UPDATED: Controversial deferred planning applications return to next week's Brent Planning Committee

While most Brent Council committee meetings have been cancelled or postponed, as well as the Council's AGM which was due to be held this week, the Planning Committee continues via the internet.

Nex Wednesday's meeting considers a number of heavy-weight planning applications, worth millions, including two that were deferred at the May 6th meeting.

The application for Ujima House, on Wembley High Road, was deferred after a late objection was received from the landowner of neighbouring Lanmor House. His email objecting is not available on the Planning Portal (it is just noted) and of course as usual the 'Consultee' comments are linked but not actually published.

The email's contents can only be gleaned from the Planning Officers' summary LINK:

Additional objection 

Objections have been received on behalf of the owner of the adjoining site at Lanmor House (370 to 386 High Road) and part owner of 26-29 Ecclestone Place. 

A summary of the concerns are set out below: 

1. Consultation

The objector considers that there was a lack of consultation with the adjoining land owner during both pre-application and application stages. 

With regards to consultation requirements for the planning application itself, the Council did post site notices outside the application site and the application was advertised in the local press. In addition, consultation letters were sent to all nearby occupiers. This included the commercial space and all flats within Lanmor House, and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

The Council therefore exceeded its statutory duty for consulting on the planning application.

Further details of the comments received (including an objection received from 27 Ecclestone Place) are discussed within the “consultation” section below. 

The NPPF paragraph 40 states that local planning authorities should encourage applicants to engage with the local community before submitting their applications, and Brent's adopted Statement of Community Involvement reinforces this by setting out recommended pre-application engagement for planning applications. For an application of this scale, discussions with neighbours and public meetings and exhibitions are recommended. However pre-application engagement is not a statutory requirement. In this case, local residents were invited to attend two public exhibitions and give feedback on the proposals, although non-resident property owners were not explicitly invited. 

2. Accuracy of reporting

The objector considers that there was a lack of consideration of the proposal upon Lanmor House, taking into account the recent planning history and works carried out to Lanmor House. They also raised concern about the scale of surrounding buildings not being accurately reported and inaccurate reference to the building line being in line with adjoining sites where in fact it projects forward, and the resulting impact of the forward projection upon neighbouring amenity. 

The above matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

3. Building scale and mass of envelope parameters

The objector has expressed concern about the footprint and resulting depth of the building and the impact on neighbouring occupiers, specifying that there would be an overdevelopment of the site. 

4. Separation distances, privacy and outlook

The objector is concerned about the potential for overlooking and a loss of privacy and outlook to Lanmor House and 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place. 

Once again, this is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

5. Daylight and Sunlight

The objector considers that there are inaccuracies within the daylight and sunlight report in terms of the reporting of the windows within Lanmor House and no consideration of the impact upon the communal roof top garden in Lanmor House. 

This is expanded upon within the "remarks" section below.

6. Right of Light

The objector has highlighted that whilst outside of the remit of planning, the Council should be aware of its legal position regarding rights of light. As highlighted by the objector, this is outside the remit of planning. 

7. Highway matters

Matters have been raised with regards to construction traffic, servicing and delivery traffic, and access to the proposed building.

This has been discussed within the remarks section below. 

8. Streetscene

The objector considers that the assessment of the impact on the streetscape does not consider the curve in this part of the High Road and the potential for a “canyoning” effect along this part of the High Road with the nine storey building on the opposite side. Concerns are raised with the impact on the micro-climate wind tunnelling effect. They also believe that the Design and Access Statement misrepresents the building when viewed from the east as it is only shown as nine storeys.

These matters are discussed within the "remarks" section below. 

The  officers find reasons to reject the objection (see report linked above) and recommend approval of outline planning permission but it appears likely that the owner of Lanmor House will take things further.

The second deferred item is the development at Sudbury Town Station. This was initially rejected outright by the Planning Committee but officers' quickly proposed that it be deferred so that they could talk with the developer, Transport for London and this was, controversially, accepted by Committee members. LINK

These discussions have resulted in an offer by the developer  to contribute £600,000 to 'enable the provision of six 3 bedroomed houses' off-site. Committee members may wish to explore the mathematics involved.

The developer has also offered one additional blue badge parking space and confirmed that the offer of contributing to the cost of a CPZ would be available for 10 years.

