LETTER: Dangerous scaffolding in high winds on a residential council building 'Not Brent's problem' according to the Council's Emergency Team

 

Queens Park was closed by the City of London Corporation today as a precaution in the high winds. Public Safety is of paramount importance. Meanwhile I received this letter today from just down the road in South Kilburn. 

Dear Editor, 

For months residents of Alpha House in South Kilburn and their representatives have been raising issues with Brent Council about scaffolding which has ben erected on a section (1/3rd) of Alpha House. Despite repeated promises from the Council that residents will be forewarned if scaffolding is to be erected on their block (a promise Brent has never kept), it took repeated complaints after the scaffolding was erected last November before any letter was sent to residents saying work needed to be done on the roof guttering. Since then, issues have been raised several times about the safety of the scaffolding and easy access to it. 

Questions have been asked about how long it is going to be there, particularly as people have only been seen working on it very few times. Moreover, people know that much of the costs of such work is offloaded on to leaseholders, and the longer the scaffolding remains (to what purpose?) the higher the charge to leaseholders.

This evening in the high winds, a board blew off the scaffolding and another looked as if it soon would. A call to Brent Council's emergency number got the response that it wasn't Brent's problem (on a Council block!) because the scaffolding doesn't belong to Brent..., The only suggestion was that it could be cordoned off (by who?), ignoring the fact that this would prevent residents getting to, or leaving, their flats.

So the Fire Brigade was called. They came promptly, but apparently they are not allowed to go on scaffolding (because it might be unsafe.....), but did suggest - and help with - knocking on doors and warning people of the problem and danger.

So much for Brent Council, both for its lack of willingness to deal with queries about the safety of the scaffolding in the first place, and then a completely offhand response to an emergency situation.

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

Brent’s Council Housing – A Tale of Two Sites. The reality behind Brent Council press releases

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

From the Brent Council website home page, 18 March 2024.

 

Two news items about Council housing on Brent’s website caught my eye this month. Before I look at these schemes individually, let’s have a recap about their targets for affordable homes.

 

When Brent’s New Council Homes Programme was launched five years ago, the aim was for 5,000 affordable homes to be built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council set itself ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’

 

Promise’s “promise”, from the Spring 2024 edition of “Your Brent” magazine.

 

Having failed to meet those targets by next Sunday, the Council is doing its best to ignore that fact, and to publicise their new target instead. The ‘5,000 affordable homes in total within Brent’ is given an extra four years, and although an extra 700 new Council homes is added to the target to be achieved by 2028, rather than March 2024, they are no longer promised to be at genuinely affordable rent.

 

The Brent news release banner, from the Council’s website on 15 March 2024.

 

The first housing scheme that a Brent news release celebrated this month was the start of construction on the Neville and Winterleys site in South Kilburn. Among the white hard hat “crowd” in this Council publicity photograph are “the usual suspects” from Brent’s Cabinet, including the Council Leader with a spade (as in the Watling Gardens “groundbreaking” photo last October). But who are the others in this “flash mob”? Are they local residents waiting to be rehoused, celebrating that something is actually happening, or workers from a nearby site operated by the same contractor? Please add a comment below if you know the answer.

 

Brent applied for planning permission for this development in December 2018 (application 18/4920), and these were the details of the homes, and split between Social Rented and Private Sale, approved by Brent’s Planning Committee on 18 February 2020 (more than four years ago!):

 

Extract from the Final Officer Report to the 18 February 2020 Planning Committee meeting.

 

After minor changes to the design, the number of flats to be built here has been increased from 219 to 225, but the number of Council homes has gone down from 112 to 95. Despite this, Brent’s Lead Member for Regeneration can still put a positive “spin” on the numbers:

 

Extract from Brent’s 15 March 2024 news release.

