Scrutiny Committee upholds Alan Lunt's decision on 1 Morland Gardens (Altamira)

Members of the public and opposition councillors presented at the Call-in Scrutiny Committee over a Key Decision on the  controversial 1 Morland Gardens made by the Director of Regeneration. 

Philip Grant’s presentation to R&PR Scrutiny meeting on 9 June:

The Key Decision Report briefly mentions the Council’s need to have ‘all the necessary statutory approvals in place’. It doesn’t have those approvals yet, and may never get them.

 

In January 2019, Officers were told they’d need to stop-up the highway outside 1 Morland Gardens, and appropriate the land, if they wanted to build on it. They failed to consider what the effect of this would be, and have continued to do so.

 

I’m one of several people who’ve objected to the proposed Order, for environmental and public health reasons.

 

Pedestrians who currently use footpaths across the land are shielded from Hillside and Brentfield Road by the trees of the Community Garden. Stopping-up and building over the land would force them to walk beside that junction instead.

 

Planning application documents showed dangerous levels of NO2 and particulates there. This meant that all windows in the new building, up to the second floor, must be sealed, with fresh air provided by mechanical ventilation. No thought was given to people walking past!

 

The health risks to local people, especially children, who’d have to walk through this polluted air, are a strong reason why objections to the proposed Order may well be upheld.

 

That will be decided by an independent Inspector, and it’s likely to be next year before the Council knows the outcome.

 

Melvyn Leach

Presentation to Brent Council R&PR Scrutiny meeting on 9 June 2022

After being deputy headteacher in a Brent secondary school, in 1994 I was appointed as the first head of Brent Adult College, now Brent Start, that opened at 1 Morland Gardens.  I hope to persuade you not to allow its unnecessary demolition.

Brent Council and Harlesden City Challenge invested significantly to regenerate the site into a tastefully restored heritage building, used as a successful new adult education centre. At that time decision-makers in Brent Council showed huge pride and value in preserving the local and architectural history of 1 Morland Gardens.

1 Morland Gardens is an attractive listed heritage asset. My experience as a teacher has shown how significant such buildings are in helping students relate to, and learn about, the lives of people who lived and worked in Brent in the past.

 

If the Council can’t get approval to build on the extra land, it could draw up alternative plans that retain the Italianate villa as part of a modern development.

 

Heritage sites like this can show young people the importance of Brent Council promoting and enabling conservation, alongside essential regeneration. Political Leaders need to set an example of the value of such special assets. Children learn by example. 

 

The heritage building and educational facilities are too valuable to demolish. Unless it’s absolutely certain that the proposed redevelopment can legally go ahead, I urge you to prevent the unnecessary loss of 1 Morland Gardens and the community garden.

 

Alan Lunt, Director of Regeneration, apologised for the delay in the stopping up orde for 1 Morland Gardens and assured the Commitete that it would not happen again.  Cllr Rita Conneely, Chair expressed the strong opinion that the Committee expected that strong checks and balances should be put in place  to ensure that this was the case.

One comment by Alan Lunt that the difference between Council rents and London Affordable Rent (the scheme is the latter) was 'only' £10 a week (£520 a year) was challenged on Twitter with this reference LINK but accepted at face value by councillors and quoted by them.

 

Emphasising that this was a two stage project, Stage 1 Design and Stage 2 Build, Lunt said that the Design Stage would cost £1.1m, but if a contract was not signed and work started by August, if only a hoarding around the site, the Council stood to lose the £6.5m GLA grant towards affordable housing. Any delay would mean a significant rise in costs, Someone suggested 13%, because of current inflation in materials.

The Adult College had already been moved to the Stonebridge Annex site (previously occupied by Stonebridge Primary School) and the buildings were empty.  He undertook that no demolition would take place on the Altamira heritage site until a Stopping Up Order was in place, although the Council were ready to start on demolition.

