Brent would be seeking from Magistrates on 22 January, I could not understand the reason for it. Why would they want to stop people walking over that land, or vehicles from going between Engineers Way and Olympic Way East or West? I felt it had to be questioned, and if necessary challenged! My 22 December email had been copied to Brent’s Public Realm Director (who had signed the Notice), and as his “out of office” message said that he was away until 29 December, this is the main section of the email I sent him first thing that morning:

 

‘[Your colleague] kindly sent me the documents for this Stopping-up application on 23 December, but that does not detract from the fact that those documents were not freely available for me to inspect, during normal office hours at Brent Civic Centre on Monday 22 December, as they should have been under your Notice of 11 December 2025.

 

Please let me know whether you still intend to make the Council's application at the hearing on 22 January 2026, or whether you will be issuing a fresh Notice, with a new hearing date, ensuring that the necessary documents are available to inspect, at a designated location within the Civic Centre (as suggested in my email to you of 22 December).

 

 

I note that the Plan showing the hatched areas which the proposed Order plans to stop-up was prepared for Quintain Limited in June 2025. Can you confirm, please, that the London Borough of Brent is making the application on behalf of Quintain Limited, and if so, on what basis is the Council doing that (and at whose expense)?

This is the relevant extract from the Plan (with the words "Olympic Steps" added for clarity):

 

 

The draft Court Order states that the application is being made because the area(s) 'shown hatched black on the plan attached drawing number TPHS-434-DR-00 should be stopped up on the ground that it is unnecessary.'

 

Please let me know the reasons why you consider those hatched areas to be unnecessary for pedestrians and/or vehicles to use in future. I have to ask that, because I cannot understand why that should be the case, as stopping-up would extinguish 'all traffic and all public rights of way ... over the said area of highway.'

 

From my knowledge of the area, including walking over some of the "hatched" areas myself on my visits to Wembley Park, I can't understand why it should be unnecessary for:

 

·      vehicles to pass, at least on some occasions, to or from Engineers Way and Olympic Way East and Olympic Way West, including to access the undercroft area for community and other events;

·      for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Olympic Way to have unimpeded access to the Olympic Steps, in both directions, especially when large events are taking place at the Stadium;

·      for pedestrians using the Engineers Way crossing from Market Square, beside the Civic Centre, to have unimpeded access to Wembley Park Boulevard (and back, on their way from Wembley Arena, the LDO and beyond towards Wembley Park Station);

·      for pedestrians coming west along Engineers Way from Canada Gardens, the University of Football Business and other developments, to have free use of the existing wide pedestrian area at the foot of the Olympic Steps, and the existing but narrower pedestrian area as they approach Wembley Park Boulevard and Arena Square.

 

The areas which your application proposes to stop-up were designed to be the way they are, as part of Quintain's Masterplan for Wembley Park. I can't see why the need for them should have changed, particularly given the growing number of people living in the area, and the increased number of large events at the Stadium, since that Masterplan was drawn up, and approved by Brent Council.

 

Unless you can provide a very strong justification as to why those hatched areas on the Plan are now unnecessary, I think that this application should be withdrawn. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

In case you have difficulty in visualising the areas the Council proposes to stop-up from the plan, I have marked them in red on this Google Maps satellite view extract:

 

The Public Realm Director quickly sent a holding reply, to say that he would consult colleagues on their return before sending a full response, and this is what he wrote when he sent that:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

The land proposed to be stopped up was the former bell mouth into Green Car Park and a sliver of land along the southern footway of Engineers Way located east of Wembley Park Boulevard.

 

The stopping-up was requested by Quintain as the area shown in hatch was deemed to be in the line of their Hostile Vehicles Mitigation bollards (an important counter-terrorism installation). These bollards are installed by Quintain, and the future maintenance will also be with them. The staggered nature of the former highway land would not serve any purpose as highway maintainable at public expense and so there is value in eliminating an ongoing burden on public finances.

 

I confirm Quintain has met all expenses in this stopping-up process. The original application was made around five years ago and the legal process, the statutory undertakers utility clearance and the obtaining of a court date have taken a considerable amount of time.