The officers report LINK  gives a blurb for the Committee to adopt if they are minded to still refuse the application.

Residents reaction:

Brent Council to give households on Council Tax Support £150 towards their bill

From Brent Council

Today Brent Council is implementing a scheme that will provide over 7,000 households in need of emergency financial support with a one-off payment of £150 towards their Council Tax bill.

The credits will be made to accounts of working-age Council Tax payers who are eligible for Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme. The emergency funding will also apply to eligible new claims made for Council Tax Support from 1 April 2020 until 31 March 2021.

These households will shortly receive an updated Council Tax bill, showing reductions in payments totalling £1.3 million.

The money that enables the council to do this was made available by the Government and is ring-fenced for this purpose.

Councillor Eleanor Southwood, Brent Council’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:

Households across Brent have been hit extremely hard by this pandemic. Already, over 750 additional households have joined Brent’s Council Tax Support scheme, which just goes to show that money is a big worry for lots of people at the moment.”

This Government grant makes it possible for us to help out that little bit more. The economic and emotional costs of the pandemic are huge and growing and I look forward to working with the Government to find other ways to support Brent’s residents.”

The Coronavirus pandemic has shone a light on the deep rooted economic insecurity and inequalities our residents face. Earlier this year, I launched an independent Poverty Commission and, through this work, we are exploring what else needs to change to make a difference.”

I also want to reassure all residents that if your circumstances have changed or if you’re struggling and you need financial support, please look to us for help – visit our website or get in touch and we’ll let you know what options are available to you.

Visit our website for more information about the financial support available to residents during the Coronavirus outbreak or to apply for the Council Tax Support Scheme.

Challenges facing school leaders over phased return to school - NFER findings

From the NFER by Caroline Sharp, David Sims, Simon Rutt

On 10th May the Prime Minister announced a phased return of some children to school In England from 1st June. Schools have been closed to all but vulnerable and keyworker children since 20th March, meaning that most children have been educated at home for a period of ten weeks, and some year groups are not expected to return to school until the autumn.

Nevertheless, opening their schools to selected year groups (Nursery, Reception, Year 1 and 6 in primary schools and Year 10 and 12 pupils in secondary schools) as well as continuing on-site provision for vulnerable and keyworker children and providing distance learning for others is a considerable challenge for school leaders. In this report we set out our initial findings on how prepared school leaders are for opening more fully, what challenges they face and what guidance and support they need.

This report is based on findings from a national survey of 1,233 senior leaders in publicly-funded, mainstream primary and secondary schools in England. Responses between 7th and 17th May have been weighted by phase and free school meal (FSM) eligibility to provide a nationally representative picture. Note that because senior leaders were answering  questions over a ten-day period, some responses pre-date the Prime Minister’s announcement on the 10th May and the publication of DfE guidance from the 12th to the 25th May
(DfE,2020a-f).

Key Findings

School leaders have fewer teaching staff available at a time when they need more:In May, school leaders were operating with 75 per cent of their normal teaching capacity. Over a fifth (29 per cent) of teachers who are available to work are only able to work at home. Senior leaders explained that they will need extra staff to teach and supervise pupils while on site, provide distance learning for pupils at home and/or cover for absent staff, plus additional funding to pay for this. This will affect schools’ ability to provide the same level of teaching quality and curriculum breadth, as well as managing more teaching in school alongside continuing support for remote learning.

Senior leaders predict that when schools open to more pupils, 46 per cent of families, on average, will keep their children at home:Senior leaders with the highest proportion of free school meal (FSM) pupils estimate that more of their children’s families will keep them at home (50 per cent on average) compared with an average estimate of 42 per cent from leaders with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils. This raises concerns that pupils in most need of access to education will be least likely to receive it. In line with the advice from SAGE (2020), clear messages will be needed from Government to encourage families to allow their children to return.

Before schools were closed to the majority, the pandemic had the greatest impact on schools serving the most deprived pupils:Before 20 March, leaders from schools with the highest proportion of FSM pupils were more likely to report that they had experienced a significant drop in numbers of pupils attending school (73 per cent) than those with the lowest proportion of FSM pupils (57 per cent). This suggests that the differential impact of the pandemic on disadvantaged pupils dates back to the period before lockdown.