Lunch said that it was highly unusual for the public to object to such Orders and the normal process was objections from utilitiy  companies until negotiations had taken place for access or diversion of their resources.  The Council was using the right powers for the right reasons and issued Stopping-Up-Orders about six times a year. None had been refused but if the London Mayor did so it would go the the Planning Inspectorate with a lead-in time of about 6 months.

Objectors had raised concerns that the plans for the site did not conform to the Council's commitments on air quality and the climate emergency. Mr Lunt maintained that the development would reduce pollution and any increase in public exposure using the revised pedestrian route would be 'miniscule'. In any case the extension of the ULEZ (Ultra Low Emission Zone) the ban on new petrol cars in 2030 and hybrids in 2035, would reduce emissions.

There was only a minor contribution to the discussion by Cllr Mili Patel, Cabinet lead for Finance and Resources, who emphasised the benefits of the scheme for the local Stonebridge community in terms of education, 'affordable' housing and a community cafe. 

 Some of the issues to do with loss of mature trees and the heritage building were deemed not to come under the Committee's remit as they had been dealt with by the Planning Committee.

The Scrutiny Committee vice chair, Cllr Janice Long, expressed the view that 'life is a risk' and that the potential gains of the scheme were a risk worth taking. 

She was disparaging about the City Challenge community garden on the site and could not imagine why anyone would want to sit in such an unattractive area. Alan Lunt had said that the garden was being moved rather than destroyed and that although mature trees would be lost they would be replaced by semi-mature trees rather than saplings.

The Committee voted to support the following option set out in the Officer's Report:

The Committee does not wish to refer the matter back to the decision maker or to Council, at which point the decision is deemed to be confirmed and takes effect immediately following the meeting.

It is worth noting that the meeting was well-chaired and the process explained with opportunities for all to contribute. There was an absence of any political point scoring. New Labour councillor Mary Mitchell acknowledged that the Call-in was based on legitimate concerns.

A promising start to a new era of effective scrutiny?

 

NOTE

Once again there were technical hitches. The public watching on the Live Feed were able to hear Melvyn Leach on zoom but the Committee were not, with the result that his presentation had to be read out.

 

 

Another problem was that the live feed camera maintained a wide view of the whole committee during the webcast so it was sometimes difficult to know who was speaking unless their name was clearly said when they were called upon to speak. Apologies for any mis-attributions.

 

1. 
   

    

   
   

Why Brent should not go ahead with award of Morland Gardens contract

 Philip Grant sent the following Open Email to Brent councillors, Cllr Muahmmed Butt and Cllr Shama Tatler ;and Brent Officers Alan Lunt, Debra Norman and Martin Neil yesterday.

THIS IS AN OPEN EMAIL 

 

Dear Mr Lunt,

 

I have seen online today that you have made a key decision to award a contract for the construction of Brent Council's proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens. 

 

You may remember that in June last year you wrote to me to confirm that no work would commence at 1 Morland Gardens until all of the necessary legal requirements for the planned development (such as stopping-up orders and appropriation of land for planning purposes) we're in place.

 

Although the report on which you based your decision does not appear to have mentioned those legal requirements, I can inform you that the stopping-up order for the highway in front of 1 Morland Gardens has not been  made. You can check this with Brent's Head of Healthy Streets, Sandor Fazekas, who will tell you that the period for objections to the proposed order does not expire until 26 May, and also that objections have been received, so that there is no certainty that the order will be made (and even if it is, when that will be).

 

In these circumstances, it would be a very big risk to the Council's finances to enter into a contract for nearly £38 million when you do not know whether the planned development will be able to go ahead.

 

I also note that the councillors consulted before your decision was made were Cllrs. Butt and Tatler. As the decision was required to be made in consultation with the Lead Members for Education and  Regeneration, and there does not appear to be a Lead Member for Education (the previous holder of the post having lost his seat on the Council on 5 May), I am not sure how your decision complied with that requirement.