 

The stopping-up does not in any way impede public access to Olympic Steps nor to the access roads Olympic Way East and West. The stopping-up process will not in any way change the layout of the public realm that is currently in place. All existing pedestrian and vehicular access will remain unchanged, and we have had written assurance from Quintain to this effect. The purpose is simply to allow Quintain to maintain their land in future years to the same standard as the rest of the Wembley Park estate.

 

We have now been given a court date for the hearing on the 22 January 2026 at 2 pm. Therefore, the notice of intent and the draft order was publicised by our lawyers on the 15 December allowing sufficient time for the statutory notice period.

 

As part of the notice process, notices and a draft order were published in the local press; the same was posted on-site and a copy of the notice of intent, draft order and the stopping-up plan were left with Brent Civic Centre welcome desk and at the Wembley Library on the 12 December.

 

Following your email, my colleague contacted the Civic Centre welcome desk and requested that the documents must be available for public viewing until the end of the statutory notice period, i.e. 19 January 2026.

 

I regret you couldn’t view these documents when you visited. However, they were left with the front of house staff on Friday, 12 December 2025.

 

The stopping up process is a lengthy process and the court date is harder to obtain. Therefore, asking for an alternate date is not a viable option and would require substantial officer time.

 

I can advise, however, that if you are not satisfied with our process, then you can, of course, make representation at the court. 

 

I hope this is helpful background. Kind regards,

 

Director of Public Realm.’

 

The Olympic Steps and Stadium, from Engineers Way
(with people walking across a strip of land that could be stopped-up!)

 

If you have managed to read this guest post all the way through to here, thank you. What do you think of this proposed Stopping-up Order, and the Council’s explanation of why they are applying for it? If you have any views, please feel free to share them in the comments below.

 

I think it is important that local residents are aware of this application, by Brent Council on behalf of Quintain Limited. Having considered it myself, I believe that the proposed Order is unnecessary, and a misuse of Section 116, Highways Act 1980. I will try to persuade the Council Officer to withdraw the application, and will include my reasoning for that (as the text of an email I will send to him) for information in the comments section.

 

For now, though, I will wish all “Wembley Matters” readers a Happy New Year! There will be lots of interesting and important things happening in Brent in 2026, and this blog website is a very good source for information about them, so please keep following it.

 

Philip Grant 

194 and counting objections to 'exploitative and inappropriate' application to turn former Santander Bank in Kilburn High Road into an Adult Gaming Centre

 

Former Santander Bank 131-135 Kilburn High Road, corner of Victoria Road, opposite McDonalds

 

At the time of publication there have been 194 objections to the conversion of the basement and ground floor of the former Santander Bank at 131-135 Kilburn High Road to an Adult Gaming Centre. 

Although the above notice gives tomorrow as the expiration date for Neighbourhood Consultation, in practice comments can be submitted up to the day before the Committee Date. This has not yet been fixed.

Details of the application and comment portal can be found HERE.

A selection of the objections that include One Kilburn and BRATS can be found below:

 

 

We are formally objecting to the proposed Adult Gaming Centre (AGC) at 82 Kilburn High Road. This application is unsuitable for the area and fails to meet the requirements of the Brent Local Plan (Policy BE5 and DMP1) regarding the safety and vitality of our high streets.



Our objection is based on the following material planning grounds:



1. Risk to Sensitive Educational Uses

The site is a primary thoroughfare for families and children attending the high density of educational facilities in the immediate vicinity, including:

- Primary Schools: Kilburn Grange School, St Mary's C of E Primary, and St Eugene de Mazenod Primary.

- Nurseries: Busy Bees Nursery and Learning Tree Nursery.

- Community Amenities: Kilburn Grange Park.



The introduction of an AGC here would lead to the unacceptable normalization of gambling for hundreds of local children. Permitting a high-stakes gaming environment in such close proximity to five early-years and primary providers is a significant safeguarding risk that contradicts the NPPF goal of promoting healthy and safe communities.



2. Over-concentration of Gambling Establishments

Kilburn High Road is already saturated with adult gaming venues. There are already two Game Nation outlets in the immediate vicinity (89 and 108 Kilburn High Road), as well as Merkur Slots (130 Kilburn High Road).

- Policy BE5 Breach: Adding another unit at number 82 would lead to a clustering of gambling uses that exceeds the 3% frontage limit set by Brent Council.

- Harm to Retail: This over-concentration undermines retail diversity and discourages the family-oriented businesses that the local community actually needs.



