Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.
Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security
You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill
Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to
the detriment of existing residents?
Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing
nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by
councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?
How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?
How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to
reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?
Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given
we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.
How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?
Response:
You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why
are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment
of existing residents?
How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?
The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer
because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.
Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents
with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.
We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.
Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?
Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?
The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.
Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.
The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.
The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the
building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded
heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of
the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.
How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?
Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.
As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.
The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good
levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British
Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of
daylight and sunlight.
This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.
How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?
Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.
Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet
Member for Regeneration
& Planning
The
Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the
Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing
how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.
This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.
Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?
Did
anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an
analysis?
Response:
It
should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting
point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the
inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very
significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of
Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire
safety measures, rather than planning).
The
assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely
vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.
IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE
Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK
Letter to Wembley Matters on Windmill Court infill proposals HERE
SPOT THE DIFFERENCE:
ReplyDeleteCllr. Promise Knight in her response above:
'Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.'
Cllr. Shama Tatler at Cabinet meeting on 14 November:
Every new home developed brings in more money from Council Tax and Community Infrastructure Levy that we can spend.
It is Cllr. Tatler's drive to build, build, build in Brent, in her many years as Lead Member for Regeneration, fully supported by the Council Leader, which has led to so much overdevelopment in the borough.
Brent's New Council Homes team also appear to believe that it gives them the green light to push through schemes, without early and proper consultation with the existing residents their often ill-conceived projects will affect.
From the responses above, Cabinet members have no intention of changing the way they behave, despite the views and wishes of the people they are meant to represent and serve.
Unfortunately the vast majority of people living in Brent don’t seem to be aware of how the elected Cllrs are behaving and will continue to vote for these Cllrs who do not care about anyone or anything else apart from their careers. I have always voted Labour but will now not be as the Labour Cllrs don’t have any pride in keeping this Borough safe and a good place to live. The Council Officers are also not visible or available not even when Cadent were given the go ahead to do gas works on our estate. Reduce dents had to check with the Council that these works were agreed by the Council. Initially were told not so don’t let anyone into your homes and then a few months later when again checked with the Council residents were told that this was agreed works. Ti date the officer in charge has not communicated in any form with the residents. So what is he/ she getting paid for?
DeleteButt really wants his Mega-Borough at the expense of the residents through their pockets and their health.
ReplyDeleteTowerblock Tatler says the high reach fire engine would only be called in for a fire at Windmill Court if other fire safety measures failed.
ReplyDeleteWhat if that desperate situation happens and it can't get into position to save lives?
Brent is shamelessly ignoring the lessons of Grenfell Tower!
Cllr. Lightweight says: There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.
ReplyDeleteThis development ain't going to make any diffrence is it, by the time they've built them they'll have to sell them all and borrow a bit more just to pay for the build.
As for Cllr Towerblock, she just doesn't care about resident safety, if people die here in the future because they can't get the big fire appliances in, I hope she sleeps well (not). What an absolute .... she is.
According to a labour party website...
ReplyDelete"Before politics, Cllr Shama Tatler was a secondary school History teacher and has always been passionate about opportunities for young people. She taught in both Smethwick in the West Midlands and the London Borough of Brent.
Following the 2010 General election, she joined the party and immediately got involved in campaigning and activities in her CLP.
In 2014, she was elected to Brent Council and served on various committees before becoming a member of the Cabinet with responsibility for Regeneration in 2016. She currently oversees some of the biggest developments in London ... She’s passionate about council and social house building, and believes in sustainable development. She believes in the need for better spatial planning policy to really deliver housing and infrastructure."
We all have transferable skills but that's quite a huge change in career for a history teacher.
Who scrutinises the decisions she's pushing through or the work she's supposedly overseeing?
Does anyone know whether the response from Cllr Tatler is even a legitimate response given that Planning Gateway One had already come into effect and she was happy to NOT allow space for a London Fire Brigade high reach vehicle to be able to operate and assist at a fire at a High Rise Residential Building.
ReplyDelete