Guest post by Philip Grant
A month ago, Martin published the above map, from a report to Brent’s July Cabinet meeting, which included the locations of a number of the Council’s “infill” housing projects which were ‘not yet in public domain’.
I believe that our Council should be open with residents, especially those who will be most directly affected, about what its plans are (and I will say more about that later!). I added a comment to Martin’s 30 July blog, saying that I had asked for some information on the four ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes in Fryent Ward, where I live.
I have now received a reply to that request, so am writing this to share that information with you. If you know anyone who lives in, or near, any of these estates, please bring this article to their attention, so that they are aware of what may be in store for their home. The Council estates mentioned below are Campbell Court, Elvin Court, Westcroft Court, Broadview (and Gauntlett Court in Sudbury).
Aerial view of Campbell Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury and surrounding area. (Source: Google Maps)
The four three-storey blocks of flats (diagonal to Church Lane) which make up Campbell Court were built around 1950, as part of Wembley’s post-war Council housing programme. They were named after a Second World War Mayor of the borough, Malcolm Campbell. As you can see, the compact site includes grassy areas and trees, pairs of senior citizens’ bungalows between each block and small access drives for deliveries and parking.
Like all of the four Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes, I was told that: ‘at present, the project is at the Feasibility stage’, and that: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage.’ “Feasibility” implies that they are looking at whether the project is possible (either structurally or financially), but Brent’s Cabinet have been told that 97 new homes could be delivered on this small estate. That suggests Council Officers already have a pretty firm idea of what they have in mind, even though they have not yet let residents there know what it is, or given them the chance to have their say!
The information I have now been given is that the Council are looking at a ‘mixture of rooftop development and infill’, with ‘1-2 stories added to Campbell [Court]’. Infill would inevitably mean the loss of some of the green space and mature trees around the existing homes. It would also mean more residents sharing a smaller amenity space.
Building an extra one or two storeys onto the existing blocks may well be structurally possible. However, it would mean (quite apart from the disruption to the lives of existing residents during the construction work) some overshadowing and overlooking of the 1930s suburban homes in Boycroft Avenue, whose gardens back onto the estate.
Gauntlett Court flats under construction, June 1950. (Brent Archives online image 3850)
Although it is in Sudbury, not Fryent, I will also mention the ‘not yet in public domain’ scheme for Gauntlett Court here. This Wembley Council estate was also built in 1950, with blocks to the same design as those at Campbell Court, and it too was named after a wartime Mayor, Herbert Gauntlett. You can read more about it in Sudbury – Then and Now (no.20).
The expected number of new homes on this site is 120. There is a small “green” between some of the blocks which could be “at risk” if the Council’s plans include “infill”, but otherwise it seems likely that “rooftop development” would be involved, adding one or more storeys to the existing blocks.
Elvin Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury.
Like Campbell Court, Wembley Council’s Elvin Court flats were built on a narrow strip of land alongside Church Lane. You can see the grass verge and access road (for deliveries and emergency vehicles) in front of the three-storey blocks, and there is a similar width behind them, before a line of trees which separates the estate from houses in Sycamore Grove.
These flats were built in the late 1950s / early 1960s, and named after Sir Arthur Elvin, a Freeman of the Borough of Wembley who had died in 1957. Some of the first tenants were families transferred from temporary “pre-fab” homes which had been built around the edge of Silver Jubilee Park in 1946.
The map above shows 40 new homes expected to be provided at Elvin Court. The information I have received says that this will be through ‘a mixture of rooftop development and infill’, and that, like Campbell Court, it would involve ‘1-2 stories added’. Once again: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage’.
Maisonettes built by Wembley Council c.1960, at 353-359 Kingsbury Road.
The next Council estate where some new homes are proposed (but ‘not yet in public domain’) was actually part of Wembley’s post-War “pre-fabs” programme. In 1945, the Council had requisitioned spare land belonging to the Victoria Dance Hall in Kingsbury Road, and erected temporary factory-made bungalows there. These “pre-fabs” housed families until the late 1950s, and when they were demolished, Wembley Council built some attractive two-storey yellow-brick maisonettes, to the east of what had then become the Ritz Ballroom.
Development of the rest of the site was held up, because “the Ritz” was purchased by National Car Parks Ltd. From 1961, they submitted several planning applications for a petrol station and some housing. After a public inquiry in 1963, they were allowed to build their garage and car showroom (now the site of Kwikfit). As part of a land-swap deal, Wembley Council built a nine-storey block of 2-bedroom flats, and six 3-bedroom maisonettes in three-storey blocks, where the dance hall and its social club had stood. These were called Westcroft Court, after the old name of the field (most of which now forms part of Roe Green Park).
Westcroft Court, Kingsbury Road, opposite Roe Green Park.
The scheme which Brent Council are now looking at would add 16 new homes at Westcroft Court. I have been told that they do not intend to add any extra storeys to the main block (this may be because they already receive a good income from the mobile phone masts on its roof!), but that they are looking at part demolition and redevelopment on this small estate.
