LETTER: Response to Cllr Southwood's mollifying statement on the Kilburn Square development from silenced infuriated resident

 Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for publishing (LINK) the text of my Kilburn Square petition speech to Cabinet on February 7, with a brief summary of Cllr Southwood’s response. We residents of Kilburn Square have enormous respect for Cllr Southwood; and with two thirds of residents being Council tenants, we are acutely aware of the shortage of affordable housing and the Council’s housing targets.

 

But as Cllr Southwood is well aware of our concerns, and did have advance sight of my speech, I’m afraid we found her response deeply unsatisfying.   

 

Here is a full transcript of her statement; and, in italics, the comments I would have made if we had been allowed a dialogue.

 

Councillor Southwood response to Margaret von Stoll’s petition speech to Cabinet, Feb 7 2022

 

Thank you Margaret, for giving us a really helpful and detailed overview of some of the journey we have been on over the past year or so and outstanding residents’ concerns.  

 

Throughout the process and I guess starting with our initial commitment which was always to balance the need for and our response to the need for family sized, genuinely affordable homes with improvements that are made possible during a development programme, improvements that will benefit people already living on Kilburn Square. 

 

The balance needed all along has been between the acute housing need in the borough, which we recognise, and the human rights and wellbeing of the current – and for that matter incoming – residents of Kilburn Square.

 

It became clear last Summer when we’d done the sort of first round of engagement that residents did have several considerable concerns; 

 

My speech included the unambiguous conclusion from the resident survey by our independent advisors Source Partnership “There is very little demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals or trust in the consultation process “

 

one was certainly around the height of the proposed tower. I appreciate there was also concern about density and overcrowding and it was and has been throughout really clear that residents on and off the estate really value the green space that’s available

 

Our neighbours raised all three of our concerns, not just green space, in their emphatic rejection of the original scheme

 

and I sort of took that  informally to Cabinet colleagues around the table, that feedback; and we collectively agreed to extend the pre-consultation process 

 

We welcomed that, and you promised the re-design would be done in collaboration with estate residents. But in practice the project team continued dictating the rules just like in the previous phase; see this Letter to our local paper from a fellow resident:

 

The Kilburn Square re-think – a plea for meaningful collaboration

From the Brent and Kilburn Times Dec 16, 2021

Dear Editor. As a resident on the Kilburn Square Estate I’d like to register a protest at Brent Council’s approach to the re-think (LINK: https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/housing/brent-council-rethinks-kilburn-square-8385078  ) on its oversized expansion project.

·       They promised a collaborative approach, but in reality it’s the project team who are making the rules – just like during the months spent discussing the original scheme.

·       At a first pair of Drop-Ins  - wrongly labelled Design Workshops - each visitor (12% of households turned up) was presented with five ways of distributing a reduction in scale of about 25%

·       A Newsletter then told us we had “chosen” two Approaches labelled A and E, each removing only 20% of the original scale, and neither fully addressing even one of our three main objections acknowledged by Brent: No second tower, preserve green space and trees, reduce density/overcrowding.

·       A would reduce the tower but still have ten storeys; E would remove one but not both of the satellite Blocks on the green space - and keep almost the full tower.

·       They quote outdated density ratios; but omit Amenity Space rules laid down in Brent’s own Plan.  On those, the Estate already has a serious shortfall; and either A or E would more than double that shortfall”. And Brent’s Climate Emergency strategy seeks to increase green space, not reduce it.

·       After two further Drop-Ins drew barely any residents, the project team has resorted to knocking on doors to seek “votes”. But they aren’t using our independent advisor, Source Partnership, whose neutrality gained our trust in the July survey that prompted the re-think.

·       And we are told throughout that these are the only options; asking to discuss a greater reduction is not allowed. An online questionnaire allows us to comment on the wider picture only after ‘voting’ for one or the other Approach.

·       We’ve seen scant details of the provision, or re-provision, of community facilities and services; and tenants complain that despite repeated promises they’re still awaiting details of priority access to the new homes referred to by Cllr Ketan Sheth, in his recent Times article.

Brent, you’ve said you “want a scheme that can work for everyone” and “will not force homes on anyone”. This is no way to honour those words!

 

Yours sincerely, Charlotte O’Sullivan. Further information   https://save-our-square.org

 

 

This obviously was a considerable change to the original plan and I tasked the architects with coming with several options, not worked up in detail obviously, we are  always resource constrained, which did in different and varying ways meet some of those concerns.  

 

And those options were then whittled down to two, A & E, on which we got residents’ feedback.  

 

Only 24% of our households were persuaded to “vote” and the majority of those chose the other Approach – see below for details  

 

I realise there will be remaining concerns and differing views about the extent of the process, about the extent to which residents meaningfully were able to engage. 

 

I think that is something that we will probably have to agree to disagree on.  What I am confident about having reviewed all the various engagement mechanisms is that the team have done their best to engage through this pre consultation process.