3. Failure to Support High Street Vitality

The proposal does not contribute to the "vibrancy" of the High Road:

- Dead Frontage: AGCs rely on obscured windows and heavy branding, creating a "dead zone" on the street that reduces natural surveillance and active footfall.

- Precedent for Refusal: we draw the council's attention to the recent refusal of a near-identical application by the applicant, Sunni-Ed Limited, at Staines High Street (Spelthorne Council, Nov 2025). In that case, the committee determined that such uses provide no community value and fail to enhance the daytime economy of major town centres.



4. Public Safety and Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)

Kilburn High Road already faces significant challenges with loitering and street-based ASB. Adding a late-night gaming use at this specific location will exacerbate these issues, creating an intimidating atmosphere for parents and residents during the school run. The "fear of crime" is a material planning consideration that warrants the refusal of this application.



This proposal offers no benefit to the community and poses a clear risk to the welfare of local children. We strongly urge the Council to refuse this application.

………………..

 

I am the Co-chair of the One Kilburn coordinating group and am writing on behalf of One Kilburn to challenge the planning application for an adult gaming centre in Kilburn on multiple grounds, with particular emphasis on breaching the Local Plan and on the serious public health consequences of introducing additional gambling facilities in an already vulnerable community. Founded in 2022, One Kilburn is a community-led initiative which provides a space where Kilburn people can meet, connect and make common ground. It seeks to foster a community, place and belonging in Kilburn, across the municipal boundaries which have historically split Kilburn across three London boroughs. We therefore have a strong interest in issues affecting the vitality of the High Road.
 

Breaching the Local Plan



Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 specifically aims to prevent an over-concentration of betting shops and adult gaming centres and to protect the vitality and retail function of town centres. Crucially, one of its provisions states that adult gaming centres will only be permitted where they would not result in more than 3% of the town centre frontage consisting of adult gaming centres or pawnbrokers, or payday loan shops. By our rough estimate, the town centre frontage on the Brent side of the High Road is around 1,400m; it follows that 3% of that amounts to 42m. The site plans for this proposal suggest that the frontage of the establishment would be nearly 40m (on both the High Road and Victoria Road, since the premises are located on a corner). Given the current existence of other adult gaming centres on the Brent side of the High Road, we believe that this proposal would breach the 3% threshold and should be rejected on those grounds, in addition to what we argue below. Furthermore, as a high-profile corner site, it should anchor the high street. Instead, an adult gaming centre creates a dead frontage which doesn't support Kilburn's recovery. It offers no active engagement with the streetscape, directly undermining Policy BE5's objective to protect the retail function of town centres.



Public Health Crisis in Brent



The evidence of gambling-related harm in Brent is stark and unequivocal. According to the Brent Joint Strategic Needs Assessment on Gambling, the borough has one of the highest concentrations of gambling premises in London, with 81 licensed venues already operating. Most alarmingly, 6.2 percent of Brent residents are classified as high-risk gamblers-more than double the national average of 2.9 percent. This represents a public health crisis that would only be exacerbated by permitting additional gambling facilities.



The economic burden of this gambling epidemic is substantial and growing. The estimated cost of gambling-related harm in Brent has increased sevenfold to £14.3 million annually, placing immense pressure on public services including health care, social services, and community support systems. These costs are ultimately borne by taxpayers and divert resources from other essential services. Under the Equality Act, Brent Council must also consider its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). With 6.2 percent of Brent residents who are classified as high-risk gamblers-is more than double the national average. These vulnerable protected groups in a gambling density area are impacted disproportionately and are already at a heightened risk of financial exclusion and mental health crisis.



Targeting Vulnerable Communities



National and local evidence demonstrates that adult gaming centres systematically target areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. The High Streets at Stake report reveals that 33% of adult gaming centres are located in the most deprived 10%t of neighbourhoods nationally, with over half serving the most deprived 20%. Kilburn fits this vulnerable profile precisely, with high levels of private renting, overcrowding, and a younger working-age population that research consistently identifies as being more exposed to gambling harms.



The physical availability and visibility of gambling venues is a proven driver of harm. By introducing an additional adult gaming centre in Kilburn, this proposal would increase exposure to gambling, normalise harmful behaviours, and elevate risk levels in a community already experiencing rates of problem gambling at twice the national average. While the applicant may claim to contribute to the local economy, these venues offer little or minimal employment with no community benefit. This targeting is a form of corporate extraction where significant public health costs (estimated at £14.3 million annually in Brent), wil have to be managed by local authorities and health services.



