Protest Against MIPIM: Housing for People Not For Profit

Andy Donald, Brent's Director of Regeneration and Major projects, has been a delegate to MIPIM at its Cannes meetings where he shared his thinking about development and regeneration - we can see the results of that thinking in Brent today. LINK

This year MIPIM  is coming to London.

The description under this videa reads:

The world’s largest property fair, known as MIPIM, is coming to London for the first time in its 25-year history. Hundreds of property developers, financiers and politicians will be welcomed by the Mayor of London when they converge on Olympia to do deals that allow them to profit from our land and our neighbourhoods.

This is creating unaffordable, insecure housing and contributing to the corporate takeover of our community space and public services. It means big profits for the richest 1% whilst destroying our communities and keeping millions in poverty.

We don't need more luxury housing, office blocks and shopping centres. We don't want our neighbourhoods to be gentrified and entire communities evicted. We want quality genuinely affordable housing and public services for all.

Join affected communities, the Radical Housing Network, the European Action Coalition for the
Right to Housing and the City, trade unions, tenants groups and many others to say ‘Our communities are not for sale!’

London Mayor Boris Johnson will be giving an opening address welcoming the property developers and financiers who have come to profit from our communities.

Green Party Assembly Member for London, Darren Johnson, will be attending the demonstration at 9am.

#BlockBoris

Wednesday 15 October, 9am

Meet outside Kensington Olympia tube, Olympia Way, W14 0NE

London Assembly backs Generation Rent manifesto

The world is their Oyster - publicity for  MIPIM

From Generation Rent LINK

London Assembly members voted this afternoon to back Generation Rent's Manifesto. This is a fantastic endorsement of the work we are doing from politicians in the heart of the country's housing crisis.

Two million people - a quarter of the London population - rents from a private landlord, and the unaffordability, poor conditions and insecurity of tenure are all high on the agenda. A poll from the Association of Residential Letting Agents today said that 43% of London's renters have had reservations about their landlord or letting agent on day one of their tenancy.

Darren Johnson AM, Green Party chairman of the housing committee, proposed the motion, which was seconded by Labour's Tom Copley AM, and passed after a debate in City Hall (available on this link).

“This Assembly welcomes the 'