Wednesday, 2 February 2022

Dear Brent Council – Council Housing and Common Sense

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An entry from Brent Council’s latest Forward Plan

 

Dear Brent Council,

 

I think that you’ve become too complicated in the way you seek to provide the new Council homes that many local people need. 

 

Take, for example, your decision (at last November’s Cabinet meeting) to buy a block of flats at the former Alperton Bus Garage site. The developer, Telford Homes, was given planning permission to build three tower blocks there, on condition that one of them, block C - containing 155 of the 461 flats proposed in their application, would be as “affordable housing”. 

 

South-west elevation drawing from the planning application documents (block B outlined at the back)

 

Normally, when a private developer agrees a large-scale affordable housing offer, they do so in partnership with a housing association which will provide those homes. But here, it is Brent Council who have stepped in to acquire them. And the Council is not buying them direct from Telford Homes. It is proposed that they will be acquired from an Asset Special Purpose Vehicle (“ASPV”). Who or what is an ASPV?

 

That would be explained in the report that Cabinet members made their decision on, wouldn’t it? If it was, the explanation was in one of the (now all too common) exempt appendices. Looking at the minutes of the meeting, all the Lead Member for Resources, Cllr. McLennan, said about the ASPV was simply a repeat of the Officer’s report :

 

Opening section of the November 2021 Cabinet Report

 

The report to the meeting was not from the Director of Housing, but the Director of Finance. No questions were asked about why the Council was not buying the flats direct from the developer, who the beneficial owner of the intermediary ASVP was, and why it would not be a straight 999-year lease. Cabinet members seemed more intent on congratulating the Council, its finance team (and themselves?) for the proposal they were about to “rubber stamp”:

 

‘In expressing their support for the proposal, Cabinet highlighted the opportunity the scheme provided to further increase the supply of affordable social housing within the borough based on a leasing model which was felt to represent good value for money.  Officers were thanked for their efforts in securing the necessary terms ….’

 

But how ‘good value’ was this ‘leasing model’? The Council would be taking an initial 50-year lease on 155 homes in a 26-storey tower block (55 x 1-bed, 49 x 2-bed, 46 x 3-bed [5 person] and 5 x 4-bed [6 person] flats). The report from the Director of Finance said:

 

‘Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home.’

 

The report then goes on to say:

 

‘The target average development cost under the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP) is £280K per home. As such, the leasing model represents good value for money.’

 

It appears from this that the cost per home for the leasehold flats at the Alperton Bus Garage site would be no better than the development cost for freehold homes on one of Brent Council’s own housing projects, over which the Council would have much better control. 

 

And the £280k per home figure is dependent on the deal to buy leasehold flats from an ASVP (which only has an option to acquire them from the developer) qualifying for a £4.3m grant from the GLA, and that the Council would qualify for 100% Stamp Duty Land Tax relief on its leasehold purchase, which is not certain:

 

‘These assumptions will need to be fully tested along with the Council’s tax advisors and HMRC. Failure to secure the SDLT exemption noted above would increase the cost of the scheme by circa £1.9M.’

 

Why is Brent Council getting into such a complex and potentially risky deal? If it has £48m available to spend on new Council homes, why not spend it on building those homes on a vacant site it already owns, and for which it has had full planning consent since February 2021?

 

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme. (From an April 2021 Council document)

 

I am referring to the Cecil Avenue site, part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone, which I have been writing about since August 2021. As can be seen from the image above, this development is not a tower block (maximum height 9-storeys), it will have an internal garden square and includes family-sized maisonettes with their own private gardens. Surely that would provide better new Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

At the moment, following a Cabinet decision six months ago, it is proposed that 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue (including 20 family-sized homes) would be for a developer partner to sell at a profit. In an article last month, I asked why Senior Council Officers and a small number of Cabinet members (with the rest not questioning it) were appearing to favour developers over Brent residents in need of a decent Council home? We are all still waiting for an answer!

 

I’ve set out the question and the evidence behind it. Now here is my advice. Avoid the ASPV! Ditch the developer! Get on and use the money you were willing to spend on 155 homes in a leasehold tower block in Alperton, and instead build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue (including the 152 you planned to “give away” to a developer) as affordable rented Council homes. You know that is good, plain common sense.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

P.S. My consultancy fee for this sound advice is the same as usual - £zero!

12 comments:

Philip Grant said...

FOR INFORMATION:

I sent a pdf copy of this "letter to Brent Council" to the Chief Executive and Leader this morning, with a copy to every elected Brent councillor. This is what I wrote:

'Dear Ms Downs and Councillor Butt,

I'm attaching a letter to Brent Council, on the subject of new Council Homes, and the need for common sense in providing them.

From the information available to me, common sense appears to be seriously lacking over recent decisions in respect of homes on the Alperton Bus Garage and Cecil Avenue sites. My letter explains why.

I am copying this email to the Lead Members for Resources and Regeneration, to the Chairs of Brent's Scrutiny Committees, and to all councillors, as I believe that they all need to be aware of how a politically independent Brent citizen sees the situation, and what needs to be done about it.

All councillors, as well as all Cabinet members, need to understand what is happening, and take some responsibility for sorting it out.

I look forward to receiving Brent Council's response. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.'

Anonymous said...

It's hell having 1 leasehold flat. Who'd want 155 of them???

David Walton said...

Global Britain's government ideology is rigidly fixed on creating corporatist controlled mega population density zones (Level social rent estates then Up) where short-life towers are packed together and all inside zone public open spaces, health and social infrastructure is brutally disposed of to short-life tower bit-by-bit. A new urbanism for which South Kilburn is a Brent pathfinder and UK template for such zones, where development decides all by force- Slum Dog Billionaire.

