Serious scrutiny requires review of how Brent works with residents on regeneration

This is the full version of Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight. Not all of it was delivered due to the time limit on presentations.

I’m the chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury tenants and Residents Association on the South Kilburn Estate behind Kilburn Park tube station.

We welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns about many aspects of the South Kilburn regeneration. While we thought it rather late in the day, we were pleased when the previous chair of Scrutiny, Dan Filson said there would be a task force set up to look at the issues involved and that residents would have substantial input into that.

He contacted us mentioning many issues which should be looked at, including:

how the decanting process has gone so far, and 

what lessons can Brent (and maybe other authorities too) learn from the project and apply in future schemes. 

whether the properties should have had greater internal usable space  

the disruption during building works  

the amount and nature of external social amenities like play space, open space, doctor surgeries, primary school facilities, community hall facilities or general circulation  

In addition, one of our Kilburn Councillors, Rita Conneelly, suggested to himand us additional issues:

What was delivered and was it the best we could have ?

Whether choosing Catalyst and Willmott Dixon was best for this phase of the development and whether Scrutiny feels Catalyst and Willmott Dixon have breached significantly enough of their contract for Scrutiny to recommend they not be used in future commissions (remembering that Willmott Dixon failed to remain enrolled in the Considerate Constructers scheme, failed to manage their site and minimise impact on residents and failed to deliver the project any where near on time; for example).

What concerns were raised by residents when the regeneration plans were first publicised- and how have these borne out- and most importantly, still not been resolved in cases (e.g. pressures on parking and community cohesion)

Who has been chosen for future phases and how have we insured we will not have the above problems with them?

whether perfectly good blocks which could have provided good homes into the future with a good refurbishment program were sacrificed so that developers could build private flats on prime land? Whilst the blocks in most disrepair have been left until later phases of the programme leaving many families and children in substandard housing for years unnecessarily. 

The report in front of you says under 6.0:

However it is also considered timely to refresh the Master-plan. Therefore, inconjunction with Planning colleagues it is proposed to consult local residentsand tenants on a revised and refreshed master-plan and accompanying SPD.

Brent will appoint master-plan architects, Cost Consultants and also engagewith the local community in regard to proposals. These proposals will considermatters such as, infrastructure, density, mix and range of accommodation, phasing and also the possibility of incorporating additional sites into the Master plan area.

But it is not just a matter of appointing expensive consultants anddrawing up new plans. They should not be drawn up without critical appraisal with real input from residents. That’s why we hope you will press ahead urgently with the task force which Dan Filson proposed.

Missing from the report in front of you is virtually any mention of problems with the regeneration of South Kilburn. There is just  a passing mention to `slippage’ under 5.0 `Current position’.

Of particular concern for us is that there is no mention of the Kilburn Park Catalyst/Wilmott Dixon development. Yet this is not complete even though it is already over a year late. And there are still several important aspects to deal with, such as the recent discovery that not enough refuse storage was planned to cope with both the new and existing residents. While Brent and Catalyst are arguing over whose fault this is, we are the ones suffering with frequently overfull storage bins.

This is just the latest of the relentless problems we have had with a building site next to us. I’ve given you each a copy of the summary we drew up on April so you can see the scale of the problem at least.

While the last 2 paragraphs in the report highlight contractors working with local residents, our experience on the ground has been the opposite.

For instance, under `Green Space’  (page 3) the report says “there is also a communal garden space, provided as part of the CatalystDevelopment, which will also be available to local residents.” Has it been forgotten that this space is only communal because we had a very long and sometimes bitter row with catalyst who were insistent that it would be only for the residents of the new blocks?

We have wider concerns than just the way in which developers impact on those neighbouring their sites, and have attempted to raise them.

The other document I’ve passed you is a resolution passed by our Tenants and Residents association annual general meeting in July of last year. The issues there fall into 3 categories – the attitude of Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst towards us, but also issues around planning – such as the closeness of new blocks to existing ones, which we raised at the planning stage, and have become more obviously dreadful with construction, and our concerns about what regeneration has meant for South Kilburn in general. We have attempted to get these at least addressed by the lead member for regeneration, but despite frequent requests (and promises by her) she has not engaged with us in the 15 months since it was sent to her.

One small example of the issues which have not been addressed – regeneration has significantly increased the population of South Kilburn. The proposed new  `health centre’ has been given much publicity by the Council, yet this is the bringing together 3 existing GP practices. It is not an increased in GP facilities for an increased population.