Most school leaders feel unprepared for resuming a range of activities when more pupils return to school:
School leaders feel least prepared for managing pupil movement around school (66 per cent) and organising school space to enable social distancing (65 per cent). However, 65 per cent of primary and 73 per cent of secondary leaders think it would be at least somewhat feasible to operate a rota with different year groups or classes in school on different days. This suggests that school leaders might be willing to adopt the option explored by SAGE (2020) for schools to split classes and rotate attendance every one or two weeks.

Opening to more pupils in June considered less feasible for primary schools:In May, only 18 per cent of primary school leaders felt it was very/entirely feasible to open their schools to more pupils this month. Some commented that it is simply not possible for them to ensure social distancing because children are too young to understand the rules and/or their school buildings are unsuitable. Recent Government guidance has aimed to address some of the concerns of primary schools, particularly around enforcing social distancing for young children.

Primary school leaders will also find it harder to manage a combination of face-to-face and distance learning (66 per cent of primary leaders felt unprepared for this compared with 52 per cent of secondary leaders). Secondary leaders are more positive about opening their schools’ to more pupils, with 37 per cent saying this is very/entirely feasible. It should be noted that secondary schools are being asked to take fewer year groups and not every day.

The findings suggest that the pandemic has had a greater impact on schools in the West Midlands, North West and London:School leaders were most likely to report some impact from Covid-19 on their schools in terms of the availability of staff and pupil attendance prior to 20 March if they were based in the West Midlands (84 per cent), London (82 per cent) and the North West (79 per cent) compared with school leaders in the East Midlands (61 per cent). School leaders were also more likely to estimate that a higher percentage of families would keep their children at home if they were based in the North West (50 per cent on average) compared with leaders in the South West (41 per cent on average).

Frequent cleaning and handwashing most essential safety measures:Most senior leaders say that frequent cleaning (96 per cent) and regular handwashing/sanitising (94 per cent) are very necessary/essential for safety when opening their schools to more pupils. Over half (56 per cent) consider it very necessary/essential to have access to personal protective equipment (PPE), although recent government guidance has sought to address this issue. Most feel at least somewhat prepared for maintaining hygiene when they open their schools to more pupils (66 per cent).

Senior leaders want the Government to provide clear, detailed and realistic guidance to schools on opening to more pupils:
Senior leaders want information from the Government (and to a lesser extent from local authorities and trusts) on how to manage social distancing. They want to know what is expected of schools, and under what circumstances there is flexibility for leaders to reduce the number of pupils on site. Recent government guidance may have addressed some of these issues.

Public Health Directors: Government misjudgement in lifting too many restrictions, too quickly will risk spike in Covid19 cases and deaths

I am publishing below the full text of the statement by the President of the Association of Public Health Directors on the proposed lifting of restrictions. LINK


COVID-19 has already taken a huge social and economic toll on our nation – and the reality is that it will continue to do so for some time.

We are at a critical moment. We need to weigh up the balance of risks between easing restrictions, to enable more pupils to return to school, more businesses to open and more social connections to happen, with the risk of causing a resurgence of infections.

Directors of Public Health are increasingly concerned that the Government is misjudging this balancing act and lifting too many restrictions, too quickly.

This is a new disease; evidence is still emerging and there is much uncertainty. However, based on what is currently known, several leading scientists and public health experts have spoken out about a string of recent national policy announcements affecting England which project a degree of confidence that many – including ADPH members – do not think is supported by the science.
Over the weekend we have seen signs that the public is no longer keeping as strictly to social distancing as it was – along with this, we are concerned that the resolve on personal hygiene measures, and the need to immediately self-isolate, if symptomatic, is waning. A relentless effort to regain and rebuild public confidence and trust following recent events is essential.

At a local level, Directors of Public Health (DsPH) consider that honest and open dialogue with their communities is integral to effectively containing COVID-19 and managing outbreaks. That focus must be echoed at the very top of Government.

The Government has set five tests, each of which must be regularly reviewed as restrictions are adjusted and eased. Here is our current assessment:

Firstly, the pressure on the NHS – and those that tirelessly and expertly work within it – has been significant but it has been able to cope with those who unfortunately need hospital treatment for the effects of COVID-19. The number of people in hospitals with COVID-19 is falling, and beds are available for those that require them.