 

I hope that you, and Brent Council, will not proceed with the award of the 1 Morland Gardens contract until the necessary legal requirements have been complied with. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Decision Details

Contract for 1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s response to an open letter

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month I sent an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, and Lead Member for Education, explaining why it would not be a good idea to award a Design & Build contract for the Council’s proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens. Notice of the intended decision to award a contract on 4 January 2022, dated 3 December, had appeared on Brent’s website.

 

The Key Decision had still not been announced on the Council’s website by the evening of 11 January, but I did receive a response to my open letter then. I will ask Martin to attach that at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to read it can do so. The response confirmed ‘that the council intends to proceed with the proposed scheme of works’.

 

Architect’s visual impression of the proposed scheme for 1 Morland Gardens

 

However (as is becoming common with Brent Council, if you can get a reply from them), the response raises as many questions as it answers. It does, of course, begin by referring to ‘the very many benefits that the scheme will provide.’ 

 

This ignores the fact that if Council Officers had followed Brent’s own, and national, planning rules over heritage assets at the start, they would never have come up with this scheme! It involves the demolition of an irreplaceable locally listed heritage building. And if the Planning Committee in August 2020 had been properly advised, they would have known that this heritage asset was too “significant” for them to decide that the “public benefits” of the proposals outweighed the importance of retaining the beautiful, architectural and historic Victorian villa.

 

Extract from Brent Council’s May 2019 Historic Environment Place-making Strategy

 

The response lists one of the benefits of the scheme as ‘65 social rented homes.’ Will these really be homes let to Council tenants at genuine social rent levels, or is this just another example of Brent officers (and Lead Members) misusing the term ‘social rented homes’ when they are actually referring to “affordable housing”? 

 

Brent originally told the GLA that the new homes at 1 Morland Gardens would be for “social rent”, but at the planning permission stage in 2020, the Council had changed this to 'all of the 65 units would be delivered at London Affordable Rent.' In a comment on an earlier blog, I pointed out that £6.5m of the cost for these homes was meant to be funded from the GLA’s Affordable Homes programme for 2016-2021. Even though the end date for that was extended to construction beginning by 31 March 2022, that £6.5m is unlikely to be available. Does a change back to “social rent” mean that some of Brent’s funding from the 2021-2026 GLA programme will now have to be used for this project?

 

Are you are wondering what is behind the "little dig" in the response ('I know from previous correspondence that you are concerned with the pace of delivery of social rented accommodation in Brent ....')? It refers to my attempts to get Cllr. Shama Tatler or Mr Lunt to explain properly why they propose that 152 of the 250 new homes on the Council-owned vacant former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue (Wembley High Road) should be built for a private developer to sell at a profit, rather than all 250 being genuine affordable rented housing for people in urgent housing need. I have yet to receive an answer to that!

 

Moving on to Brent’s responses to the six reasons why they should not award this contract, the “answers” to points 1, 2, 3 and 6 are similar. The Council has not yet done anything about the legal requirements over stopping-up orders, appropriation of land for planning purposes or the planning condition that it needs to “divert” (that is, dig up and move!) the water main in Hillside / Brentfield Road. 

 

It could have begun these tasks, which it admits are necessary to complete before construction can commence, at any time after receiving full planning consent in October 2020. Instead, it now says that ‘the council will complete the first stage of the two-stage design and build contract and finalise and obtain the necessary legal pre-requisites in order to begin any construction works.’ But there is no guarantee that at least one of these ‘legal pre-requisites’, the stopping-up orders, will be obtained! Why even pay for the first stage, when you don’t know whether the proposed construction work could go ahead?

 

The Victorian villa which Brent Council’s project would demolish. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Reason 4 was the effect of the proposed demolition on climate. As Brent Council has declared a “Climate Emergency”, you would think that Senior Officers and Lead Members would take that matter seriously. But here the response is: ‘Whilst the proposed redevelopment will emit CO2, the benefits the project brings can go some way to justify this.’ Have they quantified the climate damage, and measured the harm this will cause as compared to the alternative option, retaining the Victorian villa, which I have suggested? Or is this just another example of Brent Council making fine-sounding promises, but not following them in practice?