 

The “almost half” is actually 42.2% of the new homes, and these will all be for existing Council tenants in South Kilburn, being decanted from other blocks that will be demolished as part of the troubled South Kilburn Regeneration Project. None of the ‘more than 200 much-needed homes’ will go to provide housing at genuinely affordable rents for local families on the Council’s waiting list, even though the 95 for existing tenants will be counted as ‘new Council homes’. 

 

Despite Brent celebrating the start of construction now, those homes may not be built in time for the 2028 target, as the news release says: ‘The scheme will be delivered by Countryside Partnerships (part of Vistry Group) and is due for completion by 2029.’ [I may add a comment below later about Vistry Group.]

 

Another Brent news release banner, again picturing some of “the usual suspects”, on 18 March 2024.

 

The second housing scheme that Brent issued a news release for this month is the former Euro House site in Wembley Park, now known as Fulton and Fifth. The development initially received planning consent in December 2020 for a total of 493 homes, which was increased to 759 (of which 218 would be “affordable”) under a second application to Planning Committee in November 2021 (with one Labour member, since removed from the committee, voting against approval). From the news release, it seems that the final figure is 876 homes, with 294 of them as new “affordable” Council homes.

 

It's amazing how many homes you can squeeze onto a site of 1.29 hectares, which used to be a two-storey warehouse. And the five towers have gone up quickly, as you can see on the left in this photograph, which I took earlier this month, while looking at what had happened to parts of the British Empire Exhibition grounds of 100 years ago (when there was a coal mine here!):

 

The Fulton and Fifth site, with its tower cranes, seen across Engineers Way from Canada Gardens.

 

It is very good news that all 294 ‘will go to council tenants on the council’s housing waiting list.’ But, as they say, ‘the devil is in the detail’, and these are homes that the Council is buying, on long leases, from a private developer, not Council homes that Brent is building itself.

 

In the 2021 proposals, there would only have been 80 homes for London Affordable Rent (“LAR”), with 62 “affordable” at no more than Local Housing Allowance (“LHA”) rent level and 76 for Shared Ownership. I explained LHA and Shared Ownership in detail, in a November 2022 guest post. 

 

The press release says that now ‘118 will be at London Living Rent, and 176 homes will be rented at London Affordable Rent.’ 176 homes at the “genuinely affordable” LAR rent level will be very welcome (although that rent level does not include a cap on the level of service charges). But 176 is slightly less than the 181 which will be sold privately, or as Shared Ownership, on Brent Council’s own development at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, with only 56 of the 237 being built at that site for rent to Council tenants at LAR level!

 

You may not be familiar with London Living Rent (“LLR”), so I will take this opportunity to explain what it means. It was introduced by the Mayor of London, and the GLA website says: ‘London Living Rent is a type of intermediate affordable housing for middle-income Londoners who want to build up savings to buy a home. … it is designed to help people transition from renting to shared ownership.’

 

To qualify for an LLR home, you need to live or work in London, be in housing need, but not be able to afford to buy a home (even a Shared Ownership one!) and have a household income of no more than £60k a year. Your tenancy, if you get an LLR home, will be for a minimum of three years, and up to ten years. During that time, you will be expected to save, so that you can buy a share of your home through Shared Ownership.

 

London Living Rent levels from 1 January 2024 for each Brent Council Ward. (From a GLA spreadsheet)

 

LLR rent levels are based on one third of average local household incomes, on a Ward-by-Ward basis across the capital, and are recalculated each year. Currently, the monthly LLR rent level for a 1-bedroom flat in Wembley Park would be £1080, rising to £1320 for a 3-bedroom home. For 2024, there is a cap of £1400 a month for LLR rents.

 

Extract from Brent’s 18 March 2024 news release.

 

What the LLR rent levels for Wembley Park will be in 2026, if the promised homes are ready in ‘just two years from now’, will depend on figures for household incomes in that area. Given the large number of new Quintain Living (and other private) apartments being let, and the rents that people have to pay for them, “local household incomes” are likely to rise, with the LLR rents rising as well.

