Thursday 13 January 2022

Contract for 1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s response to an open letter

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month I sent an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, and Lead Member for Education, explaining why it would not be a good idea to award a Design & Build contract for the Council’s proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens. Notice of the intended decision to award a contract on 4 January 2022, dated 3 December, had appeared on Brent’s website.

 

The Key Decision had still not been announced on the Council’s website by the evening of 11 January, but I did receive a response to my open letter then. I will ask Martin to attach that at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to read it can do so. The response confirmed ‘that the council intends to proceed with the proposed scheme of works’.

 

Architect’s visual impression of the proposed scheme for 1 Morland Gardens

 

However (as is becoming common with Brent Council, if you can get a reply from them), the response raises as many questions as it answers. It does, of course, begin by referring to ‘the very many benefits that the scheme will provide.’ 

 

This ignores the fact that if Council Officers had followed Brent’s own, and national, planning rules over heritage assets at the start, they would never have come up with this scheme! It involves the demolition of an irreplaceable locally listed heritage building. And if the Planning Committee in August 2020 had been properly advised, they would have known that this heritage asset was too “significant” for them to decide that the “public benefits” of the proposals outweighed the importance of retaining the beautiful, architectural and historic Victorian villa.

 

Extract from Brent Council’s May 2019 Historic Environment Place-making Strategy

 

The response lists one of the benefits of the scheme as ‘65 social rented homes.’ Will these really be homes let to Council tenants at genuine social rent levels, or is this just another example of Brent officers (and Lead Members) misusing the term ‘social rented homes’ when they are actually referring to “affordable housing”? 

 

Brent originally told the GLA that the new homes at 1 Morland Gardens would be for “social rent”, but at the planning permission stage in 2020, the Council had changed this to 'all of the 65 units would be delivered at London Affordable Rent.' In a comment on an earlier blog, I pointed out that £6.5m of the cost for these homes was meant to be funded from the GLA’s Affordable Homes programme for 2016-2021. Even though the end date for that was extended to construction beginning by 31 March 2022, that £6.5m is unlikely to be available. Does a change back to “social rent” mean that some of Brent’s funding from the 2021-2026 GLA programme will now have to be used for this project?

 

Are you are wondering what is behind the "little dig" in the response ('I know from previous correspondence that you are concerned with the pace of delivery of social rented accommodation in Brent ....')? It refers to my attempts to get Cllr. Shama Tatler or Mr Lunt to explain properly why they propose that 152 of the 250 new homes on the Council-owned vacant former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue (Wembley High Road) should be built for a private developer to sell at a profit, rather than all 250 being genuine affordable rented housing for people in urgent housing need. I have yet to receive an answer to that!

 

Moving on to Brent’s responses to the six reasons why they should not award this contract, the “answers” to points 1, 2, 3 and 6 are similar. The Council has not yet done anything about the legal requirements over stopping-up orders, appropriation of land for planning purposes or the planning condition that it needs to “divert” (that is, dig up and move!) the water main in Hillside / Brentfield Road. 

 

It could have begun these tasks, which it admits are necessary to complete before construction can commence, at any time after receiving full planning consent in October 2020. Instead, it now says that ‘the council will complete the first stage of the two-stage design and build contract and finalise and obtain the necessary legal pre-requisites in order to begin any construction works.’ But there is no guarantee that at least one of these ‘legal pre-requisites’, the stopping-up orders, will be obtained! Why even pay for the first stage, when you don’t know whether the proposed construction work could go ahead?

 

The Victorian villa which Brent Council’s project would demolish. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Reason 4 was the effect of the proposed demolition on climate. As Brent Council has declared a “Climate Emergency”, you would think that Senior Officers and Lead Members would take that matter seriously. But here the response is: ‘Whilst the proposed redevelopment will emit CO2, the benefits the project brings can go some way to justify this.’ Have they quantified the climate damage, and measured the harm this will cause as compared to the alternative option, retaining the Victorian villa, which I have suggested? Or is this just another example of Brent Council making fine-sounding promises, but not following them in practice?

 

The response to reason 5, the Design & Build Contract itself, leaves a very important point unanswered. I had asked: ‘Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head?’ 

 

That point has been ignored. Is Brent Council proposing to pay the contractor to come up with a new design, or make significant changes to a detailed design it has already paid a firm of architects to prepare for it? And if there are any significant changes to the building plans that were approved in 2020, won’t that mean a new application for planning permission? Surely those are important questions that need to be answered!

 

The response tells me that: ‘The council has appointed technical consultants to ensure the designs by the contractor meet the council’s requirements ….’ How much will these consultants cost, and will that cost have to be met out of the budget for the project agreed by Brent’s Cabinet two years ago?

 

A bigger reason why I was concerned about the proposed two-stage contract was this: ‘If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work.’

 

Brent’s answer: ‘the technical consultants will be monitoring the contractor’s progress to ensure the build meets the requirements in terms of materials used, methods of construction and quality of finishes. It is expected that this monitoring will prevent any issues with the quality of the finished building and any issues can be dealt with under the defects liability (including latent defects) responsibilities set out in the contract.’

 

Do you have confidence in the Council’s expectations that there won’t be any “issues” with a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding? Or that if there are any “issues”, they will be dealt with by the contractor ‘under the defects liability’? Given Brent’s experience over Granville New Homes, I have a feeling that history might repeat itself, IF the Council continues its insistence on pursuing its flawed 1 Morland Gardens project.


Philip Grant

 

 

6 comments:

Philip Grant said...

Even though it is a subject that has had many "blogs" before, I hope that keeping the defects of this Council scheme "in the public eye", and letting them see that at least some members of the public are watching closely, will have some effect.

I checked this morning, and the Key Decision to award the contract has still not appeared on Brent's website (it was scheduled in the forward plan for 4 January).