 

The response to reason 5, the Design & Build Contract itself, leaves a very important point unanswered. I had asked: ‘Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head?’ 

 

That point has been ignored. Is Brent Council proposing to pay the contractor to come up with a new design, or make significant changes to a detailed design it has already paid a firm of architects to prepare for it? And if there are any significant changes to the building plans that were approved in 2020, won’t that mean a new application for planning permission? Surely those are important questions that need to be answered!

 

The response tells me that: ‘The council has appointed technical consultants to ensure the designs by the contractor meet the council’s requirements ….’ How much will these consultants cost, and will that cost have to be met out of the budget for the project agreed by Brent’s Cabinet two years ago?

 

A bigger reason why I was concerned about the proposed two-stage contract was this: ‘If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work.’

 

Brent’s answer: ‘the technical consultants will be monitoring the contractor’s progress to ensure the build meets the requirements in terms of materials used, methods of construction and quality of finishes. It is expected that this monitoring will prevent any issues with the quality of the finished building and any issues can be dealt with under the defects liability (including latent defects) responsibilities set out in the contract.’

 

Do you have confidence in the Council’s expectations that there won’t be any “issues” with a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding? Or that if there are any “issues”, they will be dealt with by the contractor ‘under the defects liability’? Given Brent’s experience over Granville New Homes, I have a feeling that history might repeat itself, IF the Council continues its insistence on pursuing its flawed 1 Morland Gardens project.

Philip Grant

 

 

1 Morland Gardens – why Brent should not award a contract

 

 

 Guest post from Philip Grant in personal capacity

 

Despite being given many good reasons why they should not go ahead with their proposed redevelopment of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, the current home of the Brent Start adult education college, notice has appeared on the Council’s website of the intention to award a contract for the work.

 

I have responded to that by sending an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, who can authorise that award, and to the Lead Member for Education, who should be consulted before that decision is made. I have asked Martin to publish my open letter, so that Brent’s residents are aware of the reasons why that contract should not be awarded:-

To: Alan Lunt, Strategic Director (Regeneration)
      Cllr. Thomas Stephens (Lead Member for Education)   

       From Philp Grant

      (copy to Neil Martin, Schools Capital Programme Team)

 

This is an Open Letter

                                                                                                              16 December 2021

Dear Mr Lunt and Councillor Stephens,

 

Proposed award of a Design and Build contract for work at 1 Morland Gardens NW10

 

I note from Brent Council’s website that Mr Lunt will be requested to decide, on 4 January 2022, to approve the award of ‘a contract to enter into a Two Stage D&B JCT Contract’ in respect of the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.

 

There are a number of reasons why no such contract should be entered into, at least until several outstanding matters have been resolved. I would set these out as follows:

 

1. Stopping-up of highway and/or footpath:

 

There has been previous correspondence, and Freedom of Information Act requests, about this issue, yet Brent Council has still not sought to obtain a stopping-up order for the highway or footpath which runs in front of 1 Morland Gardens. Unless or until such an order is obtained, the land which that right of way runs across cannot be built over or obstructed with hoardings around a construction site.

 

This was confirmed by Brent’s Development Management Manager in an FoI response of 25 May 2021, when he said:

 

‘An application to formally stop up the highway has not yet been received. This would need to be submitted and approved prior to any development taking place on the areas that are currently adopted highway. Until the stopping-up process has been completed under S247 of the Town & Country Act 1990, works will not be able to start on the development insofar as it affects highway land.’

 

As the proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens is dependent on that highway / footpath being available to be built over, it seems reckless to award a contract for that development until it is clear that it is legally permissible to do that.

 

2. Appropriation of Land for Planning Purposes:

 

As with 1 above, it does not appear that either of the two parcels of land required for the proposed redevelopment have been appropriated for planning purposes.