Secondly, there must be a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rate. While the first peak in deaths has passed, the downward trend is slow – particularly in care settings. Deaths are a measure of what happened roughly two weeks before – the effect of easing measures now will only become evident in two weeks.

The critical debate is about the third test – ensuring the rate of transmission of the infection continues decreasing to manageable levels (taken to mean R being well below 1). The rapid and multiple ways in which measures are being eased is likely to make it difficult to judge the cumulative impact on R.

As we saw in March, R can go above 1 in a very short space of time – and once it does it can take many months to bring it back down. The room for manoeuvre is tight.

The fourth aspect, ensuring supply of tests and PPE is able meet future demand, remains an enormous challenge. PPE manufacturing and supply chains are stronger, but shortages are still being reported and it is not clear that supply can meet new demand as different parts of society, public services and the economy open. While testing capacity has undoubtedly increased, we are not yet confident that the current testing regime is sufficiently effective in getting the priority tests done and the results to where they are needed to enable swift action.

Finally, the fifth test. A second peak cannot be ruled out – whether it will overwhelm the NHS is an important question to ask. But perhaps the even bigger one is, do we really want the same number of deaths again? The scale to date represents an unimaginable tragedy and we must do everything possible to limit further loss of life.

The ADPH has argued that an effective contact tracing system is vital to keep R consistently below one. We set out a ‘Statement of Principles’ to outline what needs to be in place to make this work. A huge effort is underway to establish such a system. We would pay tribute to valued colleagues at Public Health England, who have built on the contact tracing work they conducted at the start of the pandemic – and Dido Harding and Tom Riordan who have shown great energy and leadership in recent days. We also welcome the new Joint Biosecurity Centre to support action based on intelligence and there are welcome signs that local knowledge, insight and capabilities are more widely understood and recognised by the Government.

As ever, the ADPH will continue to be as constructive as possible and as challenging as necessary.

But, let’s be clear, the NHS ‘Test and Trace’ programme is currently far from being the robust operation that is now urgently required as a safeguard to easing restrictions. Directors of Public Health are working at extraordinary pace to develop Local Outbreak Plans. The ADPH will shortly be publishing a briefing paper setting out the guiding principles needed to shape – and implement – them. It is important to recognise that these plans will largely build on the health protection duties that DsPH already have. The work that has been going on throughout this pandemic, including managing outbreaks in settings such as schools and care homes and support for vulnerable people, continues day in and day out.

DsPH have proved themselves capable and ready to take on this leadership role and will develop and deliver local plans with the support and collaboration of local government colleagues and PHE regional teams, as well as the NHS, third sector and business.

Now is the time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps.

The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be. There also must be a renewed drive to promote the importance of handwashing, social distancing and self-isolating if symptomatic, positive for COVID, or a contact of someone who is. And, additional assurance is required that the NHS Test and Trace System will be able to cope with the scale of the task.

The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.

Brent Friends of the Earth urge Brent Council to expedite bid for TfL greener transport funding

Fearful that Brent Council and its residents will miss out on potential funding for green travel plans (bids have to be in by Thursday), Brent Friends of the Earth have written to Brent's CEO, Carolyn Downs, leading councillors and officers with recommendations for such a bid:

Dear Ms. Downs,

The government is calling for a “step-change” in the roll-out of Active Travel measures, and that these should be taken “as swiftly as possible, and in any event within weeks”. Moreover TfL and The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, have launched the ‘London Streetspace’ programme to help residents switch to more sustainable forms of transport, reducing the pressure on other parts of our transport network. Immediate action is essential in reducing public transport to 20% to enable social distancing whilst travelling. As you know there is funding available from TfL and we are keen that Brent secures as much funding as possible to enable the changes that are needed. We hope there is time to consider the recommendations below on green travel as a necessary and timely response to the Climate Emergency declared by Brent council last July.

1. Put in place Clean Air Zones, with charging if needed.

2. Reduce car use through measures such as promoting car-sharing and the need to own and use a car through managing developments in the local plan. The Housing Minister has revoked the sign - off for Local Plans so we ask Brent to run counter to this and find alternatives to removing Green Space / Green Corridors within Brent.