Given Brent Labour run councils massive in parallel ongoing resilience investments in family homes de-populating suburbs public open spaces, health and social infrastructure since 1979 (a process intensifying during pandemic crisis). It is clearly for Brent Labour, if it wants Global Britain towers ( other boroughs certainly don't), that it must spread these tower out across Brent separately so that tower families can also enjoy Brent suburban life opportunities and equitable access to continuously invested in near home public services, health, social infrastructure and public open spaces and be enabled to survive the next pandemic (we ain't seen nothing yet) in welfare state citizen taxpayer safety net rather than in New England as third class 'be thankful you live in the UK at all' zones.

Another consequence of rejecting the Slum Dog Billionaire model would be no need to civil war destroy anymore Brent schools, public open spaces, woodlands, community centres, heath centres, education centres, youth clubs….. For example Brent Council, immediately after the local elections is deathly serious about destroying Brent Kilburns only park sized park (South Kilburn Public Open Space) in later 2022. Wonder how councillors got so caught up in this the 'worse the better' cavalier ideology regarding its public housing estates public health and wellbeing responsibilities?

Tower build quality would also be improved as residents outside zones still have planning voice and influence.

Anonymous said...

This Brent Labour Council feels like it is being run by a bunch of Boris Johnson's Number 10 Team, always out having parties (with developers, work meetings of course) and coming up with some very, very dodgy ideas indeed. Still, they are not answerable to anyone are they, what more do you expect? Brent is the second poorest London Borough isn't it? Good job Butt, keep it up.

Brent's Finance portfolio along with the Regeneration portfolio seem to be being run by uninformed, unintelligent and unsuited persons with egos not much smaller than Butt's, with seemingly no oversight by the rest of the sycophantic Cabinet or the majority of the backbench councillors who are mainly sycophants.

G.Lee said...

I'm Mrs Average so I don't fully understand all the ins and outs of an ASVP but I do know that the community in Alperton is totally fed up with these massive monolithic developments springing up without parking, the accompanying infrastructure, and certainly without the approval of local people. Council / developer 'Consultations' about them have been tokenistic with very low turnout, and people who did turn up being vehemently opposed to further developments, but quite obviously ignored. Sadly, many of our neighbours are packing up and moving from Brent. Thank you Philip for enlightening us about the latest crazy scheme..and for all the work you do in informing us, we need more people like you, Martin and Anton Georgiou who are prepared to hold the Council to account.

Unknown said...

Is the weakness, if any, with decision makers ...or is the quality if advice rotten ? More like the latter

Anonymous said...

Is the weakness, if any, with decision makers ...or is the quality if advice rotten ? More like the latter

claremounties said...

ASPV-financial smoke and mirrors-another layer for some to cream off more taxpayers money. I wonder who will be the salaried individuals running the Company? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_entity

Philip Grant said...

Dear Mrs Lee,

Thank you for your comment.

What I, as an individual citizen of the borough (and I'm sure Martin and Anton as well, as individuals and decent local politicians) are doing is TRYING to hold Brent Council to account.

More than 24 hours after sending my "Dear Brent Council" letter to the Leader and Chief Executive, I have not even received an acknowledgement; and nothing from all the other 62 Brent Councillors who received it either.

It's as if they do not want to be held to account for their decisions and actions, and because they have the power to be able to do so, they can simply ignore voices of concern such as mine.

The one thing they can't ignore is the votes cast by Mr/Mrs/Ms Average at the local Council elections every four years, and our chance to cast those votes is coming up this May.

It is a chance to change things for the better, but that will only happen if more people use their votes, and cast them for candidates who will do their best to listen to residents and stick up for their local communities.

In 2018 there was only around a 37% turnout. Labour candidates got more than 50% of the total votes cast (say low 20s% of Brent's possible voters), but ended up with 60 out of 63 Council members (before Anton Georgiou for the Lib Dems won a seat back from them at the Alperton by-election).

That reinforced Muhammed Butt's position as Leader of the Council, with consequences such as those set out in my article above.

Everyone who cares about the future of local government in our borough needs to ensure that they use their votes in May, and encourages as many of their friends and neighbours in Brent to do the same.

David Walton said...

Brent people need to look closer at South Kilburn as a case to study, there's lots to learn. Even though it is severed from the rest of Brent by a mainline railway line (2 bridges back) and surrounded by City of Westminster giant terraces, it is interesting for being a pathfinder for harsh colonial hierarchies and methods in C21 London. South Kilburn was not an industrial estate or retail park, but a socialist utopian modern estate housing 6,000 people (never well maintained once it was built).

To refer to colonialism and empire as things in the past is a big mistake as it also is the way C21 London is constructed in terms of power, abuse, money, protection, health, inequality, othering and exclusions. Concessions made to colonised communities were few and often withdrawn. Ignore and forced change are colonial routine practice.

South Kilburn is lost but so is much of Brent if we cant together pathfinder empathise and do the Brent dot to dot and colouring in required. Maybe BJ could even help?

London colonial zones are UK core policy political consensus.

Philip Grant said...

I was beginning to think that the email I had sent to Brent's Chief Executive and Council Leader (see 2 February at !0:35am above), attaching a copy of my letter, had been "lost in the ether".

After not receiving any acknowledgement of it for more than 48 hours, I emailed Ms Downs to ask whether it had been received. This lunchtime I received a reply:

'On behalf of Carolyn, I acknowledge receipt of your email.

I can confirm receipt of your original email. We are looking into your query and will provide you with a response in due course.'

At least I now have a promise of a response to these important points that I've raised. What that response will be, we'll have to wait and see.

Philip Grant said...

Further to my 4 February at 14:10 comment above, Brent Council's response was posted in the blog "Council Housing and Common Sense - Brent's reply" on 14 February.