Dear Wembley Matters Editor
You have previously published reports of the long-running saga of Brent’s “Infill” housing expansion scheme on the Kilburn Square Co-op estate. I’m a near-neighbour, and have friends who live on the estate itself.
Despite good words from the Cabinet Housing Lead and various Officers, the project team is now preparing for Planning Application a design that our combined local community still considers as much larger than what the site can reasonably support without transforming its character and damaging the health and wellbeing of current and incoming residents.
I find bitterly ironic the contrast between this scheme and a mirror-image story about a current project in Barnet: https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/19937298.residents-lose-latest-fight-save-east-finchley-green-spaces/ . A Council facing acute housing shortages seeks to build houses on green space next to existing homes, in an area deprived of green space, against the protests of residents. Sound familiar? The twist is that this is a Conservative Council; and the Labour group are defending the interests of the current residents…
Kilburn Square was a major topic at a Kilburn Ward Zoom Hustings hosted last week by Kilburn Village Residents’ Association and two neighbouring RAs. As the election is almost upon us, I’d like to share with your readers the following Letter which the Brent and Kilburn Times Editor is about to publish
Yours sincerely
Nicky Lovick
“Dear BKT Editor
In the heart of Kilburn, just off the busy and polluted High Road, Brent plans to impose a major housing expansion scheme – currently 144 extra units - on a well-balanced and mature estate that a Brent Housing Officer has described to our MP as “brilliant”. Our local community is incensed. Here’s the story:
· On its Kilburn Square estate, Brent Council has been seeking for over 18 months to design a scheme for further housing expansion, that “can work for everyone” and “balances” the acute need for new social housing with protecting the health and wellbeing of existing residents
· Engagement last Summer produced near-unanimous rejection of the scale of the original scheme by estate residents and neighbours
· In agreeing to design a smaller scheme, Brent acknowledged three major objections: a new tower, the loss of Trees and Green Space, and the much-increased density of residents.
· It is now preparing a Planning Application for a scheme (its “Approach A”) https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420113/kilburn-square-newsletter-issue-2-2022.pdf that addresses only one of these (the tower)…
· …and retains two new blocks that would remove green space and mature trees, aggravate an existing deficit of Amenity Space and increase the resident population by 67% vs 2019
· Kilburn Ward is in the most deprived category for green space in the whole Borough – and the Climate Strategy is supposed to INCREASE green space, not remove it
· A three-month Council engagement effort, with tightly constrained options and the exclusion of trusted Independent Advisors Source Partnership, identified only 10% of estate residents willing to express any support for Approach A
· Brent has sought to exclude the local community from debate before fixing the project scale, despite representations from the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group (KSSG) and over 50 recent emails from concerned neighbours seeking a smaller scheme
· Lack of any serious communication going to ALL neighbouring streets means many close neighbours are still in total ignorance of the expansion plan
For more details, see https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/03/letter-response-to-cllr-southwoods.html
Brent’s Housing Director has said publicly 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”. Empty words in relation to Kilburn Square!
Estate residents and neighbours alike acknowledge the social housing crisis and will accept SOME further development – but this scheme is still too big, and unfair to current estate residents.
Wouldn’t it be great if all candidates standing in Kilburn (Brent) Ward would promise that, if elected, they will NOT support a Planning Application for the scheme in its current shape, and will work closely with the KSSG and all their electors to propose a more balanced and fairer scheme…?
At a Ward Hustings last week, hosted by three Residents’ Associations, three Party speakers agreed with that sentiment… and one did not. I’ll leave your readers to guess which one.
Nicky Lovick
Brondesbury Road resident (name and address supplied)”
13 comments:
COMPARE AND CONTRAST:-
Brent Council plans to build hundreds more new Council homes, because there is an urgent need for them. Let's see how they will do this, by looking at two of their projects.
1. KILBURN SQUARE:
The letter above sets out the residents views. Brent Council's justification for why they want to force so many of the new homes that are needed onto their existing Kilburn Square estate are summed up in this sentence from an article by Cllr. Ketan Sheth in last November's "Brent & Kilburn Times":
‘The value and cost of land in London is at an all time high: therefore, building on land already owned by the council means the building costs are lower and all of the new homes can be let at genuinely affordable rents.'
