Kilburn Square residents present 900 signature petition over Brent Council plans they claim impact on density, green space and wellbeing on the estate

Kilburn Village Residents Association (KVRA) also presented a petition this morning about the proposed tower block and infill on Kilburn Square. The petition of 900 signatures was presented byMargaret von Stoll a founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op:

Kilburn Square Petition speech to Brent Council Feb 7 2022

Good morning Councillor Butt, Cabinet Members and Officers

My name is Margaret von Stoll. I’m a longstanding Kilburn Square resident, and founding member of the Kilburn Square Co-op.

I’m here to present a 900-signature petition against the scale of the council’s proposals for infill development at Kilburn Square, and to voice our disillusionment with the pre-consultation process to date.

Despite repeated requests for more meaningful engagement, we have just been informed that the Council intends to submit its Approach A to Planning – an option which fails to address our concerns about our existing green space, and about overcrowding on the estate.

We feel let down by the undemocratic decision-making, and an inadequate and unprofessional engagement process. I would like you to listen to our concerns. You'll see they impact on Health, Environment, Community Engagement, Scrutiny and other portfolios as well as Housing.

Last year we were relieved when Source Partnership was selected as our independent Advisor We were led to believe that they would be allowed to work as a neutral channel between the Council and residents throughout the process

Their resident survey on the original scheme concluded;

“There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals, or trust in the consultation process”

That powerful statement was omitted from the published summary; and our request to send the full report to every household was refused. And since the re-set decision, Source has been largely sidelined. This is simply not acceptable!

 

Councillor Southwood:

 

You have acknowledged our community’s concerns, stating that you now sought “a scheme that can work for everyone”. That Brent would:

·      ensure the team would work “in collaboration with residents”

·      and balance the housing targets with respect for the wellbeing of estate residents 

We are here to say, Brent’s actions and latest decisions prove otherwise.

Our ‘design workshops” have proved to be one-way Drop-Ins, residents being instructed to choose from limited design proposals, without being allowed to state on record that none of the proposals address our concerns. We’ve been told “these are your options, your vote will be wasted if you don’t choose one”.

This engagement process is tokenistic, and gives only the illusion of collaboration with affected residents. You have held community-led co-design efforts elsewhere – why not on Kilburn Square? To tell us the scale and shape are fixed, and then offer us further engagement is disingenuous and totally unfair.

Brent is proud to have one of the largest social housing programmes in London. We believe you should be creating homes and places we can all be happy to live in - not just more housing. The London Plan stresses that the optimal capacity of a site is not the same as the maximum capacity.

We do accept the need for SOME additional housing. But Amenity Space at Kilburn Square is already much lower than Brent’s own policy norms require; and the scale of your current proposals would make this much worse.

Whilst increasing the number of homes at Kilburn Square by 60% may make economic sense, and achieve targets, there will be significant detrimental impact to our health and wellbeing through the overcrowding, loss of health and community facilities and loss of mature trees and open green space.

Brent’s Climate strategy seeks to increase green space - not remove it. New research shows we are the area most deprived of green space in the whole Borough. Your Approach A proposal will remove our green lung – which helps mitigate flood risk and the appalling air quality from Kilburn High Road.

Finally, let me point out that our petition is also addressed to the Chair of the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – for good reason. Brent’s Housing Director assured the Committee in January that “they would not want to force homes on anyone, so where they had built had been with the support and encouragement of local residents and ward councillors”. We urge the Council to honour that philosophy in relation to Kilburn Square; and, even at this late stage, to genuinely engage with residents to create a more sustainable solution.

 

Responding Cllr Southwood thanked Margaret for her 'helpful and detailed overview of the journey so far' but said the com mitment had always been to blance balance the provision of genuinely affordable homes with the benefits to the original residents of the estate. She recogniseed concern over the height of the proposed tower, the density of the proposals and the value that residents put on the green space.

 

Architects had come up with proposals to meet, in variable ways, the residents' concerns which result in proposals A and E. She said that she would agree to disagree with the residents over their criticism of the level of engagement. The tower height had been reduced and the issue of density could be picked up during the planning process.

Southwood said that over-crowded families, currently in homeless accommodation without a voice, would be given priority in the additional housing. The Plan A proposal was now entering the formal phase and would include work around the green space including making better use of it.

 

Cllr Butt in a notably more aggressive contribution said that he made no apologies for building homes and addressing the needs of children for the stability that would give them a secure future. Concerns would be taken into account but decisions had to be made that would not suit everyone - 'I will make no apology for that'.

 

Margaret von Stoll was muted on zoom when she tried to come back on those remarks.

 

A further comment is expected from KVRA later this week.