Extraordinary Brent Council Meeting on January 23rd to appoint Brent's new Chief Executive

 

The Seniot Staff Appoints Panel, consisting of 4 (three women and one man) members of the Labour Cabinet and Conservative Cllr Suresh Kansagra as well as two officers including the outgoing CEO Carolyn Downs, will be interviewing candidates for the post of Brent Council Chief Executive Officer and Head of Paid Services on Tuesday.

All Brent councillors have been summoned to an Extraordinary  Full Council Meeting the following Monday, January 23rd  at 6pm, to hear the Panel's recommendation and approve the appointment (it is unlikely that they won't but there may be limited dissent).

Carolyn Downs' term finishes in April. Lately, as part of her legacy, she has sough to improve relations between the three parties represented on the council. 

 

Kilburn Square – from the other end of the telescope

 

 

Guest post from Sara Hojholt in a personal capacity

 

 

It’s over two years (!) since Brent Council shocked our local community with a far too ambitious “Mini Master Plan” to build 180 new homes on the estate it owns in Kilburn Square – adding 80% to the 2019 population, on a smaller shared space.  Last September it finally listened to the near-unanimous rejection of that; and agreed to a re-think - acknowledging three major objections: the huge increase in density of residents; the loss of precious green space and mature trees; and the inclusion of a 17-storey tower.

 

But then in January it settled on a version only about 20% smaller, removing the tower but ignoring the other two objections. And despite good words about collaboration with residents, a scheme that would work for everyone, and not forcing homes on us… that’s essentially what they’ve now carried through to a Planning Application (reference 22/3669). And in the 138 documents of the dossier, they have failed to show clear evidence of substantial support from the estate residents or our neighbours in the wider community. 

 

So, here’s a message to our Council. For more information, search “Kilburn Square” on Wembley Matters, and visit our website https://save-our-square.org

 

The other end of the telescope

An Open Letter to Brent Council from a Kilburn Square Resident

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Ms Downs,

 

I live on the Kilburn Square estate, where you want to build an extra 139 homes. You sit in Civic Centre, miles away from Kilburn. All your justifications for this still oversized scheme are top-down, and viewed from an external perspective. But I’m pleading with you to look at things from the other end of the telescope. One of your Housing Officers described our estate to our MP as “brilliant”; we believe your scheme would undermine our physical and mental wellbeing, and the “sense of place” which Brent used to put at the heart of its development planning.  

 

Your arguments

 

You tell us there’s a huge waiting list, the GLA has grant funds, you’ve committed to numerical targets, you have a target proportion of larger homes and you can’t afford to buy land. We hear that; but you then use abstract or euphemistic terms like Infill, Densification and PTAL (accessibility to public transport). 

 

·      “Infill” suggests a few extra units here and there – not 60% more households than our original estate had in 2019, with a reduced communal space.

·      You tell us the GLA supports “densification”; but Kilburn Ward is already the most densely populated in Brent. As for the estate itself, the GLA has dropped its quantified measures of density of residents, as unfit for purpose; but Brent still has one – it’s called Amenity Space and our estate already fails to meet it before a single new brick is laid.

·      Your team have told us “if we had to respect that norm, we could hardly build anywhere”. Is that a justification?

·      Good public transport is of course essential if any development is to be car-free; but that doesn’t in itself justify adding more new homes than the site can reasonably absorb

You’ve already added a Block to the Southwest corner of the site. The next, little-publicised move to add more housing was a GLA grant allocation in November 2018 – for 70 new homes by demolishing one adjacent daytime use building. Then in March 2020 Cabinet approved a Network Homes agreement, with an increased target of 80-100 new homes – removing a second daytime use building. 

 

Had you stuck on that, the broad local community would have seen it as an acceptable compromise – and the new Blocks would be halfway built already. Contrary to your regular public assertions, neither we residents nor our supportive neighbours are NIMBYs.

 

Instead, your team chose to double their target. You thoughtfully offered us a second 17-storey tower - thankfully now cut to a “mere” 7-8 storeys. But you’ve persisted with three satellite Blocks (now merged to make two) on our existing communal space. 

 

·      Brent’s project website refers, to this day, to “the availability of significant parcels of land that could be suitable” for development – with no justification offered.

·      And now your Planning Application claims that the green space and trees where you want to impose a 37-unit merged Block C is “underutilised”. Outrageous!