The section of the report under 5.0 headed “Salusbury Road Car Park Site” reads as if the siting of the vent shaft is settled (in favour of Canterbury Works). It isn’t and won’t be at least until after Parliament has heard the several petitions residents have submitted against the shaft being sited next to a primary school and in the middle of a residential area. Quite honestly. people in the area are shocked that neither HS2 or Brent even attempted to engage with us while arguing for the site to be changed, even though the opposition of school parents, governors and local residents was known to Council officers.B

Which brings me to my final point - the Council has not ensured that developers listen to and respect residents . Indeed Brent Council itself has declined to enforce its own standards with developers and has failed to seriously consult and involve residents in decision-making. For instance, the report says under `Sports provision’ (4.3) that Land was provided for the construction of a new sports hall facility. Built by Westminster City Council, primarily for the, expanded, St. Augustine’s Secondary School. The Council secured reduced rates for South Kilburn residents as part of the deal”. I checked with other members of our TRA before coming here and no-one can recall having seen this advertised anywhere. At the same ti8nme, we have been arguing for years that residents should have use of the Multi Use games Area attached to St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, which was partly funded by the Council and we are still unable to achieve this. Similarly the Council has said residents were consulted about what should go in the new urban park on Albert Road( where HS2’s lorries will incidentally be passing for years). None of us can remember seeing a consultation.

If you want serious scrutiny and a serious appraisal of how regeneration has gone so far, you could start by arguing for serious change in how Brent works with, involves and respects local residents. A proper task force which looks at the problems and pitfalls would be a useful start to that.

“Considerate Constructors” in South Kilburn – Really?

Guest blog from Pete Firmin, Chair, Alpha and Gorefield Houses and Canterbury Court Tenants and residents association

Readers of Wembley Matters may have noticed on many building sites around Brent posters showing “this site is registered with the Considerate Constructors Scheme” [CCS]. Very impressive, and their website http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/    sounds good too: “Considerate constructors seek to improve the image of the construction industry by striving to promote and achieve best practice under the Code of Considerate Practice”. My understanding is that being registered under this scheme is a requirement for getting contracts with Brent Council (and many others).

Having had problems with how (in)considerate Wilmott Dixon are towards those neighbouring their site behind Kilburn Park station in South Kilburn, members of our Tenants and Residents Association checked further.

The code of practice has various sections “Care About Appearance”, “Respect the Community”, “Protect the Environment”, “Secure Everyone’s Safety” and “Value their Workforce”. It would be interesting to know to what extent Councils monitor any of this, but our concern is with the “Respect the Community” section, where it states “Constructors should give utmost consideration to their impact on neighbours and the public; Informing, respecting and showing courtesy to those affected by the work; minimising the impact of deliveries, parking and work on the public highway; contributing to and supporting the local community and economy; working to create a positive and enduring impression, and promoting the Code.”

Having felt over the 3 years in which Wilmott Dixon have been our neighbours that we have not been treated with anything like the implied levels of consideration, we decided to submit a complaint to the scheme. Easily done via the CSC website, which also says

“When a complaint is received that is relevant to the Scheme’s Code of Considerate Practice, the site manager or company contact will be told what the complaint is about, and given the name and contact details of the complainant (with the complainant’s permission). Advice might also be offered as to how they might deal with the complaint.

The Scheme will stay in contact with the complainant until the site or company has investigated and responded to the complaint and until the Scheme is satisfied that the site is adhering to the Code of Considerate Practice, at which point the complaint will be taken off the ‘active’ list.”

Inconsiderate vehicle movements endanger children in South Kilburn development

 We submitted a lengthy complaint, covering a multitude of issues, such as frequent arrival of delivery vehicles before the permitted time of 8 a.m., , frequent working outside of permitted hours, building workers parking in residents’ spaces, construction vehicles moved via a footpath which is supposed to be only used by emergency vehicles, operations being carried out in a narrow street during times when parents and children were passing on the way to the local primary school, refusal to pay compensation to residents when cables have been cut. That’s the shortened version.

To be absolutely clear, all of these relate to issues (except not cutting cables) which Willmott Dixon committed to even before they began work on the site. Breaches have been complained about to Willmott Dixon, Catalyst Housing, Brent Council officers and Councillors throughout (usually with photographic evidence where appropriate). Very little has changed, even though occasional promises were made that it would. Rather, we found that Council officers had sanctioned some of these practices – they endorsed the idea that Wilmott Dixon did not need to pay compensation to those whose utilities were cut off (we were told that WD “didn’t mean to do it”). Council officers gave permission for WD to move vehicles between site entrances along the footpath (this was eventually reversed, but only after vehement complaints by residents).

We submitted that catalogue of complaints to the Considerate Constructors Scheme in April. We immediately got a response saying the registration of that site under the scheme had lapsed! Interestingly, the first response of the senior Council officer this was referred to was to suggest it be on the table for a future meeting. It had to be pointed out to him that maybe Brent should enquire as to why this had happened, which he subsequently did. The posters proclaiming the site a registered one came down sharpish. The registration fee was later paid retrospectively.

