Guest Post in a personal capacity by Philip Grant
Architect’s view of Brent’s 250 home Cecil Avenue development.
On 14 March this year, Martin’s post “Wembley Housing Zone: Never mind the gloss – what are the details?” shared with us a Brent Council press release, about its deal with Wates to finally build the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue, which it had received full planning consent for in February 2021. The blog included “links” to several of the guest posts I’d written since August 2021, urging the Council to include more genuinely affordable homes for rent in the project, especially homes at Social Rent level which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission said should be the priority.
My “parody” Brent Council Homes publicity photograph (from November 2021).
Since 2021, Brent’s plans had been to allow its “developer partner” to sell 152 of the homes on the former Copland School site privately, with only 37 of the 250 for London Affordable Rent, and the other 61 as “intermediate” Council housing (either shared ownership or Intermediate Rent level).
You would have thought that when they arranged additional funding from the GLA, to allow for more affordable homes to be delivered as part of this Wembley Housing Zone project, Brent would have celebrated with another press release, telling us about this “good news” story. Instead, I only discovered it when I spotted an item on the Forward Plan page of the Council’s website, as I was checking whether another item had been included there. It was about a Key Decision made by the Corporate Director, Communities and Regeneration, in April 2023:-
There was a “Officer Key Decision Report” on the website, but (true to form) the appendices to it were both “exempt”, so that the press and public were not allowed to find out ‘information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’. The Report did, however, give an outline of what the amended agreement with the GLA involved:-
My various attempts, since August 2021, to get Brent to include more genuinely affordable homes at Cecil Avenue, using additional GLA funding where possible, have been ignored, dodged or blocked. I was told that anything other than what the Council already planned would be impossible, because the scheme would not be viable. Now they had an extra c.£10.5m, how many extra affordable homes would they be able to provide?
I had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to find out, but “Wembley Matters” can (at last) share the Good News!
· Instead of only 37 of the Cecil Avenue homes for London Affordable Rent, there will now be 59. 35 of these will be family-sized (3 or 4-bed) homes.
· 36 of the Cecil Avenue Council homes will be for Shared Ownership (of which 9 will be family-sized).
· 3 of the Cecil Avenue Council homes will be “Other” affordable homes. (Does that mean at Intermediate Rent?)
· As before, 152 of the homes being built by Brent Council at Cecil Avenue will be for private sale by Wates (including 20 family-sized).
My title does say ‘Some Good News’. The other part of the Wembley Housing Zone project, across the road at Ujima House, was meant to have ALL of its 54 flats for London Affordable Rent to Council tenants. The revised figures for this block are now:
· 32 for London Affordable Rent (including all 8 family-sized flats).
· 22 for Shared Ownership.
So, the original proposed number of Wembley Housing Zone London Affordable Rent homes was 91 (37 + 54), and the revised number is 91 (59 + 32). Perhaps that is why Brent did not want to draw attention to the extra funding they’d negotiated from the GLA!
The only improvement from the extra GLA funding, and that is genuinely to be welcomed, is that more of them will be family-sized homes for affordable rent, and more will be delivered earlier (Ujima House still only has the outline planning permission approved in February 2021).
Of the original proposed 61 “intermediate affordable homes”, 58 have now been positively identified as being for shared ownership. But didn’t Brent’s Cabinet, just last week, decide to sell off the 23 shared ownership homes it had acquired at the Grand Union development, because the Council does not have 'the knowledge, experience and the capacity to effectively sell and manage' shared ownership homes?
Placard from a demonstration against Shared Ownership.
The Report to the 17 July Cabinet meeting clearly showed that shared ownership is well above the affordability level of most families in Brent, and admitted:
‘… the market and demand for Shared Ownership, particularly in the latter quarter of 2022 was and has remained turbulent. This is both in terms of too many shared ownership homes available in the market and appetite and demand for these homes reducing.’
In a November 2022 guest post, I set out the reality of Brent’s Affordable Council Housing programme, and why they should not include any shared ownership homes. But the decision makers at the Civic Centre are still pressing on with their flawed policies!
Cllr. Shama Tatler fronting a publicity photo at the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.
Brent’s March 2023 press release about its Wembley Housing Zone deal with Wates began by claiming: ‘More much-needed housing will soon be a reality following an agreement to build 304 new homes in Wembley.’ From the hard hats and “high-vis” jackets in the photograph that came with it, you might believe that heavy machinery was already at work on the Council-owned Cecil Avenue site, which has been vacant for at least three years.