·      We’ve told you for well over a year that this is not only a precious area for physical relaxation. It’s also our Green Lung – a crucial visual and environmental amenity for the whole community, on and off the estate.

West Kilburn is already in Brent’s worst category for green space deprivation – and your own Climate Strategy seeks to increase green space not remove it. But don’t just take it from me, read the second Comment posted on the Planning Portal, from a Barrett House resident. Here’s an extract:

 

“My flat , it's dark and I have very little sunlight come in, I have significant health conditions including my lungs being damaged thanks to black mould, covid and asthma . I also struggle with other conditions. Taking away trees [and] green space will Impact on our health and quality of life. We utilised the green space in lockdown it was our neighbourhood connubial area!! It got us through tough times. Because we are poor and not privileged does that mean we don't deserve quality of life? In the long run it will cost the council more as mental and physical health will decline. Several other neighbours object to this work but due to either lack of English or learning difficulties have been unable to make objections. Please don't take away our trees, sunlight and quality of air!!!”

 

That’s the view of your Block C from our end of the telescope. And Block E would be shoehorned in unacceptably close to two existing Blocks.

 

In the meantime, the long-planned and urgently needed refurbishment of our existing tower block is no closer to being carried out. 

 

On a broader front, you’ve not explained why you have pressed this scheme on us Kilburn Square residents rather than, for example, devoting the whole Cecil Avenue site – Council-owned and with Planning Permission in place – to Brent-owned affordable homes. That would not be financially viable?... Ah, but wait a minute: you’ve publicly acknowledged to Cabinet that the Kilburn Square Planning Application as submitted IS NOT FINANCIALLY VIABLE. How misleading is that?

 

When our local newspaper asked the Council last week LINK  to comment on the scheme’s viability, your spokesperson dodged the question; nor did they comment on the number of units to be available at social rent level (the answer is none). The report to Cabinet is unambiguous: to achieve viability, most of Block B would need to be converted, after Planning Permission is granted, to Shared Ownership; and there’s even a hint of Open Market Sale!

 

For two years, your project team’s laborious pre-engagement process has tightly controlled the agenda, and has failed to gain the trust and support of the great majority of us residents. We do trust our Independent Advisors – 60% of our households gave them their honest views last year and they reported “There is no measurable support for the scheme, nor for the process”. But for subsequent “consultation” on alternatives defined by the project team, they were sidelined.

 

So, in summary, as the Council moves further away from meeting the needs of the truly most needy on the waiting list, towards becoming just another developer, the view from our end of the telescope is looking less acceptable than ever! For more information visit https://save-our-square.org

 

Sara Hojholt, Kilburn Square Resident

 

 

Barry Gardiner intervenes in Newland Court planning application issues

 

Barry Gardiner has written to Brent Council CEO regarding concerns over the Council's planning application for Newland Court in Wembley Park:

Dear Ms Downs,

 

Our Ref: WL / ZA36316

Newland Court Garages, Forty Avenue, Wembley – Planning Application Reference: 22/3124
Alternative Reference: PP-11328951

 

I write on behalf of a number of constituents regarding their concerns for the planning proposals at Newland Court. I would ask that this correspondence be considered as part of the formal consultation.

 

As you are aware, I do not normally intervene in planning matters unless they have major infrastructure implications or where there is a suggestion that there may have been a failure of process.

 

In the case of Newland Court I refer to Brent’s Responsible Growth Strategy and Borough Plan. They set out a number of themes primarily: affordability, equity, sustainability and inclusivity. I am concerned that these themes may not have been sufficiently considered during the consultation process.

 

The proposed reduction of parking spaces from 40 to 12, will certainly affect the existing residents of the 60 flats at Newland Court.

 

I understand there are at least 5 disabled blue badge users living in Newland Court. It is my understanding that there are no plans to provide disabled parking bays. One of the primary benefits of disabled parking is that it ensures disabled residents have ease of access to their property. I am concerned that the accessibility of Newland Court for disabled residents will be severely restricted. This relates to the principle of inclusivity.

 

Many residents in Newland Court are reliant on vehicles for their work, and their salary does not typically permit a sudden increase in monthly outgoings. I am concerned that there may be significant financial implications for these groups should they be forced to seek parking elsewhere, aside from the inconvenience and impact it will have on their employment. This relates to the principle of affordability.