2. CECIL AVENUE, WEMBLEY:
The vacant "brownfield" former Copland School site is 'land already owned by the council'. Brent Council was given full planning permission in February 2021 for a development of 250 homes on this land.
It could be building these much needed homes for people on the Council's waiting list already, but it isn't. Instead, it is still trying to work out the terms of a contract to fulfil a decision made by Brent's Cabinet in August 2021.
That decision was that 152 of the 250 homes would go to a "developer partner", who could sell them privately for profit. 61 of the homes retained by the Council would be for intermediate rent level or shared ownership (so not "affordable" by Brent families in housing need). Only 37 of the 250 homes would be for letting to Council tenants at "London Affordable Rent" level.
CONCLUSION? I think you can work that one out for yourselves, and vote accordingly tomorrow.
Remember that Brent plans such as Approach A are always "fluid" and can easily be Brent revoked in favour of "other ideas" very soon down the line. Power is to colonial developers/ but traumatic to live life in such a colony/ emerging market zoned. Looks to me like developers want to wipe entire Kilburn Square bit-by-bit?
That is how South Kilburn special operation proceeds since 2001, with a central park to be expanded and high quality invested in 2004 plan approach since revoked, become park as part building land (for bit-by-bit total destruction) in the new Brent Local Plan 2022.
Kilburn Major Town with no open 24/7 central park public open space or High Road green either- a new kind of bleak.
Worth also investigating flood risk with Camden mostly nicely uphill on the other side of the High Road. Maybe that could get conserved and protected Brent Kilburn de-growth zone downstream interested?
Brent is prioritisng housing targets over community support on Kilburn Square
I was the Labour Party candidate who whole-heartedly supported the building of council housing in a borough in a town where the housing situation is such that our kids are working three days a week for their landlords. The housing crisis is the main everyday problem confronting many Londoners with 35% of Brent residents (and a far higher proportion of Kilburn residents) paying a median rent of over half of the borough median income to private landlords. Residents – especially the “haves” who already own property - systematically oppose new developments, especially new council homes. But my party also considers the “have-nots” such as those on the 9-year waiting list for a 2-bedroom flat in the borough, even if they don’t as yet have a vote in Kilburn. There are institutional barriers to solving the housing crisis and I’m proud to be part of a Council that is grasping the chance of capitalising on its eroded powers and all-too-meagre assets in the form of publicly owned land at Kilburn Square.
Anthony Molloy is repeating the Brent Labour mantra that the number of new homes is the only thing that matters.
This blinkered approach ignores all of the other pledges the Council has made. What about the Air Quality Action Plan, the Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy (protecting Green spaces) and its recently adopted Local Plan policies??
The Council does need to build new affordable homes, but it should not destroy the boroughs environment in order to build as many as possible.
And what about Phillip Grant s point about the Council's plans on land it owns in Wembley?
Received by email:
This is a really disappointing start from Anthony Molloy, one of two new Labour Councillors in our Kilburn Ward.
Nicky Lovick’s letter clearly summarises the absence of genuine support from residents or neighbours. And the Residents’ Association has taken the trouble to share with Mr Molloy the history of the Stakeholder Group’s attempts since January 2021 to negotiate a truly fair and balanced scheme.
Despite that, he throws out the unjustifed accusation that the local community are all Nimbies, selfishly opposing any development. I resent that.
- I live on the estate; and this scheme is not just in our Back Yard… it’s in our FRONT Yard!
- Brent’s Approach A would bring a two-thirds increase vs 2019 in the number of residents crammed onto a smaller space
- It would remove the green space and mature trees so essential to our mental health and physical wellbeing
- The playground carefully sited away from our homes would be relocated to outside some unlucky residents’ windows
- And the neighbours supporting our cause are genuinely concerned for our wellbeing, as well as for the character and amenity of our shared neighbourhood
Residents and neighbours alike have acknowledged the housing crisis from the outset; and have been willing to accept a scheme for 80-100 new homes, as described in the March 2020 Cabinet report that created the development partnership with Network Homes – but Approach A is still too big.