The Cecil Avenue site from the top deck of a bus, 26 June 2023.
In the extract from the April 2023 Key Decision Report above, it says that ‘start on site [was] recorded on 27 March 2023’. When I went past on the last Monday in June, there was no machinery, no workers and no progress on the Cecil Avenue site, just two portacabins. My recent guest post, 1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to the Mayor of London, explains what is required for a “start on site” for GLA funding, and it appears this has not yet happened.
It appears that the ‘will soon be a reality’ actually means ‘by 31 December 2026’. Some eventual good news, but I still believe that Brent could have done so much better than 59 “genuinely affordable” homes for rent to Council tenants as part of its 250 home Cecil Avenue development.
Philip Grant.
23 comments:
The incompetent Brent Labour Councillors are proving yet again that they are completely inept. Using Council owned land for the benefit of developers is a Tory policy, so what does this say about Brent Labour?
AN ASIDE (BUT AN INTERESTING PUZZLE):-
The Key Decision referred to in my article above was "signed" by Zahur Khan, Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration.
Never heard of him?
Well, a Council press release last October announced that:
'Zahur Khan is set to become Brent Council’s new Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration, after joining from Lewisham Council where he is Director of Public Realm.'
The press release quoted Carolyn Downs, Brent's then Chief Executive, saying:
“I am delighted to welcome Zahur to Brent. Regeneration is at the core of what we do but what is most important is that the next phase of our regeneration is co-designed and owned by our communities. It is about making sure our communities see the benefits of regeneration, including through employment and skills. Zahur shares this vision and has the knowledge and leadership skills to help us deliver the next phase of Brent’s ambitious agenda.”
It then chipped in with a quote from the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt:
“I am looking forward to working with Zahur as we seek to empower local people, partners, businesses and organisations to help shape the borough’s future. Putting communities at the heart of everything we do is what this council is all about."
The press release ended by saying: 'Zahur will take up the vacant Corporate Director of Communities and Regeneration post from January 2023.'
However, for the past few weeks, Brent Council's website page for its Senior Management Team has shown, under Corporate Director - Communities and Regeneration:
'The position of Corporate Director for Communities and Regeneration is currently vacant but will be recruited to in the coming months.'
So what happened to Zahur Khan?
Was he disillusioned to find that the vision of empowering local people, and 'putting communities at the heart of everything we do', promised in the press release, was far from the reality that he found when he took up his post in Brent? Or was his departure something to do with the arrival in May as Brent's new Chief Executive of his former boss in Lewisham?
If you know the answer to this puzzle, please share it with us here (anonymously, if you need to protect your identity!).
Irrespective of what Brent & Wates decide to build at the location of these sites Cecil Avenue and Ujima House, present a logistical nightmare. Both sites are on Wembley High Road, with 2 very small streets for access. Cecil Avenue whilst a two way street, has parking bays directly next to the Hoarding, and on a normal day 2 cars struggle to pass, let alone large industrial lorries. Ecclestone Place is a one way entrance from the High Road, and although it's stated in the Planning Application, plans to make it 2 ways is a physical impossibility at this present time.
Demolition of Ujima House is proposed to be undertaken from the High Road? Which I understand is controlled by TFL.
Would that mean a stopping up order needs to be in place? As all street furniture/lamposts etc., would need to be removed and the pavement hoarded off from public use?
In effect "Starting on Site" means just put up some nice new Hoarding to make them think we are doing something, to retain the planning permission.
FOR INFORMATION 1:
Regular readers will know that I believe in sharing my views with decision makers at Brent Council. [If you feel strongly about something, there is no point in keeping those in power in ignorance of you opinion, as long as you do so respectfully - it might help them to make better decisions!]
Below is the text of an email I sent this morning to the Cabinet Lead Members for Regeneration and for Housing.
I also sent a similar email to Senior Council Officers in the Regeneration and Housing sections at the Civic Centre, and forwarded a copy to Brent's Chief Executive, for her information.
'Dear Councillors Tatler and Knight,
I'm attaching a pdf copy of an article I had published over the weekend, about some good news on affordable housing at Brent's Cecil Avenue development.
I hope you will take the opportunity to read it, and understand that there is a different perspective to that within the "Civic Centre bubble". Best wishes,
Philip Grant.'
