Guest Blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
On 24 February, Brent Council issued a press release: “More affordable homes coming as Zephaniah House reaches key milestone”. Its content has already been shared by websites including Kilburn Times, Harrow Online and Construction News. Like most stories from Brent Communications, it tells a positive tale, including “quotes” from Cabinet members, to give the impression that all of this “good news” is the work of our local Labour councillors. [What would you expect, when the Cabinet Lead Member for Communications is Cllr. Muhammed Butt?]
“Topping out” at Zephaniah House (image courtesy of Brent Communications)
The news item this time was the topping out ceremony at Zephaniah House (on the former Ujima House site in the High Road), part of the Brent Council/Wates Residential Wembley Housing Zone development. The press release says that this is ‘an important step toward delivering 54 new affordable homes on the former Ujima House site in Wembley.’ As you can see from my opening photo, there is still a lot of work to do on the building before the homes there will be ready for occupation, which is supposed to be by 31 December 2026. But with local elections in just over two months, I’m sure they would like you to think it would be sooner!
“Quote” attributed to Cllr. Teo Benea (from Brent’s press release)
The featured “quote” in the press release is from Cllr. Teo Benea, as the Wembley Housing Zone is a Regeneration project which she inherited from her predecessor in that Cabinet role, Cllr. Shama Tatler. There is also a “quote” attributed to Cllr. Fleur Donnelly Jackson, the Housing Lead, which includes the lines: ‘… our ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can. Zephaniah House will help reduce our waiting list …. This is what it looks like when a council commits to tackling the housing crisis head on.’ I don’t know whether Cabinet members really compose these “quotes” themselves, or whether someone at the Civic Centre writes them. I will share this guest post with them, so they have the chance to reply!
I agree that building genuinely affordable Council homes for the people on the waiting list (around 34,000 is the most recent figure I’ve read from Brent Council) should be a top priority, so the 54 homes at Zephaniah House will go a small way towards ‘tackling the housing crisis’. But, yet again, the Council is using the term “affordable homes” to cover more than the genuinely affordable homes (that is, either at Social Rent level, or the slightly higher London Affordable Rent – “LAR” - level), which its 2020 Poverty Commission Report showed was all that most Brent residents in housing need could afford.
The start of my first Wembley Housing Zone guest post, in August 2021.
The most recent information I have on the 54 homes on the former Ujima House site was from a Freedom of Information Act request in 2023. These were originally all meant to be for rent at the genuinely affordable LAR level, but this had been changed to 32 (including all eight family-sized flats) at LAR, and 22 for shared ownership. If that has changed, I hope the relevant Lead Member can update us.
I have been writing about the Wembley Housing Zone since August 2021 (see illustration above), when I highlighted the fact that the proposals going to Cabinet ignored the Brent Poverty Commission’s housing recommendations, which they had accepted less than a year before, writing:
‘If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.’
A pdf copy of my guest post was sent to all Cabinet members a few days before the 16 August 2021 meeting, at which they formally decided to go down the “development partner” route. I received no response, and my views were ignored. When I later emailed the Lead Member for Housing, asking why they were not building more homes for genuinely affordable rent, she replied that as this project was under her colleague, the Lead Member for Regeneration, she’d forwarded the email to Cllr. Shama Tatler, who would respond to me. (She didn’t!)
I later discovered, through FoI requests, that this ‘preferred delivery option’ had already been informally agreed at an unpublished Policy Co-ordination Group meeting in July 2020. That followed on from a previous “go ahead” for the option, by as few as two Cabinet members (the Council Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration?), in 2019. As a result, there had been at least two “soft market testing” exercises, in February 2020 and April 2021, which were used to justify the recommendation to Cabinet in August 2021. You can read the details in my January 2022 guest post “Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white”, and its December 2021 prequel.
My November 2021 “parody” Brent Council “publicity photo” for its Cecil Avenue housing scheme.
The Zephaniah House press release also refers to the larger Wembley Housing Zone development, across the High Road on the Cecil Avenue site, which it says ‘will bring 237 new homes, including 84 affordable homes.’ As shown in my “cartoon” above, when this received full planning consent in February 2021, it was intended to include 250 homes. The August 2021 Cabinet decision meant that only 98 of these would have been “affordable”, and only 37 at the genuinely affordable LAR level. Big posters on the hoardings around the site now claim that Brent is “delivering new Council homes” there, but the reality is that 150 of them will be for private sale by Wates.