We respect Cllr Molloy’s passionate advocacy of those on the housing waiting list. But we hope to persuade him that Approach A is both unfair and short-sighted.
Yours,
Charlotte O’Sullivan
I’m appalled that cllr molloy thinks that those who own their own homes oppose new council housing. Many actively support the provision of true social housing at true social rents. His statement is insulting to his new constituents and to many more in Brent.
I’m opposed to new developments which pander to developers and overseas investors, have minute proportions of the laughably named affordable housing and which don’t provide decent comfortable family housing with proper outside space. I’m also opposed to Brent Labour ignoring what residents say and being in the pockets of companies like Quintain. I’m opposed to Brent fiddling the figures and claiming they’re building thousands of homes when most are simply replacements at higher rents with appalling workmanship.
I’m also opposed to giving millions to scam lords like those who profited from Prospect House.
We need real social housing at real social rents.
I’d recommend cllr Molloy go and talk to real people rather than parroting the party line. People like Ms O’Sullivan perhaps. This is not a good start.
Charlotte,
I entirely agree with Alison Hopkins that how regeneration, development and infrastructure projects are managed is often skewed in favour of the private side side of private-public partnerships; systemic asymmetry has been cynically baked in to the process. The main reason I stood for election to Brent Council is to see if a lowly councillor can do anything about this. The relationship is less asymmetrical when the land in question is publicly owned as is the case at Kilburn Square, and local authorities are being pushed to capitalise on such assets in the face of the crisis that most affects the everyday lives of the majority of Londoners.
Let's have a chat: my email address is cllr.anthony.molloy@brent.gov.uk.
Looking forward to meeting up with you,
Anthony
Dear Councillor Molloy,
I'd like to draw your attention to my "compare and contrast" comment of 4 May above, and a guest post of mine on Cecil Avenue and Scrutiny which Martin published a few days ago.
The former Copland School site in Wembley is land owned by Brent Council which was given full planning permission for 250 homes more than 15 months ago.
Instead of getting on and building them for local residents in housing need, your Labour colleagues in the Cabinet seem determined to press ahead with proposals that would allow a "developer partner" to sell 152 of those homes privately for profit. Only 37 of the 250 would be for letting to Council tenants at London Affordable Rents.
If you want to stand up for local residents in housing need, please do your best to get the present proposals for the Council's housing scheme at Cecil Avenue properly scrutinised, and support making more of the 250 new homes there available to Council tenants at genuinely affordable rents. Thank you.
I'm unfamiliar with this Wembley story but would very much like to hear more to guide my questions to the officers and councillors in the driving seat. Can we get together5 some time? My number is 07717 695 619.
I am sure Philip will be in touch but meanwhile if you use the seach box on the right and type in 'Cecil Avenue' you will find a number of articles on the issue.
Martin
Thanks, Martin,
I've read those articles but I'd like a face-to-face with you or Philip, if possible.
Anthony
How many flats in the new block built on the two-storey car park of Kilburn Square are rented at affordable social housing rates? The term "new coumcil housing" is a misnomer: the majority of the public assume that all new council housing will be available for social housing at an affordable rate. This is just not true. The council should publish the true figure of how many families/individuals have been able to be rehoused in these new flats/houses and consequently taken off the housing waiting list.
Thank you, Cllr Molloy.
Can I draw your attention to Gladstone Parade. Demolished despite over a thousand objections with the loss of a good looking art deco parade and flats above, as well as shops, a pub, hairdresser and chippy in a ward with few amenities.
The original developer lied to the planning committee. The site was then sold on several times each at increased profit. There’s no social housing of course, and no affordable either from how savills are now advertising. The flats are up in the £600k mark. Brent has allowed the revision of the application several times.
And do please also look at Prospect House which has been covered several times here. It’s a horror story of million pound grants to a very dodgy outfit.
Post a Comment