 

The land and buildings at 1 Morland Gardens itself are currently used for educational purposes. That may well need to be appropriated for a mixed-use development to take place on the site.

 

The land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, as well as the highway / footpath, is open space used for a community garden. Its trees and gardens (although the Council has allowed them to fall into some disrepair) still provide an area of peace for residents, shielded from the busy traffic of Hillside and Brentfield Road, and a haven for wildlife. In a time of climate emergency, they also help to deal with air pollution and CO2 emissions. 

 

Can you honestly say that this land is no longer required for those purposes? If not, it cannot be appropriated for planning purposes. And as the plans for which the Council received approval depend on building over that land, the redevelopment could not proceed without appropriation, so awarding a contract for that work would be pointless (and costly).

 

3. Legal pre-requisites:

 

Both the stopping-up and the appropriation are legal requirements before the Council’s plans can go ahead. I would remind Mr Lunt of what he wrote in an email to me on 2 June 2021:

 

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

 

The demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa, originally “Altamira” and now the Brent Start college at 1 Morland Gardens, is required if the proposed new development is to be built. If that cannot be demolished (and as a heritage asset, Brent’s own adopted policies should mean that it is not demolished!), there is no sense in awarding a contract reliant on that demolition.

 

4. Effect of the proposed demolition on Climate:

It is now well established that demolition and rebuilding on the same site emits far more CO2 than simply refurbishing an existing building, and the difference between the two figures is very large. Brent Council, having declared a Climate Emergency, should not be embarking on projects which contribute more to the harmful effects of Climate Change than is necessary.

 

I have argued before, and still believe, that Brent Start would be better served by building a new college facility as part of another redevelopment (such as that at Unisys / Bridge Park). That would mean the college only has to move once, and 1 Morland Gardens could them be the subject of a sympathetic redevelopment for social housing, which retains the historic parts of “Altamira”, and only demolishes the later additions. 

 

As well as being better for the climate, Brent’s acceptance of my proposed option would free up the Twybridge Way site, so that Phase 2 of Brent Council’s new housing plans for Stonebridge (including family houses and the much-needed independent living flats) can go ahead, rather than delayed for years by being tied to your flawed Morland Gardens plans.

 

Again, entering into the proposed contract would commit Brent to the current scheme, or incur substantial costs in getting out of it.

 

5. Design and Build contract:

 

In the “Authority to Re-tender Report” last summer, this type of contract was described as follows:

 

‘With a two-stage D&B contract, the first stage is the Pre-Construction Services Agreement (PCSA). The PCSA will define the services that are required of the contractor during the pre-construction phase and is generally similar to a consultancy agreement. It will make clear the contractor is undertaking design work, the design liability and what will happen to this liability if they are not appointed for the second stage. If the contractor operates within the GMP and approved budget, the Council triggers the second stage by entering into the D&B Contract and the building works then commence.’

 

Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head? That design was given an award in September 2020. 

 

The approved and award-winning design would have a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (and be one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding. If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price (“GMP”) for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work. 

 

That appears to be what happened over another award-winning innovative design, for the 2009 development called Granville New Homes in South Kilburn. You are (or should be) well aware of the problems and additional costs to Brent Council which that has caused! Awarding the proposed D&B contract for 1 Morland Gardens could well lead to similar results, and you should reconsider the situation very carefully before doing so.

 

6. Water Main:

 

Although the Officer Report to Planning Committee glossed over this point, Thames Water pointed out that because the footprint of the proposed building would take it within 5 metres of major water mains along Hillside and Brentfield Road, construction should not take place. This was “dealt with” by including a condition (No. 44) in the formal planning consent:

 

‘No construction shall take place within 5m of the water main. Information detailing how the developer intends to divert the asset / align the development, so as to prevent the potential for damage to subsurface potable water infrastructure, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any construction must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved information. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for the maintenance and repair of the asset during and after the construction works.’