 

Security has been a long-standing issue at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens, particularly in relation to non-residents using communal areas and engaging in anti-social behaviour. I am concerned that the proposals will encourage greater use of the area and lead to increased problems of unauthorised access impacting on the security of vulnerable residents.

 

I am also informed that there have been long-standing issues at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens regarding refuse collection and that the proposal would reduce the number of refuse bins from 14 to 6. Given that the current bins already regularly overflow residents are unhappy with this aspect of the proposal. This relates to the principle of sustainability.

 

Please advise what weight was given to residents’ concerns in this regard when considering this application and how it conforms to the principles set out in the Borough Plan and Brent’s Responsible Growth Strategy.

 

Thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to your response.

 

Yours sincerely,

Barry Gardiner

Member of Parliament for Brent North

 

Brent Council announces retirement of its Number 1 Manchester United fan, CEO Carolyn Downs

 

Carolyn Downs addresses Brent residents at the most demanding moment in her long career as Covid hit its peak in March 2020 

 

Brent Council has announced the retirement of its Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, who will leave in Spring 2023.

 

The announcement on the Council website said:

 

Brent Council’s long-serving Chief Executive Carolyn Downs has announced that she is to retire in the spring.

 

After a career in local and central government that has spanned more than four decades, concluding with more than seven years as Chief Executive of Brent Council, Carolyn will step down at the end of April 2023.

 

Carolyn’s career in local government began in 1982 in Haringey’s library service. Following 8 years in Haringey, Carolyn moved on to Stevenage and then Calderdale councils before, in 2003, becoming the first female Chief Executive at Shropshire County Council where she lead the Council to become one of the first ever County unitary authorities. After that, she became deputy permanent Secretary and Director General of Corporate Performance at the Ministry of Justice. Carolyn then became Chief Executive of The Legal Services Commission and subsequently Chief Executive of The Local Government Association for four years.

 

Having established herself as one of the most respected leaders in local government, the self-confessed ‘public sector devotee’ joined Brent as Chief Executive in June 2015.

 

During her time at the helm of London’s fifth largest borough and one of the most diverse boroughs in Britain, Brent established itself as a pioneering council that ‘set trends and didn’t follow them’. During her tenure, the supply of affordable housing increased significantly, with Brent delivering more housing completions last year than any borough in the history of the Greater London Authority. The number of people in temporary accommodation has fallen while Brent achieved its best ever Ofsted rating for the quality of its children’s services.

 

Brent was named London Borough of Culture 2020 by the Mayor of London and later that year was crowned the LGC’s ‘Council of the Year’ with the judges commenting: “Brent has embraced its communities in a celebration of diversity, lifting up the whole borough. The council demonstrates how to convene place and communities – an antidote to today’s fractured society. It impressed on multiple fronts, showing leadership in the round.”

 

The council was also often seen as leading the way during local government’s response to the COVID pandemic with Brent breaking new ground on the procurement of PPE, hyper local testing and its approach to engaging with local communities.

 

Current Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt with Carolyn Downs 

 

Carolyn Downs said: 

 

Brent is a very special place and it has been an enormous privilege to work here. Brent truly is the borough of cultures – with a mixture of challenges and opportunities as varied as the residents we serve. From building new council homes to building community cohesion and resilience, everything we do is focused on improving the lives of local people.

 

Despite the challenges faced by local Government we have achieved a lot together and one of the things that pleases me the most is the consistently high levels of residents’ and staff satisfaction over recent years.

 

It will soon be time for me to hang up my boots and spend a bit more time on my other passions including spending some more time with my wonderful family. Nobody can do this job alone and I will be leaving Brent knowing it is in a good place and with fantastic managers in place across the whole council.

 

I have been fortunate to work with a hugely talented group of officers as well as ambitious and supportive elected members and the many amazing voluntary and community groups who all make Brent what it is today. Brent’s diversity shines through both our workforce and elected members. Although there will be plenty of time to say farewell over the coming months, I do want to take this opportunity to say thank you to everyone I have worked with for what have been seven of the happiest years of my career.