Two signs from the hoardings round the Cecil Avenue site (with my linking comment).
Of the 84 “affordable” homes, information from an FoI request, which I shared in January 2024, shows that 56 (that’s just 23.6% of the 237) would now be for rent to Council tenants at LAR level, while 28 would be for shared ownership. The drop in the “affordable” figure (87 to 84) must be the three which I was advised would be for “discounted market sale”, a form of so-called “affordable housing” available if your annual income is no more than £90k!
It was claimed in the press release that Brent Council’s ‘ambition is to deliver as many affordable homes as we can.’ But is that what they have done with the Wembley Housing Zone? They already owned the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, and had previously used money provided by the GLA to purchase the Ujima House office block. Without having to incur the cost of purchasing the land, Brent should have been able to build all of the homes there as Council housing. That would particularly have been the case if they had got on with the scheme in 2021, when interest rates on loans from the Treasury were lower, and building costs had not risen as much as they have now.
A sign on the hoardings at Cecil Avenue, about Brent’s WHZ “Vision”.
So why didn’t they? That must be down to the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone “Vision”, driven by the then Lead Member for Regeneration and supported by the Council Leader. It was clearly their wish to make it a joint venture with a “developer partner”, which led to a delay until early 2023, when they awarded the building contract to Wates Residential (agreeing to pay them £121,862,500). And although Cllr. Tatler posed for this photo with Wates on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023, for a press release announcing the contract award, it was February 2024 before construction began.
Cllr. Shama Tatler and Wates officials, from a March 2023 Brent press release.
Cllr. Tatler’s “vision” for the Wembley Housing Zone can be summed up in this sentence from her Cabinet Member Foreword, in a report to a Cabinet meeting on 8 April 2024 (which approved ‘up to £11.23m Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy to deliver a new publicly accessible courtyard garden’ on the Cecil Avenue site):
‘The regeneration that underpins the Wembley Housing Zone, is exactly that – an effort to build a better Brent, a place where home ownership is a reality, not just a dream.’
That is NOT a vision to build as many homes as possible, for genuinely affordable rents, in order to reduce the number of local people in real housing need on Brent’s waiting list!
As early as January 2022, I was calling for proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision, with a view to increasing the number of genuinely affordable homes in the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, but all my efforts were thwarted by councillors or Council Officers. It was only at a Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 23 April 2024 that Cllr. Tatler was finally asked to explain why Brent had not delivered more genuinely affordable homes as part of that project. When I watched the webcast of that meeting, I could not believe what I was hearing, so I played it through several times, and this is the answer Cllr. Tatler gave:
‘'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 ....'
What she publicly told the Committee was untrue, as recorded on “Wembley Matters” at the time. I wrote to Cllr. Tatler, with a copy to the Scrutiny Chair, but she never replied to me, and as far as I am aware she never apologised to the Committee for misleading them.
If you want facts about Brent’s affordable housing, rather than “spin” or misinformation, I suggest you read Martin’s blogsite, and don’t rely on what you hear from the Council!
Philip Grant.
17 comments:
absolute BS this silly administration just builds for the rich. built a nice little palace for themselves civic centre while ensuring deprivation continues everywhere else. they blame tories lib democrats when their departments locally are the real failure points. look behind the elected ones to the UNelected ones who are really failing the borough. and circus of brent labour ensures anger/distraction in the wrong places. bring all them out for a public questioning to defend their decisions !!!
Brent Council's cosy and accommodating relationship with Property Developers is very worrying, so no wonder people refer to the London Borough of B~ent so often. Then we get to Towerblock Tatler, who has now been become Baroness Shah of Wembley by the Labour Party, is that anything to do with the grateful Labour Party backers? Then we get the lies Towerblock tells at the drop of a hat, didn't she say in het Chingford & Wood Green that she couldn't afford a house as she was a single mother? She lives in a large house owned by her dad and sends her daughter to private schools. Then we should remember Towerblock Tatler telling off fellow Councillors and residents for questioning the validity of officers reports at Scrutiny and other council related meetings. Well, she has a track record for stretching the truth which Philip points out above: "With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. "We had to purchase the land."" which was a blatant untruth. Towerblock definitely has a track record of stretching credibility?