 

Quintain Living advert, photographed on a Jubilee Line train in March 2024.

 

As an example of what is currently charged by Quintain Living, the advert above says that you can rent a studio apartment from £1703 a month. That’s more than £20,400 a year for a home only big enough for one or two people, so not affordable for most local people in housing need. (You have to look very closely for the “small print” on ‘one month rent free’, as it’s printed in white on a light background – it only applies to selected unfurnished apartments with a minimum 12-month tenancy.)

 

One final point on Brent’s affordable housing at the Regal London Fulton Road development. 294 homes is only 33.5% of the total being built there. Brent’s own planning policies say that at least 70% of the affordable housing provided on large developments should be “genuinely affordable”, but the Council’s 176 LAR homes are just under 60%, while the 118 “intermediate” LLR homes account for just over 40%. Not even following their own rules!

 

I hope you have found my latest look at Brent’s Council housing of interest. I’m sure it is more informative than Brent Council’s press releases!

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE

 

Meanwhile MYLONDON reports on private renting:

 

The average cost of renting privately in one North West London borough has exploded over the past 12 months. Since February last year, tenants in Brent have seen their housing costs increase sharper than anywhere else in the country, leaving some residents feeling like life has become about nothing more than simply working to afford the extortionate prices.

 

The cost of renting the average private home in Brent is 20 per cent more expensive than it was in February 2023, according to data from the government’s Housing Market Indices Team. This increase is five per cent more than the next worst affected London borough, and more than double the national average.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION FROM PHILIP GRANT

 FULTON AND FIFTH SITE:

In case anyone is wondering how the 759 home scheme approved by Brent's Planning Committee was magically increased to an 876 home development, here is the answer.

Among the many further planning applications arising from conditions set out in the November 2021 planning consent was application 22/3123, seeking variations of (among others) 'conditions 2 (approved drawings/documents), 3 (residential units)'.

One of the variations was to add an additional floor within the buildings, making the tallest 24 storeys rather than the 23 approved, but to do so without raising the consented height of the building.

How do you do that? By reducing the ceiling height of the flats on each floor! The ceiling height would now be 2.5 metres, which is still acceptable for housing standards. One of the two blocks where this reduction would be made was block E, with 176 homes - and it is no coincidence that 176 is the number of homes for LAR which Brent Council tenants will be offered!

This planning application did not go to Brent's Planning Committee. It was approved by a Delegated Team Manager, and signed off by Brent's Head of Planning on 9 June 2023.

This was despite the Report on the application saying: 'It is acknowledged that the proposal would continue to be in excess of the indicative site capacity of the whole site allocation,' - squeezing them in, as my article points out!

The Report also says: 'Of the 876 units, 122 of these would be 3-bed (13.9%). Under the extant consent, 79 out of the 759 units were approved to be 3-bed (10.4%). While there is an uplift of 3-bed units, these still fall short of the requirement for 1 in 4 dwellings within a development to be 3 bedrooms or more, sought by the Local Plan Policy BH6.' So, a big shortfall in the family-sized homes which Brent desperately needs.

The 3-bed flats which Brent Council will receive are shown to be 56 for LAR in block E and 36 for LLR in block D. (That's 56 family-sized homes for "genuinely affordable" rent in a development of 876 homes!).

LETTER: South Kilburn residents have a right to know what is going on with regeneration

 Dear Editor,

In August last year, South Kilburn residents received issue 1 of South Kilburn Regeneration News. A welcome sign that we might be kept informed of progress, despite the fact that `issue 1' came after regeneration has been going on for nearly 20 years, and in those preceding years there has been no attempt to let us know what is happening.