3. Deliver a rapid transition of the council’s own fleet of vehicles to electric.

4. Require deliveries to the council to be by electric vehicles or bike (e.g. through setting-up a distribution centre for onward deliveries by clean vehicles).

5. Extended time limit on pedestrian green phase at every signalised junction for disabled pedestrians; these should run without needing to push the button.

6. Connected cycle lanes through major thoroughfares and parks, clearly painted with their segregation significantly improved through the use of wands, cones, armadillos, and planters and pop-up cycle parking should be encouraged, especially in areas of high pedestrian traffic. Major thoroughfares in turn should allow cycles in bus lanes, but no other (private) vehicles, with stiff fines for infractions; they should use 'swept path analysis' software to ensure cycling safety and viability; see LINK

7. The provision of cycle hoops and bike hangers to be accelerated on given residential streets, as long as two or more households are in favour, and in the parking lots of all schools.

8. For the safety of cyclists in Brent speed limits should be lowered, especially in residential areas and near schools, with increased enforcement and speed camera infrastructure significantly expanded; wherever possible, at intersections without traffic lights and the Council should consider banning turns to remove hooking danger, among the leading causes of injury and death among cyclists.

9. The Council should commit to converting existing parking to green spaces/ tree and hedge planting wherever possible, thereby simultaneously reducing car usage and improving air quality, and adopting weekly car free days and making all school streets car-free within 500 metres of schools with exemptions for people with blue badges/disability driving badges.

10. On top of air pollution, noise pollution is a public health issue pertaining to traffic. Brent Council should more aggressively devise and implement noise impact assessments and increase enforcement including fines for all vehicles with noise levels above 10 dBA and increasing fines for modified vehicle exhaust systems that make the vehicle in question noisier after it has been ‘type approved’.

11. The North Circular Rd/A406 should be a top priority for traffic reduction, as it contributes to dangerous particulate levels and noise pollution for all adjacent communities, bisects the borough in ways that make crossing exceedingly difficult, and is extremely un-user friendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Optimally, a trolley line should be placed in lanes for both directions, although this would need coordination with TfL and adjacent boroughs. More immediately, existing plans to sequester lanes in both directions for cycle and pedestrian use, with planters/shrubbery/green verges segregating these from traffic, should be implemented; and over/underpasses for cyclists and pedestrians greatly increased.

We urge you, therefore, to consider the above and prioritise green travel plans as quickly as possible. Where appropriate, funding should be sought from TfL – and where the changes are not the responsibility of the Council we urge you to lobby TfL for these changes. We look forward to hearing from you regarding the recommendations outlined in this letter. We appreciate regular updates and feedback on the subsequent Developments of your efforts.

BREAKING: NEU calls on Government to step back from the brink and stop 1 June school reopening

From the National Education Union

Four prominent members of the Government’s own scientific advisory body have broken ranks to express worries about the safety of wider primary school opening on Monday.

SAGE members Professor Peter Horby, who is chair of the Government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG); Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Institute; John Edmunds, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Calum Semple, professor in Child Health and Outbreak Medicine have all expressed fears about the easing of lockdown.

On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Professor Horby agreed with Professors Edmunds' and Farrar’s concerns, saying that SAGE has always been very clear that test, trace, isolate must be fully running BEFORE lockdown is relaxed. The system needs to be tracking most new cases, he said, following them up within 48 hours.

Professor Horby added that SAGE does not have a good handle on the role of children and schools in transmission and stated that returning to another lockdown would be much worse than delaying another two or three weeks until contact tracing is fully up and running.

Professor Edmunds said “There are still 8,000 new infections every day in England without counting those in hospitals and care homes… If you look at it internationally, it’s a very high level of incidence.

“I think many of us would prefer to see the incidence driven down to lower levels because that then means that we have fewer cases occurring before we relax the measures.”

Professor Farrar tweeted: “Covid-19 spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England. TTI [test, trace and isolate] has to be in place, fully working, capable [of dealing with] any surge immediately.”

Professor Semple said: “Essentially, we’re lifting the lid on a boiling pan and it’s just going to bubble over… We need to get it down to simmer before we take the lid off, and it’s too early.”

He also said that levels of transmission and hospital admissions are still too high. "I think a political decision has been made to tie in with when school was due to start, were everything normal, but it’s not normal."