 

Cllr Muhammed Butt, Brent Council Leader, said: 

 

 Carolyn’s huge knowledge and experience has been a massive asset to Brent during some of toughest years local government has ever faced. Her central role in supporting our borough get through the Covid pandemic showed her tireless commitment to public service. I would like to thank Carolyn for her stewardship and leadership over the years and the mutual respect that is evident between members and officers is a testament to her approach. I will always respect her wise advice which has helped us to become best in class in a number of areas as we have worked together with our communities to deliver a better Brent.

 

To ensure a smooth transition, recruitment for a new Chief Executive will begin shortly with the council looking to make an appointment early in 2023.

 

 

 000000000000000000000

 

 

Reacting to the news Cllr, Ketan Sheth said:

 

Working closely with Carolyn as Chair of scrutiny in Brent and NW London, she’s been able to bring together the NW London councils and the NHS — a pioneering move to deliver joined-up services, which support residents, and address deep rooted health inequalities. Carolyn’s approach to leadership has helped to transform Brent, particularly during the toughest years we have ever faced. Her pivotal role in supporting the Borough to get through the Covid pandemic exemplified commitment to public service. Her ability to drive forward our plans to regenerate our town centres and support communities across Brent illustrates the talent she has brought to the role. I wish her all the very best for a long, healthy and happy retirement.

 

Recently Ms Downs has attempted to improve the sometimes toxic relationship between members of the different political groups on Brent Council and sought to show the benefots of working togather for the common good of Brent residents. Work that I hope will continue under the new CEO.

 

Perhaps an Opposition councillor or two could sit in on the Appointments Panel for the new CEO?

On a personal note I have encountered Carolyn in my role as Editor of Wembley Matters as well as the Election Agent for Brent Green Party.  Her role as Election Returning Officer is not mentioned in the Council press release but that is where a broader sweep of Brent people meet her.  She has always been polite despite the criticisms I publish on Wembley Matters and as the borough Election Returning Officer her sense of humour helped lighten many a long tedious night. Her communication skills are clear from the above video but not often seen by the public, perhaps mostly when she comes to the rescue with whispered instructions (or suggestions) to the Mayor when s/he is presiding over Full Council Meetings

This is the latest in a list of recent changes at the top of Brent Council including the Assistant Chief Excutive and the Strategic Director of Children and Families.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rokesby Place ‘planning malpractice’ – Brent’s “final response”

  Two details from Brent’s Rokesby Place planning application

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

When my guest blog about Brent trying to justify its planning malpractice over the rent level for the new houses at Rokesby Place was published last month, I said that I would share the reply I received from Brent’s Chief Executive with you. I’ll ask Martin to attach the letter of 19 October from Carolyn Downs at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to can read it.

 

In comments under that September blog, I said:

 

‘We do need to be able to trust the Senior Officers who conduct the Council's business, both in what they tell us as citizens and what they tell Cabinet members and councillors in order to persuade them to approve the decisions they recommend.’    and that:

 

‘… the response to my letter of 22 September will be a test of the Leadership at Brent Council. Leadership sets the example, and is one of the Principles of Conduct in Public Life.’

 

If you care to read the Chief Executive’s letter, and those which preceded it in the earlier blog(s), you can judge for yourself how well they are doing.

 

Another of the Principles of Conduct in Public Life is Honesty. In her first letter, of 16 September, in response to my complaint, Ms Downs (or the Senior Planning Officer who drafted it for her) justified the Planning Case Officer contacting Brent’s Project Manager for the Rokesby Place scheme, rather than the Planning Agent who had submitted the application, by saying that this was because the Project Manager was “the applicant”.

 

In the letter of 19 October (drafted by Brent’s Complaints Manager?), the story has changed:

 

I might have accepted that as true, if I had not checked the information on Brent’s planning website after receiving the first letter. For the Rokesby Place application, this shows:

 

 

I’m aware, from correspondence on another matter, that Ms Hislop is employed by Brent as a Project Manager.  I’ve drawn this discrepancy to the attention of Ms Downs, but have not yet received her answer to it. [It’s also interesting, and perhaps concerning, to note that the Planning Case Officer and the Agent handling the planning application for Rokesby Place, are the same as for the current Newland Court “infill” housing application, 22/3124 ].

 

Whatever the truth on that point, I still believe that no ‘clarification’ was needed, as the application clearly stated that the tenure would be Social Rent. 