Rumours abound that the regeneration has hit the rocks and is stalling. Nothing seems to have happened with the Carlton Vale Boulevard scheme.. The medical centre promised for 2015 has yet to materialise, and in the meantime the building in which the Kilburn Park surgery was based has been declared unfit for use and then sold off. Rumours say the new medical centre will be opened early next year, but no information has been circulated, no explanation for the lateness or whether this medical centre will actually be up to the standard originally promised. A further rumour is that developers are pushing for an even smaller proportion of social housing than in earlier stages, with a preference for expensive market flats, would, if true, mean that any idea that this addresses the housing crisis is a bad joke.

Wembley Matters has carried several reports on the disgusting state of some of the blocks which tenants have been decanted to while waiting for new flats. Word has it that the stalling of regeneration means that many who have been promised new flats in South Kilburn will not be able to move into them for years.

South Kilburn regeneration has been plagued with problems throughout, with new blocks having to have scaffold up for years while cladding is removed, heating and mould issues in many new blocks and, most notorious of all, Granville New Homes blocks costing more to put right than the original cost. And the company that botched Granville New Homes given new contracts by Brent Council! On top of which many moved into new blocks find their rents and especially their service charges rising considerably. Many of the problems associated with new blocks have been denied by Brent, and there certainly haven't been issues of Regeneration News to tell us what is going on.

No-one attempts to give South Kilburn residents a truthful account of what is happening. Raising these issues at Brent Connects doesn't get any answers, let alone a commitment to inform residents. South Kilburn Trust, supposedly overseeing the  regeneration of the Carlton/Granville site never reaches out to South Kilburn residents and appears to be totally unaccountable, despite claiming to represent the interests of South Kilburn residents.. Even those few who have time and ability to trawl through - often impenetrable - Council documents are often none the wiser.

Having endured 20 years of living in a building site, compounded by Brent Council persuading HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate (with the support of South Kilburn Trust) rather than on a empty car park near Queens Park station, and facing probably another 15 years on a building site, residents really do have a right to clear, truthful information.

Pete Firmin, chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association, South Kilburn

 

As the 20th anniversary of the South Kilburn regeneration approaches where do things stand?

The 'Gateway' to the new South Kilburn - a work with little progres so far 

The South Kilburn Tenants Steering Group met inDecember so that tenants could hear an update on the South Kilburn Regeneration that started almost 20 years ago with the launch of the Masterplan LINK and may take another decade to complete.

 Extract from the Masterplan

 

Like other council developments in Brent there is a possibility of tenure change, with more private sales, to ensure viability. There also appear to be problems with the deliverability of the planned new school that would replace Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junion school buildings.

From January 9th on Wembley Matters

As previously reported the Council is consulting on ending the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation households and the use of void properties on the South Kilburn Estate for temporary accommodation. At present the Council incurs a £0.6m charge on South Kilburn void properties.

The South Kilburn regeneration itself is threatened by a viability crisis:

Viability is a key challenge for the remaining developments within the South Kilburn programme. The Single Delivery Partner approach is being explored to help provide certainty for the programme and provide economies of scale for the delivery partner.

Negotiations are going on regarding the purchase of the Falcon and Queens Park car park pub site: LINK

The Council has announced a decision  for the Corporate Director for Comminities and Regeneration to make an offer to Londonnewcastle to acquire the Falcon pub site, previously seen as a key site forming a gateway to South Kilburn.  Its acquisition along with the car park opposite led to the HS2 vent being controversially located within the estate next to a primary school.

In the Minutes of TSG meeting below I have underlined the number of social homes expected although I suspect that figure may reduce and needs to be considered along with those being decanted from existing blocks.

The arithmetic does not look hopeful.

 

Brent moves to remove 'Landlord Offer' from homeless moved into void properties on South Kilburn. Lettings Policy consultation will be required.

 

 

The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:

Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters. Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school and all but who are we to complain?

A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:

I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation. 

The fact that only 52  of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered. 

Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements.  LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:

There are currently 534 void properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.

However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):

Of the 534 voids, 52 have been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically, those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.

 

The rational[e] for the promise not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way those involved with the ballot.

This proposal does create a risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and work.  