National Education Union joint general secretaries Kevin Courtney and Mary Bousted said: “This public break by four prominent of the Government’s SAGE committee changes everything.

“No-one can now confidently assert that it is safe to open schools more widely from Monday.

“All four of these members of SAGE agree that there must a lower number of cases and an efficient system of contact tracing working before there is a relaxation of lockdown measures. Both these measures are included in the NEU’s Five Tests.

“Opening schools more widely runs the risk of increasing the R rate and therefore the level of risk to staff and to parents.  

“That risk can only be mitigated if contact tracing is running successfully.

“We have made that case strongly to Government – and we have been supported by the BMA and by the Independent SAGE group in our concerns.

“Government replies that it is following the science. But this public break by senior members of SAGE, including by the chair of the NERVTAG committee, undermines that claim.

“School leaders, their staff and pupils’ families deserve better than this.

“Even at this late stage, we call on the Government to draw back from wider opening of primary schools from Monday.

“Instead we urge them to engage in talks with the profession and the unions, including the NEU, about how to open schools more widely once the contact tracing system is shown to be working.”

The Wembley Park Story - Part 3

The third part of Philip Grant's series on the history of Wembley Park

Welcome back to our journey through Wembley Park’s history. If you missed Part 2, “click” on the “link”.

After the failure of the Wembley Tower, the company was renamed the Wembley Park Estate Company in 1906. Its owner, the Metropolitan Railway, had electrified its lines the previous year, and was keen to develop spare land near its stations for housing. New roads to the west of the pleasure grounds had already been laid out in the 1890s, including Wembley Park Drive. This ran from the thatched lodge (built 100 years earlier, at the start of Repton’s gravel drive to the Wembley Park mansion) to the station.

1. The Lodge at the start of Wembley Park Drive, with sign to station, c.1900. (Brent Archives image 7742)

From 1907, the estate company began selling off plots of land to builders, clearing away many of the trees and the existing buildings. The “White House” had been used by a group of Catholic nuns from France since 1905, when they were expelled from their convent under a new French law separating Church and State. They had to leave, so that John Gray’s mansion could be demolished in 1908, to make way for Manor Drive.

In the former pleasure park, the Variety Hall had been leased by the Walturdaw Company in 1907, for use as a film studio. Early cinema film was highly flammable, and the wooden building burnt down in 1911! From 1909, the grounds were used for training camps by Territorial Army forces. Then, in 1912, much of the site became the 18-hole Wembley Park Golf Club.

2. Ladies playing golf at the Wembley Park Golf Club, c.1914. (Brent Archives online image 10000)

3. Wembley Hill Station, Wembley Hill Road, colourised postcard c.1908. (Brent Archives online image 7202)

The Wembley Park Estate got off to a slow start, with some houses being built in Oakington Avenue and Wembley Park Drive by 1910. After a passenger station opened on the Great Central Railway in 1906, there were also plans for a large garden suburb at Wembley Hill, just south of Wembley Park and its golf course, as shown in the advertisement below. 

4. Advertisement for Wembley Hill Garden Suburb, in 1914. (Brent Archives – Wembley History Soc. Colln.)

Wembley Urban District Council also had ideas for the former pleasure grounds, and set up a committee to prepare plans for a high-class garden suburb there as well. They had tried to buy part of the site as a public park, but could not agree a price with the estate company. Instead, they bought two fields from a farm in Blind Lane, and in July 1914 Queen Alexandra opened the park, named after her late husband, King Edward VII. The new park was beside the recently opened Blind Lane Council School, which like the road was renamed, Park Lane.

When war broke out, that same summer, all house building work came to a halt. By 1920, housing development in the area was proceeding again at pace, and not just on the former Wembley Park land. The Read family had been farmers in Wembley for centuries, including as tenants of the Pages. In 1922, the remainder of the farm they rented (part of which they had lost for the park) was sold off. John Read, who was born at Elm Tree Farm (near the junction with Wembley Hill Road) fifty years earlier, emigrated with his family to Australia.