FOR INFORMATION 2:
I also shared a copy of my article this afternoon, attached to a slightly longer email, to the councillors whose Ward includes the Wembley Housing Zone. This is the text of that email:
'Dear Wembley Hill councillors,
I'm attaching a pdf copy of an article which I had published over the weekend. "Brent's Wembley Housing Zone - Some Good News" is about an important housing development in your Ward, and I hope you will find the time to read it.
The Council's forthcoming development, on the vacant former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue and Ujima House, is not all good news.
Half of the 304 homes the Council is building (including 152 of the 250 to be built first at Cecil Avenue) will be for private sale by Wates. A comment on the online version* of my article already says: 'Using Council owned land for the benefit of developers is a Tory policy, so what does this say about Brent Labour?'
Of the other 50%, which should be the absolute minimum of affordable housing in any large development by a London Council, just under 60% (91 out of 152) will be for London Affordable Rent ("LAR"), while 40.1% (61 out of 152) will be "intermediate products". That does not meet Brent's adopted Local Plan affordable housing policy BH5, which requires that 70% of affordable homes should be either Social Rent or LAR, and no more than 30% of them "intermediate".
Of those "intermediate" homes, at least 58 are proposed to be for shared ownership. That is not an affordable home for the majority of Brent people in housing need, and is a failed housing model, already oversupplied in the borough (and continuing to be oversupplied with other approved schemes by private developers that are "in the pipeline"), which Brent Council should not be getting involved with.
If you agree that Brent Council should be doing much better with providing genuinely affordable homes on this scheme in your Ward, I hope that you will let the Council Leader, and Lead Members for Regeneration and for Housing, know what you think, and urge them to work with Council Officers to increase the number of LAR homes delivered at Cecil Avenue and Ujima House.
I realise that, as backbench Labour members, you are expected to be loyal, but it would be a poor democracy if you cannot express genuine concerns to your colleagues who make the decisions.
Thank you for reading this, and my article. Best wishes,
Philip Grant
(a Brent resident for 40 years)
*If you would like to read the article, online, with the comments on it, you will find it here:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2023/07/brents-wembley-housing-zone-some-good.html
Philip
Good luck with getting an actual reply for these councillors
Jaine (24 July at 09:43) is right to say that building at the two Wembley Housing Zone sites would be a logistical nightmare.
Both of the February 2021 planning consents had conditions requiring that a Construction and Logistics Plan ("CLP") had to be submitted and agreed before work could begin.
Planning agents on behalf of Wates submitted those CLPs last month, and they are still under review by Brent Planning Officers (who don't think that "condition" applications merit the public being consulted about them, but that does not mean that they don't have to consider any objections that might be submitted).
The Cecil Avenue application is 23/1984, and the Ujima House application is 23/1996.
The construction work at Cecil Avenue is programmed to last from February 2024 until September 2026. [So much for a "start on site" in March 2023!]
The Cecil Avenue application documents already include the Consultee Comments from Brent's Transportation Team (the only people actually consulted), and their recommendation is:
'Amendments to the plan are required before this condition can be recommended for discharge, including alterations to the proposed access routes and further restrictions on delivery hours to cover network peak periods and Wembley Stadium event days.'
The Cecil Avenue CLP said that there would be 'a maximum of 30 deliveries to the site each day (60 movements) using a variety of different vehicles, including full-size articulated lorries.' It recognised that the site was close to a school entrance, and 'proposed that no deliveries will be accepted between 8.30am-9.15am and 2.45pm-3.30pm.'
The Transportation Team recommendation is that:
'the document should be amended to exclude deliveries prior to 9.15am, during the period 2.45pm-3.30pm and after 4.45pm. In addition, deliveries must not be scheduled within four hours of a major event at Wembley Stadium, when significant numbers of pedestrians would be passing the site along High Road.'
Brent's Transportation Team are also insisting that there should be:
'a Delivery Management System ... which will require the pre-booking of deliveries at least 48 hours in advance to ensure deliveries are able to be accepted on site. Under no circumstances should vehicles therefore be required to wait on the public highway to enter the site, given that no safe holding areas have been identified.'
The Ujima House Plan just proposes site access from 'a temporary loading area parallel to Wembley High Road', with all lorries travelling in forward gear only, arriving from the North Circular or A40 via Ealing Road and Wembley High Road, and leaving via the Harrow Road back down to the North Circular.