 

There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:

 

 To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.

 

The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court.  LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?

 

This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration.   A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK

 

There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK

 

A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:

 

If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.

Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.

There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.

But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both  Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could  change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.

There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.

But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.

I wonder if Osbornes Law will be interested in the new proposals?

 

Just another story of South Kilburn neglect – a rubbish saga

 

How the rubbish accumulates

 

Guest post by South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin 

 

Coventry Close is a cul-de-sac off Kilburn High Road, leading to the South Kilburn estate. It is not a residential street, but one containing Royal Mail's NW6 delivery office and a car wash (which replaced an earlier coach depot). It is a popular street for people to park who are shopping on Kilburn High Road, and busy with foot traffic of estate residents and pupils and parents going to and from St Mary's primary school via the footpaths which lead on from the road. Not a very pleasant street at the best of times, it only has a pavement on one side and the border for the car wash is an ugly corrugated iron fence. Hardly salubrious.

 

Near the top of the road is the rear entrance to what used to be the Kilburn job centre, now closed and unused for many years. The rear entrance was to the underground car park of the job centre. That entrance is now shuttered. Ever since the job centre closed there has been a problem of rubbish accumulating at the back.

 

After previous complaints in previous years, the rubbish got cleared, although local residents were never told by who (which might have helped in the current situation).

 

To be clear, local residents (including from the nearby Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury TRA) have always recognised that this is not public land and it is not the responsibility of the street cleaners to clear this. However, we have asked Brent Council to do something about it, not least on health grounds. They must be able to take action to get the owners of the building to clear the rubbish, not just on a one-off basis, but also regularly. Or arrange for Brent to clear it and charge the owners. 

 

The current version of the problem stems from - at least - September. Despite regular pleas, accompanied by photos, to various Council officers the pile of rubbish has just grown (see photos from 21 September and 26th November., it was not cleared once in that period).

 

It’s not that Council Officers, and a Councillor, haven't acknowledged the problem and recognised that it is unacceptable, but nothing ever happens.

 

Report it to the Council's fly tipping app, you get the response that, since it is on private land, it is not the responsibility of the council.

 

Other Council officers have referred the issue to the `fly tip team' (same response as we had) and other Council departments.

 

One reply from an officer (24/10) said "This is not BHM land- I have absolutely no jurisdiction over it. [which we had never claimed] I will come back to you today establishing who we can escalate this to directly."

 

One of the more substantial communications we were copied into (between two Council officers) (25/10) said

 

I inspected the location after the last email and contacted the owners of the building and the previous occupants (which I more recently discovered are no longer in control of the building- sadly the Business Rates database is not updated).

I have made subsequent visits to the location and whilst there appeared to be a litter accumulation in the small recess area in front of the understorey carpark, it looked as though it was a new accumulation to the one originally identified.

 

I have contacted Rossmore Properties Ltd again by email (office@aminpatelshah.co.uk ) and now telephone (+44 20 7278 7651) . Their representative has advised that they had originally instructed a local maintenance firm to clear the location and this should have been done. I have requested routine maintenance; however it is unlikely that the routine maintenance will be more frequent than our own street cleansing or refuse collection schedules and would be unreasonable for us to expect this. I am expecting a confirmation email with regards to remedial works here by the end of the day.

 

Generally speaking the issue is more related to litter accumulation and evidence of ASB activities ( drinking and laughing gas evidence) as opposed to “fly tipping” of larger items.

 

The last several inspections of Coventry Close would also indicate a lack of general street cleansing for this busy thoroughfare into Kilburn High Road, however the road surface and parked cars may have an impact with this regard.

 

3 Cambridge Avenue remains empty and lends itself to ASB type issues in its current state. This is another location of concern to add to the list of hotspots for patrols in the Kilburn locality. Whilst there has been a planning application submitted to convert the building into 19 flats, it appears that this application may have already expired ( according to the agency whom submitted the application) therefore its empty state may continue and one wonders what the financial incentive would be to leave a building like this unoccupied.

