Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.
I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.
Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.
The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.
Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.
A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.
Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.
Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.
Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.
She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.
The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'
She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'
Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.
Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.
She went on:
It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.
The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.
The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.
Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE
Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/
15 comments:
Cllr Tatler says "I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible." - surely it is not for her to make this decision???
Can we ask where she lives??? Bet it's no where near these high blocks???
And as an ex secondary school history teacher does she not know the history of the failing 1960s tower blocks??? Does she not remember the shocking scenes at Grenfel Tower???
Thanks for posting Martin. There is so much to dissect in this. Councillor Tatler was contradicted by officers twice on major issues - once, as you report, on the ability to say no to developers. The other when she said that the proportion of social housing cannot be changed once planning permission has been given - an officer intervened to point out that this can happen. Tatler also claimed, when talking about community spaces, that there is a library in South Kilburn. When I pointed out that there is not and never has been a library in South Kilburn, she denied she had said it. Even the chair pointed out that she had, and this can be verified at 1h 21 minutes on the Council's webcast. Contrary to evidence, Tatler denied that regeneration schemes lead to gentrification and the driving out of the less well-off. She also, as so often, that it is important to build housing of any tenure, just housing, which ignores the fact that it is social housing that is needed above all and Brent's long housing waiting list contains thousands of people who can't afford more than social rents. The good news is that Tatler said pay should be keeping up with inflation (I hope she tells Keir Starmer, who has opposed this) and that she is willing - unlike until now - to meet residents to discuss problems with regeneration.
Yes there was often confusion between the remits of Cllr Tatler and Cllr Knight. The latter was not at the meeting but there was cross-over of concerns voiced by committee members, two of whom were stand-ins from the other scrutiny committee that Cllr Knight reports to. When a private developer wants to increase the percentage of private housing, increase the height of the building to contain more private units, make changes in the size of units or tenure mix, reduce the amount of 106 monies to compensate for lack of affordable units etc in order to achiev viability due to the issues cited by Cllr Tatler (finance, labour supply, inflationary costs) under the terms of the consented planning application, as I understand it they have to submit a new planning application to the council. Although Planning Committee could question the viability assessments it is a complex area and they normally take planners' advice at face value in my experience of attending Planning Committee. The tenure revision process when the Council itself is the developer has been the subject of several guest posts on this blog and deserves further scrutiny. On the impact of gentrification via regeneration's high-end new build and its impact on nearby rent levels (raised by Cllr Kath Fraser) Cllr Tatler expressed a belief in the free market in housing (that increased supply will reduce rents) that also merits further examination and evidence.
This is the latest Office of National Statistice (ONS) figures on the London Borough of Brent Housing costs that I was able to find: https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/
I watched and listened to the extract from the webcast that Martin included above.
I'm sure I heard Cllr. Tatler claim that Brent did.not own the Wembley Housing Zone land, which is why it was not viable to build more affordable housing there.
Brent did not own Ujima House, but did buy it about five years ago, entirely funded by money given to it by the GLA (so no capital cost to the Council for that site).
Brent did own the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, where most of the new Wembley Housing Zone homes are now, eventually, being built.
Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?
Dear Cllr Tatler: Private rents in Brent rose to an average of £1,940 in March 2024, an annual increase of 27.1% from £1,527 in March 2023. This was higher than the rise in London (11.2%) over the year.
Cllr Tatler is always "economical with the truth" isn't she? She obviously believes she is infalable and so she doesn't have to listen to anyone else about how she is ruining Brent for its current residents because she knows better than they do. She does loves graduates and artists though; someone should explain to her that high rents and workspaces will not revers Brent's appalling unemployment rates and our extremely low (average) incomes. Sorry, I forgot, she said it will, and she knows best.
I asked above: 'Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?'
This was in relation to the Wembley Housing Zone, where I have been campaigning for more genuinely affordable housing, and writing guest post about it, since August 2021.