 

In other words, the water main under these roads, and at a very busy junction, must be “diverted” before any construction on the site can take place. Has this major work been done, or has Brent Council set aside the money for this work? If not, there is again a built-in delay before any construction could take place at 1 Morland Gardens. No contract should be awarded until that matter has been resolved.

 

I hope that you, Mr Lunt, and Cllr. Stephens (who should be consulted as Lead Member on this project), will consider the points I have raised very carefully, before reaching a decision on whether to award the proposed Design & Build contract for 1 Morland Gardens. 

 

If you feel that the reasons I have given, for not awarding the contract, should be ignored, I would be grateful if you would write to me to explain why. Thank you.

 

Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

 

1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged

 Guest post by Philip Grant

“Altamira”, through the trees of the Community Garden, December 2020. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

It’s a couple of months since I wrote my previous guest blog about “Altamira”, the locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge which Brent Council wants to demolish. This beautiful heritage asset was restored in 1994, and is home to the Brent Start adult education college.

 

In August, I asked ‘when (if ever) will Brent’s redevelopment happen?’ This followed a previous guest blog in June, when I revealed how the Council’s failure to take action, over a risk they had been warned about in December 2018, meant that their 1 Morland Gardens project would be delayed.

 

As mentioned in comments under those blogs, I sent copies of those articles to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, pointing out the knock-on effect the delays were having on another (and better) Brent Council housing project at Twybridge Way, further down Hillside. They forwarded my emails and articles to Council Officers for a response. This was finally received in mid-October, and I would like to thank Councillors Ernest Ezeajughi and Promise Knight for their efforts to get that response.

 

I believe that, as well as letting councillors and Council Officers know what we think about matters that are important to us, we should also consider their views. Here is the full text of the Council’s response:-

 

RE: Proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10

 

Thank you for your email of 30 September 2021 regarding the proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens, NW10. I am responding to yourself in the first instance so that you may share this with the resident and I have copied in the other Ward Councillors to this response.

 

As per the January 2020 Cabinet report, the former Stonebridge School Annexe site (“the Annexe”) was identified as temporary site for Brent Start whilst the development at 1 Morland Gardens proceeds. In order to deliver the full benefits of the 1 Morland Gardens development, the site requires vacant possession and so during the initial tender for the development, the Council needed to start works on the Annexe site so that Brent Start have their temporary location in place prior to any demolition works at Morland Gardens. 

 

Whilst the delays to the development at 1 Morland Gardens means that the Annexe will be used for longer than first proposed and beyond that of its current planning permission, this will not change the Council’s intentions for the Annexe site. Furthermore, not using the site for Brent Start would mean a significant reduction to the service which provides a vital service to Brent residents. Therefore, once the Morland Gardens moves forward under its current proposed trajectory, the Council will recommence project delivery on the Annexe site to deliver the required homes and NAIL accommodation as soon as it is practical to do so.

 

The Council continues to deliver its new Council Homes Programme across a number of sites in the borough. The Council shares the frustration that the original tender process did not yield the desired outcome which has caused some of time difference between the programme submitted to Cabinet in January 2020 and the current programme as per the report in August 2021. Nevertheless, officers are working to deliver the scheme and its benefits for the local community, this includes working on the planning strategy.

 

Kind regards

Operational Director – Property and Assets

 

The ‘former Stonebridge School Annexe site’ is properly known in Brent Council’s new homes programme as Twybridge Way. It is meant to provide 14 family-sized houses (with gardens), 13 smaller flats for people on the Council's waiting list, and 40 1-bedroom flats for supported living. This is what it would look like:-

 

 

Site plan for the Twybridge Way development (This and image below from planning application documents)

 

Though I am ready to consider the Council’s position, I have to consider it critically (that’s what scrutiny is meant to be about!). Having done so, this is the reply I have sent to the Stonebridge Ward councillors, with copy to the Lead Members and Council Officers involved:-

 

1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way - my answer to the Council's response

 

Thank you for your email of 15 October, and for obtaining and forwarding a response from Brent’s Property and Assets section about the Council’s proposed development at 1 Morland Gardens.