Exacerbating Existing Problems



Kilburn High Road already contains a dense concentration of betting shops, gambling-adjacent uses, and late-night premises. The proposed site sits opposite a 24-hour McDonald's, creating conditions that would intensify late-night congregation, loitering, and associated anti-social behaviour. The cumulative impact of this proposal cannot be ignored. It will create an environment that residents have consistently reported as being associated with crime, exploitation of vulnerable people, and general deterioration of community wellbeing. By placing another gambling venue directly opposite a fast-food outlet (McDonald's), the application creates a hotspot for loitering. This creates a perceived lack of safety that discourages other residents and families from using the High Road, thus damaging the evening economy and undermining the diverse and resilient vision set out in the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan.



Adult gaming centres offer minimal local employment, no genuine community benefit, and actively undermine the pride and vitality of high streets that residents desperately want to see improved. They are inward-facing and represent single-purpose uses that do not provide an active frontage or support browsing and linked trips. Moreover, a further gaming centre on the High Road would go against the spirit of the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan, recently approved through a referendum of local residents.



Conclusion



The planning and health evidence is clear. This speculative proposal clearly breaches Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan and should be refused. At a time when local authorities are campaigning to tackle gambling harms, this application moves Kilburn in the opposite direction. It breaches frontage thresholds, threatens public health, and contradicts the community-led vision for a healthier, more vibrant Kilburn High Road. We urge the Council to protect Kilburn community's physical, mental, and economic well-being by rejecting this application.

 

……........

Proposal: Change of use of basement and ground floor from vacant bank to Adult Gaming Centre

This proposal represents the antithesis of the kind of development and meaningful progress that residents in both Brent and Camden want to see. At a time when both Brent and Camden Council are actively campaigning to tackle gambling harms, rebuild pride in our high streets and support healthier town centres, this application would take Kilburn in precisely the opposite direction. It would introduce a use that extracts value from the community, generates well evidenced public health and anti-social behaviour impacts, and gives little back in return.

I primarily object to this application on planning grounds. In doing so, I also make clear that the proposal raises material considerations relating to public health and the effective operation of the council's licensing regime, all of which are supported by adopted policy and robust local evidence and should therefore be afforded significant weight.

1. Planning impacts in Kilburn and conflict with the Brent Local Plan

The site sits within a designated town centre frontage on Kilburn High Road, a corridor already under intense pressure from deprivation, high footfall, late night activity and a concentration of nonretail uses. Kilburn experiences high levels of private renting, overcrowding, and a younger working age population that Brent Council's own evidence identifies as being more exposed to gambling related harm.

Against that context, Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041 is directly engaged. Policy BE5 exists specifically to prevent over concentration of betting shops and adult gaming centres and to protect the vitality and retail function of town centres. It states that betting shops and adult gaming centres will only be permitted where they would not result in:

- more than 3 percent of the town centre frontage consisting of adult gaming centres or pawnbrokers or payday loan shops

- more than 1 unit or 10 percent of a neighbourhood parade frontage, whichever is greater, consisting of betting shops, adult gaming centres or pawnbrokers or payday loan shops

- a dominance of single use, low diversity frontages that undermine the retail role of town centres

The justification to Policy BE5 is explicit that these controls are necessary to protect health, social and cultural wellbeing, and to prevent harmful clustering in areas already experiencing disadvantage.

Kilburn High Road already contains a dense mix of betting, gambling adjacent uses, money transfer outlets and late-night food premises. This proposal would sit directly opposite a 24-hour McDonald's, intensifying late night footfall, congregation and loitering, and compounding cumulative impacts associated with noise, disturbance and anti-social behaviour. These are not hypothetical concerns but well understood dynamics in this location.

Adult gaming centres are inherently inward facing uses. They do not support linked trips, they do not meaningfully activate the street during the day, and they do not contribute to a diverse or resilient retail offer. Replacing a former bank with an adult gaming centre would therefore further erode the balance of uses on Kilburn High Road, contrary to both the wording and intent of Policy BE5 and the wider town centre objectives of the Local Plan.