I have gone back to the webcast, and transcribed what Cllr. Tatler said. Martin kindly sent me a document from a Brent Executive meeting in April 2014 on proposed land rationalisation at Copland Community School and adjacent lands.
This is the relevant extract from the webcast of Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting, with Cllr. Tatler addressing the committee on Brent's regeneration schemes:
'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'
This is the key paragraph from the April 2014 Report to Brent's Executive (now Cabinet), whose recommendations were approved and put in place. CCS is Copland Community School, which had been served with an Academy Order by the Secretary of State, and the IEB is the Interim Executive Board, which Brent Council as Local Education Authority had put in place instead of CCS's previous governing body, to run the school until it was taken over by the Ark Academy group.
'CCS is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are
mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is
vested in the IEB. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the
freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order
for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall,
ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these
proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.'
In the "Financial Implications" section of the Report, these were the key points from the proposals (which were approved and put in place):
'2. The IEB transfer to the Council the freehold interest in the CCS site at
nil consideration.
3. The Council accepts a surrender of CCS’s leasehold interests at nil
consideration.
5. The Council grants the ARK a short term lease of the existing CCS
buildings at peppercorn rent.
7. The Council will grant the ARK a 125 year lease of the new school site
at a peppercorn rent.
8. The ARK will surrender the lease to the existing school at nil
consideration.'
So, Brent became the freehold owners of all of the original Copland School site and playing fields in 2014, granting ARK a temporary lease of the original school buildings from 1 September 2014.
When the new school was built on the playing fields behind the original school buildings, Brent then granted ARK a 125 year lease for the new school site, BUT retained the freehold of the original Copland School land, now the Wembley Housing Zone Cecil Avenue site, at no cost to the Council.
The other, smaller, part of Brent's Wembley Housing Zone scheme, for which it received an £8m grant from the GLA in 2015, is Ujima House. Brent bought that office building in 2016, using £4.8m of the initial £8m GLA funding. It has since received further GLA funding to be used on affordable housing as part of the WHZ.
Cllr. Tatler DID mislead the Scrutiny Committee when she said that Brent did not own the Wembley Housing Zone land and had to purchase it!
An ex Secondary school history teacher who doesn't know her local history!
How has she become "Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth" when she has no experience in this field at all???
Tatler said "It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are."
They had conversations with the Mumbai Junction developers after the original planning application was rejected and we ended up with a scheme that was too big, too ugly and with zero affordable housing.
What were Butt and Tatler's "red lines" then?
As we have raised on Wembley Matters before, 'What is the status of these conversations?' and where does that leave the Planning Committee if the leader and lead member have already reached a tacit agreement with developers about what is acceptable before the Planning Committee makes its decision on an application?
It is worth looking again at this article from 6 years ago by Philip Grant:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2018/05/has-cllr-butt-put-himself-in-situations.html
Planning Committee don't care - they don't live here!
If you look at Vistry's new Peel, its slab towers horizontal spreading, so not towers in any traditional sense. Car-free housing is more build space (like one staircase towers are), but the space from car-free housing is to build more slab towers as near as possible with only dark alleys between required. They will be needing to provide 24/7 street lighting for these Deloitte-led slab tower housing zones pile -ups soon.
South Kilburn Health Centre, £1 million NDC funds went to the NHS to develop this project plan, a day 1 council pledge made to this community in 2001. I suppose NHS will be considered what the health issues are of overcrowding, through vehicle traffic growth and the incremental removal of all public services facilities infrastructure to mono tower slab this flood zone 'low spot'(see London Flood Review)?
I also problems understanding what affordable housing is. Please can one enlighten me. Thanks you.
That's not surprising as the terminology is vague and means different things to different people. Much so called 'affordable' housing is not within families on average incomes in Brent. There was a council report on it a few years ago which may help:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2019/01/task-group-tackles-crisis-of-so-called.html
Post a Comment