The last of the proposed Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes would be at Broadview, part of another Wembley Borough Council housing development. This small estate of semi-detached family homes was built around 1960, on a triangle of land between Fryent Way and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) Line, just south of Kingsbury Station. Some of the original tenants were transferred here from the Pilgrims Way “pre-fab” estate, 114 factory-made aluminium bungalows erected after the Second World War as a temporary solution to the post-war housing shortage.
This proposal would be an “infill” development, for just three homes, described to me as ‘on garage site’. I have marked this site on the aerial view below, and you will see how small it is, tucked away behind the end houses in the road, and bordered by the tube line and the edge of Fryent Country Park. There is only a narrow access road to the site, between the side of a house and a wooded area of the Country Park, bordering the Gaderbrook stream, and that also provides access to the rear gardens (some with garages) of at least four homes. Space for any new homes here would be very restricted, and both the Country Park and the railway bank are local nature reserves, where the existing trees and bushes should not be destroyed.
Aerial view of the proposed site at Broadview, off Fryent Way, Kingsbury. (Source: Google Maps)
Surely the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account? We have seen recently, with its Kilburn Square housing proposals, the mess that Brent Council can get itself into by not consulting properly.
In that case, it appears Council officers had already decided how many extra homes they could build on an existing Council estate, and that it would be acceptable to reduce the “green space” used by existing residents, while greatly increasing the number of people who would need to share it. This was before any “consultation”, which was then only about “design details”, not whether the scheme was one that made good sense! There is a danger that the Council will make the same mistake over its ‘not yet in public domain’ proposals.
Brent does need to provide more homes for people on its waiting list, but it should also take into account the needs of existing residents. The Council needs to be open and honest about what it has in mind, before any detailed proposals are made. It should discuss with those living in homes on its estates (who will include leaseholders who actually own those homes) how best extra homes could be provided. It should listen, and be prepared to think again and compromise. It should not just bulldoze through plans which might look good on paper in the Civic Centre, but would be detrimental to our borough’s community if actually built.
Philip Grant.
Editor's note: Yesterday the Guardian published this story when mentions the Kilburn Square development previously covered on Wembley Matters:
Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London
13 comments:
Excellent piece by Philip Grant.
'Housing waiting-lists will continue to grow unless the obscenity of London’s high land and property prices is addressed. Alas, there’s no sign yet of City Hall doing so. Waiting-lists are a symptom of the problem'- We have been warned on the loss of green spaces http://islingtontribune.com/article/we-have-been-warned-on-the-loss-of-green-spaces
These new properties won't help as they are not at Social Rents, they are priced at almost Private Rates, that is unless the Council are short of staff.............. Key Worker housing allocated by the Council, have a look at their website.
Wembley pre-fabs were in the news last week as Charlie Watts (b 1941) lived in one.
I was amused by one obituary writer's sensitivity to (or maybe complete ignorance of) NW London's different 'turfs'. They wrote that 'Watts was born in Wembley but later moved to Kingsbury'.
What a wrench that must have been! Surprising that he ever recovered really.
Wembley pre-fabs were in the news last week as Charlie Watts (b 1941) lived in one.
I was amused by one obituary writer's sensitivity to (or complete ignorance of) the different NW London 'turfs'. They wrote that 'Watts was born in Wembley but later moved to Kingsbury'.
What a wrench that must have been! Surprising that he ever recovered from it really........
FOR INFORMATION:
As I've indicated before, I believe in sharing my views with those in power at the Civic Centre (and would encourage anyone else who feels strongly about an issue to do the same).
This is the text of an email I've recently sent to Brent's Lead Member for Housing, Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing and Head of Housing Supply & Partnerships:-
Dear Councillor Southwood and Messrs Porter and Magness,
You probably feel it's a nuisance to get advice from local residents about how Brent Council carries out its work, but I hope you (and the other officers involved) will read this email and the attached accessible pdf document, please.
The attached article deals with some of the Council's new affordable homes plans, as set out in your report to the 19 July Cabinet meeting and the map which came with it. It also includes information on the history of some of the developments built as part of Wembley Borough's post-war Council housing programme, which you and your colleagues may find of interest.
I realise that Brent is under pressure to provide homes for the many people in need on its housing waiting list. That is nothing new, as it was the same when I worked for Brent People's Housing Association in the mid-1970s!
My efforts then did help some families out of dismal B&B "hotels" or overcrowded accommodation. But unless all Council and housing association developments are 100% for social rent, and all "private" developments in the borough include 50% affordable rented housing, that pressure will always be with us.
[Comment continues below, as it would not all fit into one box.]
Second part of my email to Cllr. Southwood etc., continued from above:-
My main message is that Brent officers and councillors need to work with residents on how best to provide additional homes on Council land, not against them. Take the residents of these and other estates into the process, at the start of your consideration. Explain that the Council does need to build some extra homes, and what your initial thoughts are, and invite them to give you their ideas on how it could be done, and how many new homes could sensibly be delivered "where they live".
You must be prepared to listen to what they have to say, and be prepared to compromise, in order to achieve proposals that residents can support, or at least find acceptable. That could well save time, and expense, in the long run.
