Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From JLL’s Affordable Housing Statement for Kilburn Square, published 28 November 2022.

 

There are many reasons for objecting to Brent’s “infill” housing application (22/3669) for the Kilburn Square estate, but when I submitted my objection at the weekend, it was just about affordable housing.

 

Why would I object, when an updated and “Final” Affordable Housing Statement submitted by the Council’s planning agent, JLL, in late November clearly promised that for the 99 proposed “general needs” units ‘all proposed homes will be let at London Affordable Rent by Brent Council’? My reasons are set out in detail in an illustrated objection comments document, which I hope can be attached at the end of this post, for anyone to read if they wish to.

 

Two weeks before that Affordable Housing Statement was published, Brent’s Cabinet had approved a Report which proposed the conversion of homes, originally promised to be for rent at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, to shared ownership (or even open market sale). Kilburn Square and Windmill Court were among the schemes where this would happen, but the actual numbers of LAR homes to be converted at each site were hidden away in an “exempt” Appendix.

 

Paragraphs about Kilburn Square from the Report to the 14 November 2022 Cabinet meeting.

 

Despite Brent’s New Council Homes team having known for at least three months now that they would not be delivering all 99 of their proposed “general needs” homes at Kilburn Square at LAR, no updated information on this has been supplied to Brent’s Planning Department. That information could make a difference between the application meeting Brent’s Local Plan affordable housing policy, BH5, or not meeting it.

 

The policy states that the “tenure split” for affordable housing should be 70% Social Rent or LAR and 30% ‘intermediate products’. Forty of the proposed 139 homes at Kilburn Square are for extra care accommodation, charged at Local Housing Allowance rent level, which is an ‘intermediate product’. This means that the split shown by the application (by unit) is 71.2% LAR and 28.8% intermediate, which would comply with Brent’s planning policy.

However, if the homes converted from LAR to shared ownership (which is also an ‘intermediate product’) were to be split proportionately between Kilburn Square and Windmill Court (the other two schemes would only involve two “conversions”), the split by unit for Kilburn Square would become 43.9% LAR and 56.1% intermediate. This would fail the BH5 policy test, and make it difficult for Planning Officers to recommend the Kilburn Square application for approval on the basis of its “public benefits”.

 

Conclusions from the Officer Report to Planning Committee on Windmill Court, March 2022.

 

When Brent’s Windmill Court planning application (21/4690) went to Planning Committee in March 2022, the fact that all of the proposed new homes would be for Social Rent (for existing tenants re-housed) or LAR was cited as a ‘substantial benefit’. This was used to justify several failures to comply with planning policy, which were 'considered acceptable' after taking into account that benefit.

 

Now some of those LAR homes will be converted to shared ownership (as has already happened at Watling Gardens). But that was because problems with viability only arose (or so it was claimed) after planning consent had been given. The situation over the proposed conversion of LAR homes to shared ownership at Kilburn Square is very different!

 

I will end this “introduction” to my objection comments with two paragraphs from them, setting out my views on the Kilburn Square position to Brent’s Planning Officers:

 

4.4 It currently appears that the applicant is knowingly withholding important information from the Local Planning Authority, in the hope that it can get its application approved on the basis that all of the 99 “general needs” homes proposed will be for rent at LAR level. It would then submit an application to vary the affordable housing condition in the consent given on that basis.

It would undermine the integrity of Brent’s Planning System, and reflect badly on the integrity of Brent’s Planning Officers and Planning Committee members, if such a blatant abuse of that system were allowed to occur.

4.5 I would argue strongly that, having been made fully aware of this situation, Brent’s Planning Case Officer should advise JLL that its client, the applicant, must submit its revised proposals for the tenure split of the proposed 139 homes at Kilburn Square, and that no decision on application 22/3669 can be made until that has been done.

 

We will have to wait and see whether any notice is taken of my affordable housing objection comments!

 

Philip Grant.