Early in May, because of concerns about our complaints, a meeting was held with TRA representatives, a senior Council Officer, local Councillors, a Brent Housing Partnership representative and local and senior representatives of both Catalyst Housing and Wilmott Dixon, at which we laid out our complaints fairly comprehensively. During the course of this meeting it emerged that there had been several site visits by the Considerate Constructors Scheme during the course of the work. However, WD had not thought (!) to inform tenants and residents reps of this, when we could have raised our complaints. They undertook, under pressure from their more senior representatives present, to invite us to a future such site visit (apparently they are known as ‘Open Days’).

Under the CCS, a registered site is under obligation to log all complaints received about their behaviour. At this meeting they undertook to provide us with a copy of this log and a full response to our catalogue of complaints, both of which we duly received. It should be noted that the log only contains those complaints sent by email, not those made by phone or verbally, clearly a shortcoming.

Not long after, there was indeed a visit by an investigator from the CSC. However, it turned out that he did not know we would be present, had not seen our list of complaints, and what’s more he had not known the size of the site he was visiting! We were treated as unwelcome guests and shunted out after a brief exchange. We have yet to hear anything further from CSC.

Just before this site visit, Wilmott Dixon excelled themselves. At the meeting one of the issues which came up was their poor communications, often informing residents late in the day about progress in the work, changes to access etc.. Our TRA had its Annual General Meeting coming up, and as ever, invited WD, Catalyst BHP etc. to give reports. WD asked if we wanted them to distribute our notices, to which we replied “no thank you”, we would distribute them ourselves to all residents as usual. A few days later WD put out their occasional bulletin with an update through residents doors, except that this time the second sheet was an adulterated version of our AGM notice changed to appear as if it came from WD! When we complained that, among other things, this made it appear we are somehow linked to WD they just didn’t “get it”. In fact they claimed that they were “being helpful”. How helpful is it when you are asked not to do it and go ahead anyway?

Have things improved since that meeting? Not really, we still have vehicles arriving early, we still have building workers using residents’ parking spaces and we still have work carried out outside ‘permitted’ hours, and cut cables again.  What has changed is that the building work is nearing completion (though it is still the case that every estimated completion date we are given is overshot), so not so much heavy work is taking place. Moreover, many of those who have complained have now given up because nothing changes and are just hoping it is all over soon.

Brent Council? There has never been any sign that Council officers monitor the performance of the developers. If we are lucky they occasionally respond to our complaints, encouraging WD to pull their socks up. If they are doing more, they certainly don’t tell us.

Last year our frustration was such that we passed a lengthy motion at our Annual General meeting in July covering 3 aspects – regeneration as social cleansing; problems with the proximity of new buildings to existing ones; and the attitude of the developers to local residents. Readers may have seen the article in the Kilburn Times about this. That resolution was sent to the lead member for regeneration, Councillor Margaret McLennan. Despite promising a written response on several occasions, we have yet to have one from her nearly one year on.

To be clear, our Kilburn Councillors have taken up our complaints strongly and have got as frustrated as us with the response from Council officers.

CCS? It is a self-regulated scheme, so maybe we shouldn’t have expected anything anyway. And WD sits on its board and has received awards under the scheme. But given that Brent and other Councils expect builders to be members of the scheme, you might expect (hope?) that they would pay some attention as to whether they fulfil their commitments under the scheme. Rather, Brent turns a blind eye, if anything siding with the builders in their inconsiderate behaviour.

To add insult to injury, after 3 years of this, Brent is pushing for HS2 to build its vent shaft next to our flats and the local primary school. So after 3 years of living on a building site, we are expected to accept another 6 years of the same. Or, rather, worse, given the vehicle movements predicted for the building of the vent shaft.

One last point, Brent like some other Councils, has taken a stand against blacklisting, saying it will not award contracts to any company that blacklists. Excellent, but maybe Councils should push for such a commitment against blacklisting to be written into the CCS, especially as so many companies which are known to have blacklisted in the past (including Willmott Dixon) are members.

South Kilburn regeneration amounts to social cleansing, claim residents and tenants

Developer's perspective & that of residents at odds

A head of steam is building up o the South Kilburn Estate about what residents and tenants see as the 'social cleansing' involved  in the Estate's regeneration.

The motion below was passed at a recent meeting of the Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants' and Residents' Association.

We’ve had enough!

Motion to the AGM of Alpha, Gorefield & Canterbury TRA

This meeting notes that regeneration was sold to residents of South Kilburn on the basis that it would provide improved housing and living conditions for all existing residents.

In fact: 

* There are fewer dwellings at social rent than there were before regeneration;

* Some of the new flats are smaller than those they replaced;

* The new flats have been let at higher rents than was the case. 

Rather:

* Flats are being sold and rented at prices which existing South Kilburn tenants have no chance of affording;

* Luxury flats are being advertised on the Far Eastern market, clearly as an investment, rather than social housing;

* Locked gardens are being created, even though they replace what was common green space. 

This all amounts to a “social cleansing” of South Kilburn, with many residents forced to move to other areas.