As for affordably homes in Brent, having enquired of a Housing Association how their shared ownership was affordable, they told me that the properties were at a 20% reduction from market rates, however, the current offers at one site are actually £5,000 more that a straight purchase!!!
Let's face it Brent Council just want more properties at any cost, basically they are pricing residents out of the Borough and gentrifying Brent as quickly as possible. Yup, the London Borough of B~ent brought to you by Brent labour.
Good work Phillip! Behind this also is the urgent need for Labour lawmakers (170 majority) to enact fully leasehold reform. Instead of council and buyers renting airspace, these flats should each be owned (council or private), rather than entire towers being tower lord feudal permanent developments. Of developed countries only England and Wales plough on with leasehold rent, surely 5 million leasehold flats and 1.3 million leasehold houses is a big enough new Feudalism disaster to be lorded over by venal greed?
The only social rent new build council block in South Kilburn (in what is regeneration year 25), is Dovebury Court at Chippenham Gardens, that block is fully owned as council housing by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Philip Grant is excellent at exposing Labour Councillors and their distorted propaganda. He is far too polite and professional.
Labour Leadership and the succession of the Labour Lead Members are incapable to tell the truth.
At the Budget Council Meeting on 23 February the Liberal Democrats exposed the fact that many of the 54 units are either shared ownership or the Labour Mayor of London - "London Affordable" which at 80% of market rents are NOT true Council level rents and therefore not affordable to most Brent residents on the Council's massive waiting list.
Philip is exposing another Labour "Lie" so the clear message to Labour is STOP lying and deliver truly affordable homes for Brent residents in need of a decent home.
Philip - how would you suggest Brent deliver the genuinely affordable homes in what is probably the most difficult construction and housing market in recent years? Perhaps fund it from increased Council Tax? Or should they just sit on the sites for several years and wait for the market to improve?
FOR INFORMATION:
This is the full text of an email I sent this afternoon to the two Brent Cabinet members quoted in the press release, with a copy to Brent's Chief Executive:
'Dear Councillors Benea and Donnelly-Jackson,
I have had a guest post published online today about affordable Council homes at the Wembley Housing Zone project, in response to a Brent Council press release earlier this week which I felt was misleading. As statements attributed to you both were included in that press release, I felt it only fair to share my article with you, so that you have the opportunity to reply to it:
https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2026/02/wembley-housing-zone-brents-latest-spin.html
There are two points in particular which you may wish to comment on:
1. 'I don’t know whether Cabinet members really compose these “quotes” themselves, or whether someone at the Civic Centre writes them.' Are the statements printed as quotations from you actually your own words?
2. If the figures I have given for the number of London Affordable Rent and shared ownership "affordable homes" at Zephaniah House and/or Cecil Avenue ("The Pages") are not correct, please supply the up-to-date details.
If you do wish to respond, you can either submit comments under the article on the website yourselves, or reply by email to me, and I will ensure that they are added online.
I am also copying this to Brent's Chief Executive, Kim Wright, as my article alleges that the Council's "Brent Communications" are still providing misleading information to the public, and are "spinning" their material in such a way that it gives a political advantage to the ruling Labour Group. If she, or one of her Officers, wishes to reply on that aspect, they are welcome to do so. Best wishes,
Philip Grant.'
The Government, the Mayor of London and Brent Council are all controlled by the Labour Party. They all say that they want to build more homes - so why don't they work together and do it? The most expensive item of any development site is the cost of the land. A while back Philip asked why the development on the Cecil Avenue site (publicly owned land) was not used to build 100% public sector homes charging standard Council rents. It is all a question of political will. At present the Labour Government is considering substantial rearmament. That will cost £billions and will require large borrowing and some tax rises to pay for. If it is OK to borrow and tax for arms why is not OK for the Government to borrow to build homes that are clearly needed? And when I say homes I mean family sized 3 or 4 bedroom homes that Brent is short off and not pigeon holes in the sky unsuitable for families with children - and none of that 'car free development nonsense' which simple creates parking problems in local streets and for existing residents.
We all know Brent Labour are incapable of telling the truth and actively conspire to hide it. If it were not for people like Philip Grant the majority would never get to find out the actual details of their fraudulent mismanagement of the lies they tell the Residents. Please pray that the electorate will finally acknowledge the fact that the Labour Council we have experienced for the past 16 years is not fit for purpose, way past their sell by date and vote them out in May.