 

The letter you received on 12 October, in response to the points I raised with you on 14 August, concentrates on the need to use “the Annexe” as a temporary home for Brent Start while the site at 1 Morland Gardens is being redeveloped. It sidesteps the two main issues:

 

1.    The catalogue of mistakes over the 1 Morland Gardens scheme, which has resulted in ever-increasing delays to that ill-conceived project.

2.   The effect this is having on the Council’s plans for the Twybridge Way site (originally the Stonebridge Health Centre, now known as the former Stonebridge School Annexe, or “the Annexe”).

 

I will deal with the second point first.

 

 

The plans for affordable housing at the Twybridge Way site are Phase 2 of Brent Council’s Stonebridge Redevelopment project. This was meant to be completed by 2021, and if work had got underway promptly after the revised scheme for this site had received full planning permission in May 2020 (three months before the flawed 1 Morland Gardens application), completion would only be a few months later than that.

 

 

As it is, the Twybridge Way scheme, including its 40 “NAIL” independent living flats, cannot even begin before the summer of 2024 at the earliest, IF the Annexe has to be tied up for use as a decant site for Brent Start.

 

The 1 Morland Gardens project got off to a good start, in the summer of 2018, when CLTH architects submitted a winning tender for the design work. Their outline scheme would have retained the locally listed Victorian villa, and provided a new college and some housing on the site, without the need for Brent Start to be decanted.

 

 

Things started to go wrong towards the end of 2018, when the architects were pressed to maximise the number of new homes that 1 Morland Gardens (together with the community garden in front of it) could deliver.

 

 The delays have got worse ever since then.

 

·      The architect’s January 2019 Stage 1 report said that 89 homes could be delivered, as well as the new adult education college on the ground floor and some affordable workspace. At that stage, construction was anticipated to begin around September 2019, but it would need Brent Start to vacate the site.

·      That was the prospect which was given to a group of Cabinet members (the Leader, Deputy Leader and Lead Members for Housing and Education) in February 2019.

·      However, when the project was put to a full Cabinet meeting in January 2020 for approval, the number of new homes had reduced to 65, and they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and should be completed by July 2022.

·      By August 2021, when proposals to re-tender for the project were approved, even if everything with this process runs smoothly (and that is far from certain), the best that the Council can hope for is that work on site will begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete.

 
 

Because the Twybridge Way scheme has been shackled to the 1 Morland Gardens project, its delivery is being delayed by at least 3-4 years. I put it to you, and to Council Officers, that the sooner Twybridge Way is freed from that link, the better for new Council housing delivery in Stonebridge.

 
 

Yes, Brent Start does need more modern facilities, and Brent Council has agreed to ring-fence £15.2m of the Strategic CIL funds which it already holds to pay for those. They don’t need to be delivered through the current plans for 1 Morland Gardens. They could be provided at another site locally (such as the Bridge Park / Unisys redevelopment), or as part of a revised scheme for 1 Morland Gardens, which would not require a decant to the Annexe.

 
I believe the reason that the present ridiculous situation is being allowed to continue is that Council Officers are afraid to admit their mistakes over 1 Morland Gardens. The project has become a Juggernaut, which they insist must be driven forward, even though it means sacrificing the timely delivery of the Twybridge Way homes, and the beautiful heritage villa, under its wheels.

 
 

I hope you can understand why I feel the need to use such strong language. Please do your best to persuade your fellow councillors, Cabinet members and Council Officers to seek a better way over 1 Morland Gardens. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

 

P.S. I will be putting the texts of the Council's response letter (copy attached for ease of reference) and my email above into the public domain. This is too important a matter to be "swept under the carpet". 

 

 

If you have any (printable!) thoughts on this situation, or any suggestions on ‘a better way over 1 Morland Gardens’, please add a comment below.

 

 

Philip Grant.