Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)
One year ago, the Brent Poverty Commission report by Lord Richard Best was published. The Commission reported that: ‘1 in 6 households (17%) live below the poverty line, doubling (to 33%) after housing costs are taken into account. More than 1 in 5 (22%) of children live in poverty, doubling to a startling 43% after housing costs.’ The report identified: ‘an acute shortage of social housing which has forced people into the private rented sector where rents are two or even three times higher.’
The following month, Brent’s Cabinet gave its full backing to the report’s recommendations, including those based on the key point that the Council needed to put ‘more investment in social housing’, and ‘build even more affordable homes.’
Next Monday (16 August), Brent’s Cabinet has the opportunity to put those recommendations into action, when they consider a report on implementing the Council’s proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone. I will set out briefly what is proposed, and why Cabinet members may wish to question how what Council Officers are proposing might be improved, to take better account of the Poverty Commission’s findings.
The Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) was set up in partnership with the Greater London Authority, to speed-up the delivery of new homes. £8m of GLA funding was received, and part of this (£4.8m) was used by the Council to buy Ujima House in Wembley High Road. The other site (already Council-owned) which now forms part of the WHZ is across the road, where Copland School used to stand (whose buildings were demolished after Ark Elvin Academy moved into its new school further down the slope).
A detailed planning application for the site on the corner of the High Road and Cecil Avenue, and an outline application for Ujima House, were made towards the end of 2019. Although these were approved by Planning Committee in March and June 2020 respectively, the formal consents were not signed off until February 2021.
It had been decided that the two WHZ schemes would be treated as one for “affordable housing” purposes, and Cabinet is now being asked to ‘approve the preferred delivery option for the regeneration of the sites’. The two sites between them will provide 304 homes, and it is proposed that 50% of these should be affordable homes. I will give a short outline of what is proposed for each site.
The planning approval for Ujima House (19/3092) would demolish the existing building and replace it with a ten-storey block. There would be workspace and a café on the ground floor, with 54 residential flats on the floors above. The 28 1-bed, 18 2-bed and 8 3-bed (only 15% of the total) homes would all be for rent by Brent Council at London Affordable Rent levels (not social rents - see below).
The more detailed application for the cleared site at the corner of Cecil Avenue and the High Road (19/2891) would build blocks, between five and nine storeys high, containing 250 flats and maisonettes. 64 of these homes would be either 3-bed or 4-bed (26%). However, only 39% of the homes in this development would be “affordable”, and only 52 of the 250 are proposed to be for rental, at London Affordable Rent levels.
[These blocks would not be as grim as they look in the elevation drawings, as the plans include a courtyard in the middle!]
The affordable element for this larger site was set out in an “Approved Plan”, which was made a condition of the February 2021 planning consent. More than half of the London Affordable Rent homes (28) would be 3 or 4-bed. The plan also set out that the other 36 “affordable” homes (21 of which would be 2-bed) should be either Shared Ownership or Intermediate Rent (which would be cheaper than private rents, but not within the means of those on the housing waiting list).
There appears to be a discrepancy. The 52 + 36 affordable homes for the Cecil Avenue / High Road site in the planning consent make a total of 88. However, the WHZ report to Monday’s Cabinet meeting says that 152 affordable homes will be delivered (50% of 304), and to reach that figure 98 of the homes from the larger site would need to be affordable, not 88.
Fifty percent of affordable homes may sound good. But if only 106 of the 304 new units are to be for rent, and all of those at London Affordable Rents, how does that meet the Cabinet’s commitment to the recommendations of the Brent Poverty Commission?
London Affordable Rent levels are set by the GLA. They use a formula based on rent figures decided in 2017/18, which are then increased each year by the previous September’s Consumer Prices Index increase plus 1%. The 2017/18 figures used were around 50% of open market rents at the time, but were between 30% and 50% higher than the average “social rent” levels for the same sized homes charged by housing associations and London boroughs.
An analysis available on the GLA website makes clear that London Affordable Rent should not be confused with social rent levels, and says: ‘social rent is the only housing type really affordable to lower income Londoners.’ That is why the Poverty Commission report said that Brent should seek to make more of its new “affordable” housing genuinely affordable, at social rent levels.
It appears that the Council Officers making these WHZ proposals to Cabinet are either unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, the recommendations on housing in the Brent Poverty Commission report. Their proposals would ‘bring the Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites to the market together’, through the Council undertaking the construction on both sites, but “procuring” ‘a developer partner to share private housing sales risk.’
The Officer report to Cabinet says that their proposal is a “medium risk” strategy:
‘The Council takes and manages construction risk, which it has experience of doing through its housing and schools capital programmes, but a developer partner is sought to take and dispose the private sales housing, of which the Council has no experience. By financing construction, the Council can use lower public sector borrowing rates and reduce finance costs.’
One of the “risks” of following this route would be:
‘A developer may seek to influence the final scheme, compromising the overall place making vision and regeneration benefits for the area.’
If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.
I can’t make any detailed suggestions on the finance side, as six of the seven Appendices to the Officer report are secret, because they contain “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)". It appears that the press and public may also be excluded from Monday’s Cabinet meeting while these matters are discussed!