The Council has a responsibility to people in housing need on its waiting list, but it also has responsibilities to existing residents, ensuring that the way it acts is fair and open, and that it observes the planning policies adopted by the Council after consultation with its citizens.
Despite the pressure to build more homes on land already owned by Brent, please don't forget that "green space" and trees are very important to the wellbeing and health of the community (as well as to the environment generally).
Building estates at too high a density was a mistake the Council made in the 1960s and early 1970s - most of those estates (younger than the Wembley Council developments in my article) have already had to be demolished!
You may have targets to build "X" number of new homes in the next "Y" years, but what might seem like a "success" now could cause more and greater problems in future (and waste far more money).
I hope that I have made my point, and that you will consider what I've said, and take it on board. I may only be a (politically independent) retired public servant, but my views are sincerely held, based on life experience, and intended to assist Brent Council, not obstruct it.
I would be happy to give you a "right of reply" to what I have said in my article and this email, so if you would like to respond, please do so.
As my article deals mainly with your 'not yet in public domain' schemes in Fryent Ward, I will forward a copy to my Ward councillors (who include the Lead Member for Regeneration), for their information. I would be grateful if Mr Porter would (at least) acknowledge receipt of this email and attachment. Thank you. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your comment.
The late, great Charlie Watts (born in University College Hospital, central London, not Wembley) won't be affected by these Council proposals. But if you want to know more about the Kingsbury pre-fabs, where he lived from 1947 to 1963, "click" on the Pilgrims Way "pre-fab" estate "link" in the article.
That "link" will take you to the Prefab Museum website, and a copy of an illustrated talk I gave about Kingsbury's Post-War Pre-fab Homes. The second half of it is about Pilgrims Way, and there is a section, towards the end, about Charlie Watts, including a copy of a letter he wrote to me (about ten years ago).
The council surely has to have a number of extra homes in mind, before going out to consultation.
The case against them seems somewhat unproven.
That was so interesting, Philip.
I lived in a prefab in Torquay for the first 2 years of my life. Like many of the people quoted in your talk, my parents had been living with my grandparents until they got their prefab. For my mum (who my dad had married and brought back from South Africa where he had been serving in the RAF in WW2) rationed, austerity England, entered through a cold, grey Liverpool docks, was a bit of a culture shock. Her recollections of the prefab, however, were very much like those of the Wembley people: modern, built-in cooker and fridge, working bath etc and a real sense of community with lots of young people in the same boat.
Reading the words of the Pilgrim's Way residents brought back memories of my mum and her words, for which, thank you.
I saw the Stones on their first tour in 1963. They were way down the bill which included Little Richard, Bo Diddley and, funnily enough, subject of another recent loss, the Everly Brothers. Amazing to think that Charlie Watts would probably still have been living in his parents' prefab at the time.
Thanks again, Philip.
Dear Anonymous (1 September at 13:22),
Thank you for your comment.
If you wish to make this sort of point, but feel you cannot disclose your identity, it would probably help readers to know in what capacity you are commenting (for example: Brent resident, councillor, Council Officer, political adviser, etc.).
You say that my 'case against them seems somewhat unproven'. However, what I am suggesting is that, when Brent Council thinks that one of its estates could provide some extra homes, it goes out to discuss this with the estate's residents at an early stage.
It can explain to them why the Council needs to make the best use of land that it owns, to provide homes for people on its waiting list who genuinely need them. It can share its ideas with the residents about how this could be done, and invite their ideas as well, and their thoughts on what might work, and what would not be practicable, from people who actually know the estate and its buildings.
After those discussions is the stage where the number of potential new homes that the estate could provide can be identified. To go in with a set number in mind, before any consultation, would "lock in" an expectation (which could also be seen as a target) that could well prove unrealistic - but which Council Officers would then feel obliged to try and force through.
Are any of these new Council Homes going to be at Social Rents or are they, as usual, at (un) Affordable Rents and will not do anything for people on the Council House Waiting List. How can they look residents in the eye while lying to them.
Dear Anonymous (5 September at 10:15):
Thank you for your comment.
I'm afraid that I can't answer your question about what rent levels the Council intends to charge for the new homes referred to in my article, as these projects are 'not yet in public domain', so Brent has not given that sort of detail.
The only information they have given, apart from the locations and expected numbers of homes, is what I obtained from them under a Freedom of Information Act request, as I thought that residents on the estates affected had a right to know what the Council was "secretly" planning!
One clue is that, if the Council seeks to use money given to it by the Mayor of London / GLA, under the £4.8 billion 2021-2026 Affordable Homes Programme, then it is a condition of receiving those funds that the majority of new Council homes built will be let at Social Rent levels.
That is something to look forward to. But, as you say, that is not what Council Officers (supported by Brent's Cabinet) are proposing at the moment.
Campbell Court needs to be regenerated itself the building is out dated and old and they want to build new flats the need to knock down the old estate and give people a reasonable estate to live in and they can plan how to make decent homes for families
Post a Comment