5. Elm Tree Farm, Park Lane, in 1922. (Photo by Kuno Reitz, W.H.S. Colln., Brent Archives online image 9225)

One reason for the rapid increase in house building was the efforts of the Metropolitan Railway to promote districts along its line as “Metro-land”, healthy suburbs that gave easy access “to town”. Another reason was the efforts of Wembley building firms such as Comben & Wakeling. The accessibility of Wembley Park to the centre of the capital, and the large size of the former pleasure grounds, was also a key factor in its choice, in 1921, as the site for a huge exhibition.

6. Wembley Park housing adverts, from the 1922 edition of "Metro-land". (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)

Ideas for a British Empire Exhibition had come together the previous year, with the promise of Government support. As well as promoting trade, its aim was ‘to enable all who owe allegiance to the British flag to meet on common ground and learn to know each other.’ The Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII), who was President of the organising committee, was keen that the exhibition should include ‘a great national sports ground’, and work began on this in 1922.

The Empire Stadium was completed in time for the F.A. Cup Final in April 1923, but the rest of the exhibition area was still a building site. Work had been delayed, because sections of the golf course fairways had been fenced off, to provide the first turf for the football pitch. It was thought that the stadium’s 125,000 capacity would be enough, as it was twice the size of the Stamford Bridge ground where recent finals had been played, but around 200.000 fans came to Wembley for the match. The few local pubs nearby did a roaring trade!

7. Outside the old Greyhound pub, High Street, on Cup Final day, April 1923. (Brent Archives image 9444)

Over the next year around 15,000 men, 70% previously unemployed ex-servicemen, laboured to construct the numerous exhibition buildings, and to landscape the 216-acre site. Just as it had been for the stadium, reinforced concrete was the main material used, with thousands of tons of ballast transported down the Metropolitan Railway from a huge gravel pit near Rickmansworth. Most of the buildings were ready when the exhibition opened on 23 April 1924.

8. Panoramic view of the exhibition site, from the cover of a BEE booklet. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)

Topical Budget: "King Opens Empire Exhibition Wembley" (1924)
(Click bottom right square for full screen)

The British Empire Exhibition that King George V opened had pavilions representing almost every nation within it, from across the world. Many were designed in the style of buildings from those countries, and housed men and women displaying their crafts and selling their products, as well as performers giving a taste of a wide variety of cultures. The 1924 F.A. Cup Final was an all-ticket event, after the chaos of 1923, and fans could enjoy the newly-opened exhibition.

9. Cutting showing Burmese dancers performing for 1924 FA Cup fans. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)

North of the artificial lake, that crossed the site from east to west, there were large “Palaces” displaying Britain’s Art, Industry and Engineering. Next to these was a huge amusement park, which as well as thrill rides had full size replicas of a coal mine, and of the recently discovered tomb of the Egyptian pharaoh, Tutankhamen. Many maps were produced to help visitors find their way around the attractions. Today, if you wanted to visit where Huntley & Palmer’s biscuits had been made, you would have to wait until Wembley Library reopens, after the “lockdown”.

10. The Huntley & Palmers map of the British Empire Exhibition, 1924. (Brent Archives online image 5432)

Although the map above shows the main railway lines, it gave no information about the other innovations being tried out to transport visitors around the large exhibition site. The Neverstop Railway ran for two miles from the North Entrance. It was driven by a continuous corkscrew underneath the carriages, with the threads distanced so that it moved slowly through the five stations, allowing travellers to get on and off easily, but speeded up to over 20mph in between. Two million people used it, paying a flat fare of six (old) pence, with half price for children. A different system, the Road-Rail train, across the south of the site, was not a success.

You might be surprised to learn that there were also 200 electric buses. The “Railodok” cars had a driver, who took up to twelve passengers on a 20-minute tour round the exhibition. This proved very popular after the King and Queen had enjoyed the experience, driving quietly but safely through the crowds. These buses had a specially built garage, where their batteries would be re-charged – an idea that, nearly 100 years ago, was ahead of its time.

11. The Nigerians, rehearsing for the Pageant in the stadium, July 1924. (Brent Archives – W.H.S. Colln.)

Throughout the exhibition, the stadium was the venue for large scale shows. In July and August, it was the Pageant of Empire, which used thousands of local volunteers, in period costumes, to re-enact events from history. It was staged in three sections during the week, with all three being performed on Saturdays. Those who had come to Wembley from across the Empire joined a finale parade, and the photo above shows the Nigerians rehearsing their part. The animals for the Pageant were kept at Oakington Manor (Sherren’s) Farm. Wembley’s entire police force were called out one night, to round up 50 donkeys which had escaped!