However, the Transportation Team's 'alterations to the proposed access routes' for Cecil Avenue say that access 'from the A40 Western Avenue at Hanger Lane via Ealing Road and High Road ... is not considered to be an appropriate route, as it passes through busy and congested town centre shopping areas.'
If they are consistent, when their comments are submitted on the Ujima House CLP, they should say that its proposal is unacceptable.
I find this piece to be a clear illustration of the shortcomings of capitalist-driven housing policies and the limitations of Brent Council's approach. The inherent flaws in the capitalist system are evident in the prioritisation of profit-seeking over the needs of the working class and the provision of genuinely affordable housing.
It is disappointing to see that Brent Council's policy on unaffordable Shared Ownership remains unchanged. This perpetuates the commodification of housing and further alienates the working class from access to secure and affordable homes. The decision to allow the "developer partner" to sell a significant portion of the homes privately demonstrates the council's submission to capitalist interests rather than working in the best interest of the community.
Additionally, the lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process is concerning. The withholding of information from the press and public, as seen in the "Officer Key Decision Report," exemplifies the undemocratic nature of capitalist governance. Such practices only serve to protect the interests of those in power and deny the public the right to be informed about important matters concerning their living conditions.
The positive aspects of the GLA funding allocation, such as the increase in family-sized affordable homes for rent, are commendable. However, the overall number of genuinely affordable homes remains inadequate compared to the actual demand in Brent. This is a consequence of the council's reluctance to fully embrace a socialist approach to housing, where the needs of the community take precedence over profit-driven motives.
Furthermore, the decision to pursue shared ownership homes despite evidence of their unaffordability and market turbulence is a clear sign of the council's allegiance to capitalist principles. This approach not only fails to address the housing crisis but exacerbates it by perpetuating the housing market's speculative nature.
The delayed timeline for construction and completion of the Cecil Avenue development is another consequence of the capitalist system's inefficiencies. The prioritisation of profits over the urgent need for housing is a recurring theme, leaving many residents in Brent still without a secure and affordable place to live.
This piece highlights the inadequacies of the capitalist housing model and the need for a more radical, socialist approach to housing policy. Only by prioritising the needs of the working class and challenging the profit-driven system can Brent Council truly provide genuinely affordable and secure housing for its residents.
Don't forget the huge trees and areas of wildlife habitat that will need to be destroyed for these developments - why were the plans not designed to retain and protect these vitally important existing trees which fight against pollution in an already hugely busy road???
Response to Anon. 22.11
Brent Council have long since chopped down the mature trees along the High Road, and replaced with twiglets. The only remaining large Tree stands at the corner of High Road and Cecil Avenue it has a Tree Preservation Order on it, and at present remains outside of the Hoarding in Public Realm, for how long? remains to be seen, as I recall seeing some documents some years ago from Planning that it was intended for removal as it will interfere with the development, despite numerous objections. All the beautiful Trees that stood outside Brent House were removed, and all the Trees on Coplands School and Fields were removed with not any consideration for the wildlife.
Brent Council care nothing about the Environment. Coplands Fields (approx 20+ acres) to the rear of Ark Elvin School was Public Land and used by locals for over 70 years. Brent though nothing of holding a public consultation before disposing of it and leasing it to Ark Elvin School, whom do not use it at all, only St Josephs RC School and Elsley Primary use it under an ancient covenants. It is now surrounded by 3 metre high fences and locked gates, the grass is mowed regularly and the area kept very clean, however it cannot be accessed by local residents, not by anyone, least of all the residents of the 115 Flats in Elizabeth House, nor 250 flats at Wembley Place (former Brent House) and I doubt any of the 304 flats still to be built at Cecil Avenue, the old Copland School site which lies within a 150 metres of this once Green Open Space. The eventual residents of those flats will probably have some reduced amenity space by way on a tiny balcony and a tiny bit of grass and they'll call it a Pocket Park or such like. Only 500 metres from Wembley Stadium the home of English Football, the kids round here are finding it increasingly difficult to find somewhere to kick a ball about, and wonder why 25% of Brent 10 year olds are considered Obese.
Brent don't care about residents or the environment and don't enforce Management plans. They are too trying to gentrify Brent, unfortunately being one of the poorest London Boroughs it will never be achieved, especially as tey are driving residents out of the Borough.