2. Public health impacts

Public health is a material planning consideration where supported by local evidence, and in Brent that evidence is unequivocal.

The Brent Joint Strategic Needs Assessment on Gambling identifies Brent as having one of the highest concentrations of gambling premises in London, with 81 licensed premises, and rates of high-risk gambling more than double the national average. In Brent, 6.2 percent of residents are classified as high-risk gamblers, compared with 2.9 percent nationally. Low risk gambling is also significantly higher, meaning a far larger group exposed to harm.

The JSNA shows that gambling premises are disproportionately clustered in wards such as Kilburn, and that the physical availability and visibility of gambling venues is a key driver of harm. The estimated economic cost of gambling related harm in Brent has risen sevenfold to £14.3 million per year, placing further pressure on public services.

Kilburn's demographic profile makes it particularly vulnerable. The ward has high levels of private renting, overcrowding, younger working age residents, and communities that national and local evidence consistently show are more exposed to gambling harms. Introducing an additional adult gaming centre in this location would increase exposure, normalisation and risk, directly undermining the council's preventative public health objectives.

3. Undermining the council's licensing framework

Although licensing is determined separately, planning decisions must not undermine the effective operation of the council's adopted regulatory framework.

Brent's Statement of Licensing Policy 2025-2030 makes clear that the council seeks 'alignment between planning and licensing', particularly where proposals risk increasing crime, disorder and harm to vulnerable people. Granting planning permission here would materially frustrate that objective by enabling further clustering of gambling uses in a location already identified as sensitive and high risk.

Once planning permission is granted, the council's ability to manage impacts through licensing is significantly constrained by the permissive national regime. That is precisely why planning judgement at this stage is so important.

4. High streets, cumulative harm and the wider evidence base

The High Streets at Stake report by the Social Market Foundation and sponsored by Brent Council provides a compelling national and local evidence base on adult gaming centres. It finds that:

- the number of adult gaming centres increased by 7 percent between 2022 and 2024

- 33 percent of adult gaming centres are located in the most deprived 10 percent of neighbourhoods, and over half serve the most deprived 20 percent

- gross gambling yield from higher risk machines has almost doubled since 2022

- residents consistently report associations with crime, anti social behaviour and exploitation of vulnerable people

The report identifies locations in Brent as being systematically targeted because of high footfall, transport connectivity and socio economic vulnerability. This application fits that pattern precisely.

Adult gaming centres are the textbook definition of corporate extraction. They generate private profit while exporting public health costs to councils, health services and communities. They offer little local employment, no community value, and actively remove pride from high streets that residents want to see improved, not hollowed out.

Summary

This application should be seen for what it is: a speculative proposal in a vulnerable location, relying on a permissive national regime, offering no meaningful contribution to Kilburn's future, and running directly counter to adopted planning policy, public health evidence and the council's wider campaign to tackle gambling harms.

It is also notable that the applicant, SUNNI ED LIMITED, is part of a pattern of serial applications around the country, often supported by the same agent, testing the limits of local resistance. The same applicant has recently had a planning application refused in Spelthorne, which raises further concerns about the approach being taken and the absence of any genuine local commitment.

At present, there is no clarity about who the eventual operator would be, reinforcing the concern that this is a faceless, footloose proposal with no accountability to the community it would affect.

Taken together, the planning harm, the public health impacts, the risk of increased anti-social behaviour, and the undermining of local policy are clear. This proposal fails to meet the test of good planning and should be refused before it puts residents in Brent at avoidable risks of harm.

 

……........

 