Around 17 million visitors came to Wembley Park for the exhibition in 1924, and a further 10 million when it re-opened for the 1925 season. If you would like to find out more, there is a British Empire Exhibition section in the Brent Archives online local history documents. New Zealand, Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the West Indies are among the exhibitors you will find information on, as well as learning about Belo Akure, a First World War hero at Wembley. You can also see how Canada and Australia made use of refrigeration in their displays.

12. The exhibition's lake, with the Indian Pavilion in the distance. (Brent Archives online image 7326)

When the exhibition finally closed, on 31 October 1925, there was no plan in place for its legacy. The company set up to run it had made a loss, and a liquidator was appointed to sell off the buildings and other assets. Some of the pavilions were dismantled, and taken elsewhere to be re-purposed as factories, a restaurant and a dance hall. Attractions from the amusement park were sold to Blackpool and Southend, or just for scrap metal. Did Wembley Park have a future? Yes, it did – please join me next weekend to find out more!

Philip Grant.

Pressure mounts on Brent Council as Brent TUC calls for schools to remain closed until NEU's 5 Tests satisfied

Brent Trade Union Council has sent the following letter to Cllr Muhammed Butt (Leader of the Council) and Cllr Krupesh Hirani:


Following a recent online meeting organised by Brent Trades Council at which Dawn Butler MP, Barry Gardiner MP, supported by Tulip Siddip MP, trade unionists from Brent branches of the GMB, Unite, NEU, RMT and medical and health and safety experts spoke of the risks in Brent from the spread of the virus. The high numbers of deaths caused by poverty, a densely populated borough could see a further a spike if schools re-open on 1st June.

I urge you as Chair of Brent Trades Council to ensure Brent schools remain as they currently are catering for small groups of vulnerable pupils or for children of frontline workers.
I note that the governments in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and the authorities in Liverpool and Hartlepool are so deeply concerned that it is not yet safe for children, school staff, parents and our local communities to allow schools to do so that they have decided against this course of action. Some London local authorities have done the same. I believe Brent should do the same.

I believe that in proposing the phased return of primary pupils from 1st June onwards, the government has put forward a reckless timetable. The wider opening of schools should only go ahead when it is safe to do so. It is unconscionable to shift the responsibility for safety in schools and the wider community onto individual headteachers without a safe national framework.

The government has demonstrated a lack of understanding around the dangers of the spread of Covid-19 from schools to the family home, and from the family home to relatives and carers, and consequently the dangers of transmission to the wider community. There are too many clinical unknowns about how this virus impacts on children. The reports of a Kawasaki-like disease already linked to 100 cases in the U.K have caused great alarm to parents. The heartbreaking death of 8 month old Alexander Parsons has sent shockwaves across the nation. The death of one child alone is one too many.

Giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee this week, the Department for Education’s Chief Scientific Adviser admitted the Government’s plan could risk spreading coronavirus since there is a "low degree of confidence" that children transmit the virus less than adults. It is simply impossible to apply social distancing to small children, who want to touch, play and hug. It is cruel to try to separate them, to tell them they may not touch each other, to take away their soft toys, and to not pick them up and comfort them when they fall.

Brent Trades Concil fully supports the National Education Union’s #FiveTests and believes there should be full disclosure of the advice relating to the re-opening of schools whether it is from SAGE, the schools sub division, some other combination of its members or from Public Health England (as suggested by the DfE’s Chief Scientific Adviser in his evidence) with any underlying scientific evidence, data or modelling on which that advice is based.
It makes little sense for children to return before September. It would be far better to be working collaboratively towards the implementation of safe conditions which would permit a safe 'wider opening.’ This should be the objective rather than a fixed date. This is what other countries including Scotland and Wales are doing.

Brent Trades Council welcomes your decision to support school staff who do not feel safe to return to work but as chair I ask you to support teaching staff and parents alike in insisting that schools remain closed until the NEU’s #FiveTests have been satisfied. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in response to the concerns raised in this email.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Adossides
Chair
Brent Trades Council