And looks like Brent will allow the removal of all the mature trees on the site of the old Dennis Jackson youth center at the end of London Road where they are planning to build a new school -nature and green space is merely an inconvenience to Brent Council and their drveloper friends :(
Hey there, just sharing a different perspective here. I believe the blog post raises some valid concerns about Brent Council's approach. I think it's crucial for our council to prioritise the needs of our own people of Brent first, ensuring affordable housing is available to people with local connections.
While community involvement is essential, sometimes too much input can hinder effective decision-making. We should focus on what's best for Brent and put the welfare of our people before anything else.
I also think we should be cautious about investing too much in environmental initiatives that might impact our economic growth. Striking the right balance is vital.
A stronger and more unified society can be achieved by taking decisive actions that benefit our own citizens within Brent and preserve our cultural heritage (unity in diversity). Let's keep the discussion going!
One could ask why Brent don't build Social Housing on these sites that they own, the answer is clear, there's not enough profit for the developers. Brent's own policies are reventing them from building Social Housing because of current profit levels for developers.
Brent Council really haven't got a clue abut housing and their residents' needs. Time for a change in the Distopian Borough of Bent.
Dear Anonymous (26 July at 10.23),
I put that question to Brent Cabinet members in August 2021, just before they accepted the Officer Report to go for a developer partner, who would be allowed to sell half of the homes on a Council development, on Council-owned land.
I reminded them of the recommendation from the Brent Poverty Commission, which they'd accepted less than a year earlier, that the Council should concentrate on building homes for Social Rent, which is what people in the borough actually needed.
You can see from the results that my advice fell on deaf ears.
Why would Brent Council prefer Private Sector Rentals to Social Housing? Perhaps they are trying to gentrify Brent? Hopefully none of Brent's Councillors will be able to afford to live in Brent, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Dear Anonymous (26 July at 19:28),
It is not 'Private Sector Rentals' that Brent Council is delivering here.
Their deal with Wates allows Brent's "developer partner" to buy 152 of the 250 homes being built at Cecil Avenue, as part of a Brent Council development on Council-owned land, and SELL them privately for profit.
It is possible that some of them may be bought (potentially by an offshore company) and then let privately.
It could even be that Wates will sell the whole lot "off plan", to a Far Eastern property company, while they are being built (which is what Brent's "developer partner", Galliford Try, did with the 92 apartments being built on the 70% of the Willesden Green Library site which the Council gave away as part of that development, around ten years ago).
The one thing for sure is that they won't be homes for genuinely affordable rent for Council tenants, which is what Brent needs.
Well said Philip. Yet again Towerblock Tatler creates more housing that they won't be homes for genuinely affordable rent for Council tenants, which is what Brent needs. Instead most will be bought (potentially by an offshore company) and then let privately.
I rent privately in Brent, I work full time, I have one child. Over 50% of my rent is paid by Universal Credit/Housing Benefit, along with a contribution to Council Tax. I have been on Council Waiting List for a Socially Rented Housing Property for over 10 years, I continue to bid via Locata.
A lot of Brent's councillors are landlords owning multiple properties so they don't care about rent costs rising.
Brent Councillors don't care about Brent residents, they just care about self promotion.
Brent Council Planning Officers, who don't live in Brent, just do what the Labour Party tell them to do whilst proudly wearing their various union lanyards.
To Anonymous25 July 2023 at 20:44 - so you see Europe burning in the intense heatwaves with people ridking their lives to put out intense flames and you still say "I also think we should be cautious about investing too much in environmental initiatives that might impact our economic growth. Striking the right balance is vital." The balance is already totally tipped towards environmental destruction - we need to stop destroying established trees and green spaces, we need to stop filling every space with tower blocks.
FOR INFORMATION 3:
At "For Information 2" above I shared the text of an email I'd sent on 24 July to the three Wembley Hill Ward councillors.
Anonymous (24 July at 15:51) replied:
'Philip - Good luck with getting an actual reply for these councillors.
He/she was right! I have not received even an acknowledgement, let alone a response, from any of Cllrs. Ihtesham Afzal, Ajmal Akram or Ishma Moeen.
I did receive a couple of responses to the emails (with pdf copy of my article above) referred to in "For Information 1".
Cllr. Promise Knight, Lead Member for Housing, wrote:
'Noted Philip. Many thanks.'
In response to the copy of the email to the Senior Council Officers dealing with Wembley Housing Zone, which I had forwarded to her, Brent's Chief Executive replied:
'Thanks you for sending this to me
Best wishes
Kim'
Post a Comment