 

What the team consciously chose NOT to do in the re-design process was ask our trusted intermediary, Source Partnership, to provide a neutral channel for residents to express their honest views, with no fear of recrimination; or to engage residents in exploring what they value about the estate and what kind of designs and improvements could both meet the need for new units and address their objections, collaboratively.

 

We are not at the end; this was, if you like, an additional opportunity for consultation – rightly, in line with the Mayor’s guidance.    

 

GLA funding requires an engagement process which is “transparent, inclusive, responsive and meaningful“. We strongly argue those criteria have thus far NOT been met

 

And also our own commitment as a Council to make sure that residents are/have the opportunity to engage meaningfully when we have development plans like this……… which are significant and we accept that. The reduction in the height of the tower which you see in Option A I think does respond to concerns about the height of the tower.

 

But that (almost) responds to just one of our three key objections – which you have acknowledged

 

 I hear that there are outstanding concerns about density and overcrowding. Much of that rightly can be picked up through the planning process so I think there is absolutely scope for residents to continue to provide that feedback and to seek assurances. And obviously all the relevant reports will be appended to the planning application which demonstrate the density being in line with expectation in the area. 

 

Brent’s own “Amenity Space” rules already show a deficit on the current estate; Approach A would double the deficit. And it would add 68% more households vs 2019, on a smaller footprint  – how do you think that will not transform the character of what one of your Officers described to our MP as “a brilliant estate”?  

 

Since the Co-op was established 30 years ago, residents have worked hard to establish a peaceful, sociable and crime-free estate; we are concerned that this plan puts at risk our ability to sustain that

 

Just to clarify on allocations because there has been some talk of overcrowding:  obviously we made recent changes to our allocations scheme which means families who are overcrowded who live on the estate and who are eligible for housing transfer will be prioritised with new housing, just to make that absolutely clear. 

 

And the final thing to say is obviously  our number one commitment is to families living in temporary accommodation and have been doing so for many years in some cases,  in chronically unsuitable unaffordable homes and those residents, for lots of reasons don’t have much of a voice in these processes. And one of the things that, I think, I and the team have been careful to do throughout is to consider those residents as well.   

 

So I am enormously grateful to people on and off the estate who have given a massive amount of time and energy through the process and we are in a better place because of it that is absolutely unquestionable. 

 

It doesn’t feel like a better place, Councillor, when all you are offering, after well over a year of patient dialogue with you and your team, is a 40% reduction in a tower that never belonged in our local skyscape in the first place

 

We now move into a stage which is to put Option A into the planning process that residents will have opportunity to continue to provide feedback and comment on the Planning Application as we go into that formal phase 

 

This expansion is not even in the Local Plan!

 

We cannot for time reasons because we are committed to certain deadlines with the GLA for funding we cannot extend this process any further and I will be looking forward to working with you all as we move into the formal planning process which will also include work around the green space. It is quite clear that a lot of the green space on the estate… (?) so we’ll be focusing on that (Margaret interrupts, visibly unhappy)

 

I do appreciate that passions run high in this and that is the demonstration of how much people care about Kilburn Square and that is entirely as it should be.  

 

So we will be looking at how to make better use of the green space that does exist and also taking a look around the estate; and I can’t make clear commitments today, but Officers are looking at opportunities for other improvements we might be able to make locally and we will continue to work with everyone locally and to make those a reality through the planning process. 

 

It’s hard to imagine what those offsetting green space ideas might be – on or off estate. But also our collective unhappiness with Blocks C and D is not only about the green space and mature trees they would remove, important though that is; but also about their visual impact on the estate character and the local setting, and their contribution to the 68% increase in the estate population vs 2019  

 

We are asking you to drop those two Blocks as well as reducing the tower to the height of surrounding buildings - before preparing the scheme for a Planning Application

 

I think I’ll leave it there but I really do appreciate Margaret, you coming and expressing so eloquently the views of local residents. 

 

The outcome of the post-reset engagement process October to January 2021-2

 

The team has now published the results of its efforts to engage with KS residents (the views of the local community have been deemed irrelevant until after the scale and shape of the revised scheme is fixed) from October to January [https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420115/kilburn-square-summary-and-feedback.pdf ]

 

Read the team’s commentary in conjunction with Charlotte’s letter above; and then look at the data:

 

Of the 270 households (including Sandwood, the 24-unit pre-phase of Infill, completed in 2020)

 

·      64 (24%) were persuaded to express a preference between Approaches A and E

·      10 (4%) said they wanted neither, even though that was not presented as an option

·      Of the 64, 26 (10%) said they favoured Approach A – which Brent now wants to take to a Planning Application

·      38 (14%) preferred Approach E – which would preserve some, though not all, of the green space and trees

 

In conclusion

 

Our message to Cllr Southwood, the Cabinet, the Leader and the senior Officers is this:

·      We’ve heard  your arguments for some further expansion on Kilburn Square

·      But we are still waiting for a scale and shape that “can work for everyone” as we’ve been promised

·      … and  please don’t try to tell us, the local electorate, or the GLA that Approach A has the support of residents and neighbours!

 

  Margaret von Stoll