 

A Planning Officer seeking, and receiving, that ‘clarification’ from a Council employee involved in the project, seems a clear breach of the ‘impartiality’ required by the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance. This says: ‘Proposals for a Council’s own development should be treated with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.’ My original open letter to Ms Downs on 5 September explained that.

 

The ’transparency’ test would surely have required Planning Officers to disclose in their Report to Planning Committee that the application they were bring asked to decide had been for Social Rent, that Officers had changed this to London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) in their draft acceptance letter, and the reasons why that change had been made. They did none of those things, and even after Cllr. Sheth had revealed at the meeting itself that the application had been for Social Rent, they did not acknowledge that fact, or respond to what he had told the meeting.

 

Ms Downs’s letter does finally acknowledge this point, but in a very weak way!

 

 

The letter does not admit that there was a breach of the “Probity in Planning” guidance by Planning Officers, which should lead to the “wrong” done being put right. In fact, in another paragraph, it appears that the Council are now trying to put the blame for the rent of the two homes being LAR, rather than Social Rent, onto the Planning Committee councillors, not the Planning Officers.

 

 

The letter also maintains that LAR was the correct rent for the two homes, even though the application clearly stated that the tenure would be Social Rent. 

 

 

Quite frankly, the highlighted sentence is stretching the truth past breaking point! Within ten minutes of receiving the agent’s email (just two hours before the Planning Committee meeting), the Planning Case Officer had pointed out that the agent’s claim ‘we have always proposed that the units are 100% London Affordable Rent’ was untrue! It was that statement which was ‘an error’, not the planning application form.

 

 

Although the question of viability was not mentioned in the planning application, or the Officer Report, or at the meeting itself, it has now been raised as a reason why the rent on the two Rokesby Place houses should be LAR. This is picking up on a subject which has cropped up a lot over recent weeks (see, for example, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality , and Many pressures on Brent housing put projects at risk ).

 

 

At the risk of repeating myself, although Rokesby Place may have been ‘classified’ as LAR on Brent’s property “master tracker”, the planning application (which is what Planning Committee were considering) stated that the tenure would be Social Rent.

 

Social Rent and LAR are both described as “genuinely affordable”, and the Planning Officer at the meeting described them as ‘very, very similar’. But the latest letter from Ms Downs does not address the point I made in my open letter to her of 22 September:

 

‘these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more.’

 

That extra £772.20 a year is on 2022/23 figures, with the difference increasing each year. It may not seem a huge amount to Senior Officers at the Council (according to Brent’s accounts for 2021/22, the Chief Executive’s salary was £208,459). But to the parent of a large family, moving to a house built to ‘fulfil the needs of households on low incomes’, the change from Social Rent to LAR might mean that their dream of a decent home is no longer affordable.

 

I’ve recently discovered that Brent no longer appears to have any specific procedures to ensure that Planning Officers treat applications by the Council ‘with the same transparency and impartiality as those of private developers.’ I was assured by Brent’s then top legal officer in 2013 that very strict procedures were in place – either she was not telling the truth, or those procedures have been ditched by Senior Officers somewhere along the way. The letter from Ms Downs only offers a small concession to improve matters:

 

 

Although the letter says: ‘This is our final position’, I’m not satisfied that the points I complained about, or the suggested remedies I offered, have been properly resolved. I could refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, but that would mean a long delay. I believe that Brent Council needs to take urgent action to clear up this case, and to provide reassurance that other Council planning applications, such as those on “infill” housing projects, will be dealt with fairly by Planning Officers.

 

I’ve taken the initiative, and sent a Statement of Facts about how the Rokesby Place housing tenure point was handled to the Local Government Association’s Planning Advisory Service (which published the 2019 “Probity in Planning” guidelines), asking them to give an independent opinion. [I did, of course, send a copy to Ms Downs, because I believe in transparency!] They’ve replied to say that they may give some advice to the Council on its procedures, but that: ‘we in PAS can’t investigate or provide opinions on applications or processes for members of the public.’

 

I’ve asked: ‘Could the LGA's Planning Advisory Service provide an independent opinion of this case if both a member of the public and the local authority requested them to do so?’ Let’s see if Brent will agree to that!

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

Rokesby Place – Brent tries to justify its planning malpractice

 Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Architect’s drawing of the two infill houses for the Rokesby Place car park.