I bet the Brent Labour Councillors don't even know what the truth is anymore about anything. Mind you, many of them are auditioning for the theatre and films.
If councils didn't waste so much money they could do more for us hard working residents...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-borough-councils-spending-bankrupt-tax-b1272565.html
@paul lorber - construction costs are now far higher than the cost of land.
Who renamed Ujima House to Zepheniah House? is it a nod to late poet Benajmin Zepheniah? He came was born in Birmingham not Brent just asking?
Not having Feudal Tower Lordism would help. That means Labour enacting leasehold reform. Council flats in towers would be council owned flats to social rent and purchased flats (£350,000 plus) would be family owned homes, rather than current air space rentals. Let the high build quality and neighbourhood planning begin in the population grow, growth, growth 8 zones of Brent. Tower Lord colonialism needs to end 2026.
Fulham Broadway, re-development is stepped back from high street/ doesn't overwhelm, people movement is baked-in. Whereas Wembley its tower to pavement line. Kind of shows Brent disconnect and disrespect for the urban local. No surprise that new Brent is not being welfare state assisted living infrastructured for its massive car-free tower lord, tower hundred new feudal growth zones.
Add the construction costs of building poor quality as well.
FOR INFORMATION 2:
No replies from either of the Cabinet Members to my email a "FOR INFORMATION!: above. As Brent's Chief Executive is away, her Senior Executive Assistant said she would pass on the copy email I'd sent to another Senior Officer.
This is the response I received from the Senior Executive Assistant on 6 March:
'Good evening Mr Grant,
Further to our conversation below, I have shared your feedback with Rachel Crossley, Deputy Chief Executive and also the communications team for consideration. They acknowledge that there was an error in the original information, which should have referenced 87 affordable homes instead of 84. This has now been updated online, and we appreciate you taking the time to flag it with us. On the wider points on the council’s communications, in line with other local authorities, we follow the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity which allows the quoting of elected members where they hold specific roles.
[Unsigned]'
It appears that the substance of the reply actually came from Brent Communications, the same people who prepare the Council's press releases!
FOR INFORMATION 3:
This is the reply I have sent to the email from Brent Council which I shared at "For Information 2":
'Dear [Executive Assistant],
Thank you for your email last Friday evening. I apologise for the delay in replying. I am copying this to Kim Wright (for her return) and Rachel Crossley, for their information.
The response (from Brent Communications?) which you forwarded did not address the point that the Council's publicity statements on "new affordable homes" do not explain the different types of "affordable" homes they are referring to. As well as the Zephaniah House press release, the same lumping together of the different types appears over the Fulton & Fifth development, in the Spring 2026 "Your Brent" magazine. This gives the impression that all of the homes referred to are available for genuinely affordable rents to 'residents on Brent's housing waiting list,' which is not the case when quite a large proportion are for shared ownership or at higher "intermediate" rent levels.
It appears that the number of "affordable" homes (56 at London Affordable Rent level and 28 for shared ownership) on the Cecil Avenue site may actually be 84, as originally stated in the press release, not 87 as was going to be the case. The agreement with Wates awarded them 150 of the homes on that site for private sale, but the sales details on the Savills website for "The Pages" (see extract below), which is what the development has been named, show that they are offering 153 of the homes there for sale (which must include the 3 Council homes which make up the difference between Brent's figures of 84 and 87):
image.png - including the words 'the development offers a refined collection of one, two and three-bedroom apartments'.
I note the statement that Brent 'follows the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity'. What the Code actually says, at para. 20 in the "Even-handedness" section, is:
'Other than in the circumstances described in paragraph 34 of this code, it is acceptable for local authorities to publicise the work done by individual members of the authority, and to present the views of those individuals on local issues. This might be appropriate, for example, when one councillor has been the “face” of a particular campaign.'
I'm not sure that attending a topping-out ceremony would count as 'work done by individual members of the authority', or that either Cllr. Benea (rather than her predecessor as Lead Member for Regeneration) or Cllr. Donnelly-Jackson could be considered the "face" of the Wembley Housing Zone campaign. And I have not yet heard back from either of those two councillors, with an answer to my question: 'Are the statements printed as quotations from you actually your own words?'
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.
Post a Comment