I noticed on Brent's "Home Page" that the Council have yet to issue a news release in 2022, while "Wembley Matters" has already posted 13 blogs of interest to Brent's residents. Who is serving the local community better?

Tree Hugger (All of them) said...

The answer to Philip Grant’s question is clearly Wembley Matters!
In keeping residents informed and accurately reflecting residents' views there is simply no comparison between the Brent Council website and Wembley Matters.
I hesitate to say this in public lest the council retaliate against Wembley Matters. All of us who live in Brent know the character and ruthlessly dogmatic approach of the present Council and Councillors.
Given the very poor performance of the current Council administration on major issues - planning, over development, tower blocks, loss of community assets and climate change - (most of these covered in Wembley Matters and all present at 1 Morland) - what the Council publish by comparison is inaccurate, self-serving, party political and partisan.
The Wembley Matters blog should be deemed a community asset and the Council required to give an annual grant to support its production - they have doled out Covid cash to much less deserving (but partisan) organisations.
Residents of Brent are indebted to Martin Francis of Wembley Matters and to regular contributors such as Philip Grant.

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION:

The Quarter 3 Finance Report for the Cabinet meeting on 17 January (Item 14 on the agenda) includes the following reference to 1 Morland Gardens:

'The Regeneration Board is currently forecast to underspend by £2.5m across the Morland Gardens and Harlesden Masterplanning schemes. This budget will be reprofiled into future years. On Morland Gardens, the spend so far has been on Stonebridge Annexe on works and consultant fees. The remaining forecast spend this year will be initial set up fees but for the pre-construction phase but not the main building works as envisaged, hence the spend being lower than forecast.

This is because when the initial tendering was done at the beginning of 2021/22, no bids were received and the programme had to be retendered. The bids from the retendering exercise are currently being evaluated.'

Philip Grant said...

I have sent a copy of this blog article, and a list of the questions that still need to be answered, to Brent's Strategic Director for Regeneration, Alan Lunt, and Lead Member for Education, Cllr. Thomas Stephens.

Cllr. Stephens is the "Lead" as this is supposed to be a project about more modern facilities for the Brent Start Adult College, rather than a redevelopment for housing. He was not the Lead Member when the scheme was put together, or approved by Cabinet.

I have copied my email to the three Stonebridge Ward councillors, and said that I hope they will want the answers to the outstanding questions as well, before any D&B contract is entered into.

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION:

Further to my comment above (16 January at 19:31), this is the response I received from Brent's Strategic Director, Regeneration, to the list of unanswered questions. Mr Lunt's answers were given in red type, so for ease of reading I have added Q and A to the text:-

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for your email. I am bound to say that we are now in the realms of responding on issues that you have raised previously and that we have responded to previously. I know that you are very keen to see ‘Altimira’ retained but the council has completed a thorough and transparent process in determining that the site should be re-developed and the decision is final.

We are making progress in delivering this much needed development and I would consider now that this council has reasonably answered all outstanding queries. However, I am happy to re-confirm the following in response (in red text) to your questions (numbered 1-9 below).

1. Q. The response lists one of the benefits of the scheme as ‘65 social rented homes.’ Will these really be homes let to Council tenants at genuine social rent levels, or is this just another example of Brent officers (and Lead Members) misusing the term ‘social rented homes’ when they are actually referring to “affordable housing”?

A. The 65 homes will be at London Affordable Rents (LAR) as approved within the planning application, condition 3. LAR are truly affordable rents and are set significantly below the Government definition of ‘Affordable’ rent which is at 80% of market rent.

2. Q. Does a change back to “social rent” mean that some of Brent’s funding from the 2021-2026 GLA programme will now have to be used for this project?

A. No.

3. Q.There is no guarantee that at least one of these ‘legal pre-requisites’, the stopping-up orders, will be obtained! Why even pay for the first stage, when you don’t know whether the proposed construction work could go ahead?

A. We are confident that they will be secured.

4. Q. Have [the Council] quantified the climate damage, and measured the harm this will cause as compared to the alternative option, retaining the Victorian villa, which I have suggested? Or is this just another example of Brent Council making fine-sounding promises, but not following them in practice?

A. The wider environmental, economic and social benefits of providing deprived communities with the means to acquire new skills and employment , as well as providing affordable housing have all been considered in determining that the development will proceed. The council is of the opinion this development and it’s benefits reflects its priorities and ambitions for the communities of Brent.

5. Q. Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head?
A. The architects designed the scheme to Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Stage 3. The contractor will take on the design and liability and complete the final design stage, RIBA 4. This is a common approach within design and build contracts.

6. Q. Is Brent Council proposing to pay the contractor to come up with a new design, or make significant changes to a detailed design it has already paid a firm of architects to prepare for it?

A. See response to 4 above

Continued in a separate comment below:-

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION - Text of email from Brent Council, continued from above:-

'7. Q. If there are any significant changes to the building plans that were approved in 2020, won’t that mean a new application for planning permission?

A. This is unlikely but If any changes are required, then the contractor will issue the relevant applications.

8. Q. How much will the technical consultants cost, and will that cost have to be met out of the budget for the project agreed by Brent’s Cabinet two years ago?

A.The cost of the technical consultants will be met by the budget agreed by Cabinet in January 2020.

9. Q. How much confidence can we have in 'expectations' that there won’t be any “issues” with a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding?

A. The Council has appointed technical advisors to monitor the build process and the building will need to pass Building Regulations before it can be used.

In conclusion, the council is fully committed to delivering the project at 1 Morland Gardens. I hope that this now concludes the very comprehensive correspondence we have entered into with you over the past 18 months on this project.

Kind regards

Alan Lunt
Strategic Director, Regeneration and Environment
London Borough of Brent'