My London News LINK is reporting that Brent Council has put a pause on developments at Windmill Court and Kilburn Square due to them not being 'economically viable' in the current climate, Works should have started by 31st March which means that the Council could lose £100m in funding from the London Mayor towards 200 of the 701 units in receipt of funding.
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
6 comments:
The MyLondon article was based on some misleading information, and I have written to the Local Democracy Reporter who wrote it, to clarify the background over the GLA funding. The following paragraphs are taken from my email:-
Both schemes [Windmill Court and Kilburn Square] were originally part of the 1,000 genuinely affordable homes which Brent Council, and its Labour Leadership, promised to deliver between April 2019 and March 2024. It seems that they are now making excuses as to why they can't deliver on their promise, using the rising cost of building as the reason.
They [Brent Council] lost the GLA 2016-2023 funding for Kilburn Square and Windmill Court because they were not able to "start on site" to build those schemes by 31 March 2023, despite numerous warnings from the affordable housing team at the GLA that they were running out of time.
The £100m the GLA agreed in 2021 is a "red herring". That was actually the amount awarded to Brent under the GLA Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026, to build 701 mainly "Social Rent" homes. That is part of Brent's promise to build another 700 genuinely affordable homes (on top of the 1,000) by 2028.
At least half of that 700 homes promise (and the £100m) was earmarked for redeveloping and expanding the St Raphael's Estate. Kilburn Square and Windmill Court were never part of the 701 the GLA agreed to in 2021.
Thanks for clarifying, Philip. Yes, this is not new news! Here's a Letter published in the BKT on March 13:
A Letter to the Editor of the Brent and Kilburn Times from Kilburn Village Residents’ Association
A CROSSROADS FOR KILBURN SQUARE HOUSING EXPANSION
Brent’s controversial Kilburn Square expansion scheme has hit a crossroads. Already the Planning Application (Ref 22/3669) has drawn 120+ individual objections, 340 signatures on five Collective Objections – and negligible support. The community, on- and off-estate, has been saying for two years it would support a smaller compromise scheme – dropping two Blocks (C+E) that remove precious green space and mature trees and aggravate the overcrowding of the communal areas.
Brent now says it will miss an end-March deadline for its currently-planned GLA grant and must totally re-think its financing. But despite that huge uncertainty, it will STILL seek Committee approval for the full scheme.
If that is granted, the community faces months or years in limbo: the scheme will be “paused” while the team “reviews all options (for) a more viable and desirable scheme and ultimately homes for Brent residents”
That raises three questions
1. Does "review all options" include our compromise scheme?
2. If not, what would represent a "MORE DESIRABLE scheme"
3. Why does "homes for Brent residents" not include the word “affordable”?
Question 3 highlights a fundamental internal contradiction in Brent’s Application, already signalled in Philip Grant’s Letter published on January 19 – which Brent’s Head of Planning MUST insist is resolved BEFORE the Committee can be asked to make its decision.
The affordability profile of a wholly-rented scheme is crucial in assessing the balance between the borough-wide housing need and the wellbeing of current estate residents. Yet Cabinet in November was told (and multiple objectors have pointed out) that ca. 40 flats would have to be SOLD, instead of rented, to make the scheme viable.
This puts the evaluation team (and Committee) in an impossible position – that surely MUST be clarified.
Yours truly
Keith Anderson
Chair, Kilburn Village RA"
The Affordable Housing team is refusing to update the Affordability Statement in the PA. It hopes to secure permission for the full-sized scheme, on the current non-viable tenure basis... then sit back and hope for a miraculous way to make the sums add up. And when that doesn't work, they'll revert to the partial sale model - with much less scrutiny....
Surely a more transparent approach would be to freeze the Application while they work on true viability - and in the meantime engage with the community to give serious consideration to the smaller compromise scheme we've said for over two years we could support...?
Kilburn Square is also a green open space/flood waters held in landscape rather than in peoples homes planning issue.....
ditto Kilburn Wall 'grey integrating with itself'? south of the tracks.
Overall, All Grey Brent Kilburn Major Town, is an un- civic public bad growth offer from Wembley or should that be from Texas?
It's interesting that the MyLondon article includes comments from 'a Council spokesman' and a quote from Cabinet Member Cllr. Promise Knight, saying:
“Despite certain schemes being placed on hold, we are confident that we will deliver on our commitment to deliver 5,000 affordable homes across the borough. This will include 1,700 new council homes to meet our residents’ housing needs.”
This must have come from a Brent Council news release, but look at the news releases on the home page of the Brent Council website, and it isn't there.
Proof, yet again, that Brent is only promoting positive stories about itself!
As much as it can, Brent avoids drawing attention to the stories which reflect badly on the Council and Cabinet members.
Don't worry, most people in Brent know what a terrible administration we have, Brent residents just don't know how to get rid the current shambolic administration without letting the an even worse bunch of selfserving carpetbaggers.
Brent keeps pushing these unsustainable schemes because god forbid we should increase density by allowing low and mid-rise multi until residential in the suburbs
Post a Comment