I and my neighbours in the BRAT Residents' Association catchment area strongly oppose this planning application which is at odds with every aspiration set out in the newly endorsed Kilburn Neighbourhood plan. The arrival of another Adult Gaming Centre in these large and prominent premises will overshadow all the good work underway to try to improve Kilburn High Road and make it a vibrant and appealing retail town centre and community hub. Its presence will also overshadow improvements at Kilburn Sq retail and undoubtedly deter more quality appropriate retailers too. Also no account terms to have been taken of the proliferation of gambling and gaming on Kilburn High Rd. For example there are several Betting shops and a Mercure Slots very nearby already on the same High Road and the concentration will become totally inappropriate with another such large centre. This may be partly to do with Kilburn High Road being under the jurisdiction of both LB Camden and Brent so it appears that gaming premises are in different Boroughs when in fact they are in close proximity on the same street. The local population is strongly against Kilburn becoming a gaming and gambling dominated centre - our population is already under pressure and working hard to improve. Why then insert a large enterprise designed to exploit poverty and deprivation through gaming?. This is totally at odds with the democratically endorsed local Plan. Please re-think the approach and work with the local population to find a more appropriate use for this important and prominent site. The local Town Centre Manager is working hard to create an improved environment and offer on Kilburn High Riad. Last week I was part of a local group welcoming the planting of x6 new trees to the street and many elements are scheduled for or have already benefited from improvement. A large Gaming Centre will undermine this investment and dilute this good work. Please do not neglect z Kilburn and its population further by enabling such exploitative and inappropriate businesses to proliferate on our High Road.

 

UPDATE IN COMMENTS AS TEMPERATURE DROPS: Still no heating repair for South Kilburn disabled pensioner. Unsuitable hotel room offered.

I regret that the story first published before Christmas about the disabled pensioner in South Kilburn left without central heating for weeks LINK continued over the holiday. This is despite the intervention of a Kilburn councillor and the Cabinet Lead for Housing.

Today heating contractors for Octavia made their 15th visit but, 'The Sureserve engineer was unable to restore my heating, as he needs to call on the assistance of other SureServe operatives, including an electrician to carry out the repair.'

John H was unable to accept Octavia's offer of a Premier Inn hotel room as, 'It does not provide any disability aids and  adaptations. For example I need a wet room with support railings around the shower and toilet.'

With cold weather forecast for the weekend this is absolutely unacceptable and makes a mockery of Awaab's Law.

 

Tower Block cluster, Neasden, planning application open for comments

 

Letters have gone out to residents regarding the re-consultation of the Neasden Goods Yard development appication on Neasden Lane (near the Jubilee line station and between the various railway lines). Note that a further development is planned for the O'Hara's Yard adjacent to the site.

A few storeys have been lopped off some of the blocks with the tallest now  Ground Floor plus 44 storeys.

The re-consultation closes on Monday February 2nd 2026. See LINK 

 

 PROPOSED TENURE

  

There have been four new comments since the 2023 version of the application:

The curious case of the six Kenton houses that will be built in a day

 

The six proposed houses   - current garage site (bottom right)

The development next to the Wealdstone Brook - current footpath bottom right
 

The proposed development with rather sparse biodiversity corridor  - current brook bottom right

John Poole (Labour candidate for Kenton ward) drew readers' attention to plans for th building of 6 houses behind 37-44 Woodgrange Close, Kenton in a recent letter to Wembley Matters. LINK  

At the time the appplication has been declared invalid but has now been vaidated and is back on Brent's Planning Portal LINK. However, whether one is for or against the development, the Planning Application completed by the developer's agent  raises issues about validity and the checks made by council officers as the information is of doubtful accuracy.

MZA Planning of 14 Devonshire Mews Chiswick, W4 2HA submit that the demolition of the grags and building of the 6 houses will be completed in a day:

 They claim that the area is not liable to flooding:

 

The Government Flood Map LINK shows there is a Level 2 of 3 risk now and more so in the future. And the Application Map and illustrations above shows it is right next to the Wealdstone Brook watercourse. Hard to miss really...

 In fact the Design and Access Statement shows that the houses will be raised above ground level to avoid flooding.

The steps up from the 'high quality amenity space'

 The next one might be a matter of debate as to whether designated sites may be affected:

 

The site surrounded by trees, St Gregory's school field and Woodcock Park

Lastly the agent claims that the site is not accessible without an appointment.

Footpath to the bridge and there is vehicle access to the garages

 In case you missed it John Poole added a comment on the previous article:

 

Cllr. Janice Long and I, John Poole, two prospective Labour Councillors for the Kenton Ward at the local elections next May, visited the site  and spoke with local residents at the Mural Bridge whose use Woodcock Park on a regular basis and they were shocked and surprised at the prospect of housing at that site and so close to the Wealdstone Brook. Cllr. Long wonders what else could the site be used for - the disused garages go back to the 1950s - and we all agreed that it is an ideal area for a greening project to add to Brent Council's increase in biodiversity in the area and supporting the Council's Carbon Net Zero policy.