 

I will try not to make this guest post too long, as I will ask Martin to attach two long letters at the end of it. But I hope that as many “Wembley Matters” readers as possible will take the trouble to read this, and the letters. This is a follow-up to my article earlier this month, which included my letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive over alleged planning malpractice.

 

The letters are about the level of rent which the future tenants of two “affordable” New Council Homes on an infill scheme at Rokesby Place will have to pay. More importantly, though, they deal with the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers went against the rules meant to ensure that the Council’s own planning applications are dealt with impartially and transparently – and how they have tried to justify the actions they took.

 

Extract from the Rokesby Place planning application, 22/1400.

 

The planning application for Brent’s Rokesby Place “infill” housing scheme was made in April 2022, and was quite clear that the two houses would be for Social Rent. But when the Officer Report was prepared on the application, for the Planning Committee meeting in August, no mention was made of Social Rent, and the “affordable housing” condition in the draft consent letter said that the homes must ‘be delivered as London Affordable Rent units’. 

 

There was nothing in the published documents to show how or why Social Rent had been changed to the more expensive London Affordable Rent (“LAR”). I had to issue an FoI request to uncover that information. This led to the first part of my 5 September complaint, that there was no reason for, and no justification for, any change from Social Rent to LAR, and Planning Officers had been wrong to change it.

 

I received the reply to my complaint letter from Carolyn Downs on 16 September, but I believe it was probably drafted for her by the top officer(s) in Brent’s Planning Department. This was the reason given for why they recommended LAR, rather than the Social Rent level shown by the application they were asking Planning Committee to approve:

 

Extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

I have set out my response to that in my letter of 22 September below. Briefly, Planning Officers should not be changing what an application says just because they think it should be different, to do so for one of Brent’s own applications (although why, when it’s a Council application, was the Project Manager ‘the applicant’?) was not being impartial, and no ‘clarification’ was needed, because the application was clearly for Social Rent!

 

The action which Planning Officers took raises serious concerns for other Council housing schemes, especially a number of forthcoming “infill” schemes (Newland Court, Kilburn Square, Clement Close, to name just a few): 

 

·      Will they treat other applications for Social Rent housing (as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report, and as supposed to be provided under the GLA’s 2021-26 affordable housing programme) as if they should be for LAR? 

 

·      Will they interfere with other details which have been published in the application documents, and recommend different conditions to Planning Committee, without disclosing that they’ve done so?

 

Even though they had failed the “transparency” requirement in the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance, by not telling Planning Committee that the application was for Social Rent, the Council’s view was that members, when making their decision, ‘were aware that the application was originally for the provision of Social Rented homes.’ I could hardly believe the reason they offered to justify this:

 

Second extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

This was the conclusion which Brent’s Chief Executive came to (on the advice of Senior Planning Officers) in response to my complaint(s):

 

The conclusion from the letter of 16 September.

 

I have not accepted that conclusion, for reasons set out in detail in my letter of 22 September. In case you don’t feel like reading it in full, here are some paragraphs from near the end of it which sum-up my position:

 

‘Planning Officers seem to take the view that as Social Rent and LAR are, on the present figures, ‘very, very similar’, then it does not matter whether the affordable housing provided is one or the other. That would not matter for compliance with policy BH5, but as I pointed out in my letter of 5 September, it would matter for the tenants of the two new homes at Rokesby Place. 

 

As you quoted, from the Brent Local Plan Glossary, these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more. As the annual rent increases for these two types of affordable housing are linked to CPI, by the time the houses are built each tenant will have to find nearer £1,000 a year more if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent.

 

If a planning application states that the affordable housing tenure will be Social Rent, that complies with policy BH5, and should not be changed without good reason. And if there are reasons for changing from Social Rent to LAR, they need to be set out transparently, both for the Planning Committee and the public. That was not done on this application, so even if Brent Council believes it achieved the “right” answer, the way it was achieved was wrong. So wrong that it needs to be put right.

 

I hope you can now agree that the new Brent Council affordable housing at Rokesby Place must be for Social Rent, as applied for on the Council’s behalf under application 22/1400.’

 

I’m putting this correspondence “in the public domain”, so that anyone interested can read it and make up their own minds. If you agree that something has gone wrong here, please feel free to write to your local councillors about it, with a copy to carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk .

 

Philip Grant.

 The letters - click bottom right corner for full page version.