 

The carpark area off of Coventry Close/Bristol Walk is managed by Catalyst Housing / Peabody Trust.

 

Any issues relating to this area should be directed towards them. 

 

Anyone reporting issues here should be advised to send in photos which always helps to identify and action issues accordingly.

 

One solution may be to introduce Catalyst /Peabody representatives to Rossmore Properties Ltd to see if this small tiny recess area can be maintained at the same time as the routine maintenance for the estate; for an appropriate fee.

 

As soon as I get an update from Rossmore Ltd, I will let you know.

 

Sound useful? But nothing happened. And quite why Catalyst/Peabody (which now have some nearby properties) would take any more responsibility than Brent , which not only has nearby properties, but should also take some responsibility for obvious health issues, is a mystery.

 

As you might expect by now, nothing happened. When we pointed this out, we got this response:(30/10)

 

To clarify, the email I previously sent was to explain who is responsible for the small recess area in front of the understorey carpark for 3 Cambridge Avenue ( access area located on Coventry Close) and to differentiate the adjoining private land managed by Catalyst/Peabody ( which also suffers from waste and highways issues from time to time).

 

The litter accumulations periodically accumulate either as a result of wind blowing it from the public highway sections of the street or as a result of itinerants whom congregate around here to take “rest” on the small wall away from prying eyes.

 

I have previously served notice on the owners to clear the land in question and put measures in place to prevent future waste accumulations. As a result the metal shutter was installed some time ago. However as a result of the angle of the slope and the layout of the building lines, the shutter could not be installed up to the boundary edge of the public highway and hence you have a tiny recess that continues to suffer with this problem from time to time.

 

I am aware that the owners of the property have a locally sourced private maintenance contractor whom periodically attend the site to clear any accumulations ( as was advised in the original Notice served on them).

 

I have spoken with a representative of the company that owns the property to advise them that there is an existing accumulation that requires attention last week.

 

I have further contacted them today to insist upon action.

 

Unfortunately the landlords are not based locally and are reliant on their private contractor.

Brent Council can pursue enforcement and issue penalties when non-compliance of a Notice is observed, however in the initial instance would prefer to work with private individuals and organisations to effect a solution. Previous correspondence with the owners have generally been met with compliance whenever this issue has been brought to my attention.

 

With regards to rubbish bins on Coventry Close I am aware there are a number of recycling bins that were positioned along Coventry Close to serve the blocks of flats and are also accessible to anyone passing. However it is my understanding that the Veolia Street Cleansing contract no longer accommodates litter bins on residential streets unless there are some exceptional circumstances. Furthermore the only section of Coventry Close covered by the street cleansing contract is between the top block of Alpha House to Kilburn High Road. The remaining section from the top block of Alpha House to Canterbury Road is the remit of BHM’s maintenance regime

 

If you continue to experience negative impacts resulting from waste accumulations on private land please report these to waste.enforcement@brent.gov.uk or via Fix My Street platform. If you can include photos at the time of reporting will also be useful to help us identify locations and deal with the issues accordingly.

 

We then had to point out that there are, contrary to that message, no rubbish bins on Coventry Close (which is why we have been asking for them for years.....) And Coventry Close is not a residential street.

 

From what locals observe, while obviously some of the rubbish comes from street drinkers, the majority comes from people walking through and from those who park on Coventry Close. But it doesn't really matter who causes the problem, it needs dealing with both in the short and long terms and while Brent talks of doing so, the rubbish continues to pile up.

 

We wonder whether this would happen in other parts of the borough or is yet another sign of how Brent neglects its basic responsibilities in South Kilburn. Building showcase new housing looks nice, less so when surrounded by uncleared rubbish. And before anyone accuses us of exaggeration, Council officers have repeatedly accepted that the area is neglected and promised to sort it. And little happens.

 

Pete Firmin