However, it is clear from the report which is available that there are ongoing discussions with the GLA over funding for the scheme, about ‘increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing’:
‘Reviewing WHZ financial viability, the GLA have also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme, but which is subject to confirmation.’
If the Council would go back to the GLA, and its 2021-2026 Affordable Housing Programme, with proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone to provide 100% affordable housing, that could provide the answer.
I believe that this suggestion is worth serious consideration, so I am sending a copy of the text of this article to all of Brent’s Cabinet members (sent Friday 13 August at 4:23pm). I hope that at least some of them will raise questions based on it, especially about the need for social rent homes to be considered, at the meeting on Monday.
I will also send a copy to the Council Officers involved, and to the Chief Executive, for their consideration, and so that they can either provide answers, or at least agree to go away and look at this matter again.
The Wembley Housing Zone provides a major opportunity to meet some of the housing need identified by the Brent Poverty Commission. That opportunity should not be wasted!
Philip Grant.
5 comments:
FOR INFORMATION:
This is the text of the email, headed "Wembley Housing Zone and the Brent Poverty Commission Report", which I sent to all members of Brent's Cabinet yesterday afternoon (13 August):-
'Dear Brent Cabinet members,
I see that you will be considering a report and recommendations on the Wembley Housing Zone at item 8 on your agenda for Monday's meeting.
I have written an article about these proposals, and how they fail to meet the recommendations of the Brent Poverty Commission report (which you enthusiastically backed in September last year). I attach a copy of the text of this article, for your information.
Although this scheme may mainly concern Councillors Tatler and Southwood, I hope that all of you will find time to read what I have written, please, before your meeting on Monday, and consider what questions you may wish to put to Officers, and what amendments to their proposals you may wish to suggest.
I am also copying this email to the Officers concerned, so that they are aware of the issues you will (hopefully) raise with them. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
(a Brent resident since 1983)'
It is time that Brent stopped lying to Brent residents, they (the Cabinet) fully support the Poverty Commission Report but continue to supply only affordable homes (a LARGE percentage of INFLATED private rents) which Brent residents just cannot afford. The Poverty Commission required Social Housing (a fraction of Affordable rents of all types), they are not Affordable, they are profit generators. Just wait until the property bubble bursts and Brent goes bust because of their billion £ borrowing.
Common Butt and Tatler, answer that one?
No members of Cabinet have responded to the email I sent them on 13 August (with text of the above article), so I don't know if any of them read or considered the points which I raised.
I tried to watch the "live screening" of the Cabinet meeting this morning, but while I was getting the pictures, there was no sound when either Muhammed Butt or Roxanne Mashari were speaking, so I gave up.
I will have to wait until the recording is available on the Council's website (not there yet), or at least the decisions are published, to find out what happened when the Wembley Housing Zone item was dealt with.
Dear Anonymous (15 August at 19:53),
Thank you for your comment. I think when you refer to 'affordable homes' you mean those at the (so-called) London Affordable Rent. Unfortunately, that is the rent level at which most new Brent Council housing proposals is offered.
'Affordable homes'also includes housing at Social Rent, which is the lower rent level which most of the Brent residents in housing need are likely to be able to afford. As you rightly say, that IS the sort of housing which our Council should be supplying more of.
I wasn't able to hear the "live streaming" of Monday's Cabinet meeting when I tried to watch it "live", but have now seen and heard what little part of the consideration of the Wembley Housing Zone item is available on the recording of the meeting, posted on Brent's website.
Item 8 appears to start with a black screen (at about 10 minutes in), just showing "Brent AV Services", but then the sound comes on at around 10:30 into the video - I don't know whether this was a technical fault, or whether that was the public being excluded from the meeting because they were discussing something confidential.
When the sound begins, it is in the middle of a woman speaking (probably Cllr. Southwood, Lead Member for Housing). It is the end of what she is saying, '... rents as close to social rents as possible.'
The next brief speaker appears to be Cllr. Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration) but the screen is still blank. She says that the scheme will provide a number of larger homes, 'many of these affordable.'
We then see Cllr. Butt, who after checking quickly to see if anyone else wishes to speak, sums up; 'This is actually great news!' He speaks of Brent's two Housing Zones, and says that Brent's efforts to deliver more housing are recognised by the GLA and others. The fact that the scheme provides some larger housing shows that 'we are making good progress' on meeting the housing needs of people on the Council's waiting list. The present scheme 'goes a long way' towards that.
Then, at around 12:30 into the broadcast, he immediately refers to the recommendations in the report (there are 12 of them, many involving delegated authority to take some major financial decisions, including awarding contracts for construction and 'appointment of professional consultants to support delivery of the Sites'.).
Cllr. Butt appears to assume that all Cabinet members have read and understood all of the recommendations, simply saying 'can we agree these recommendations?' A couple of seconds later: 'Thank you - that's agreed.'
If you have read my blog above, you will see that this is not the "great news" the Council Leader wants us to believe. There will be some good news for people on the Council's housing waiting list, once the development on two sites across the High Road from each other is actually completed - 106 (out of a total 304) homes at London Affordable Rents.
But the Wembley Housing Zone could have been SO much better at meeting Brent's real affordable housing needs!
Post a Comment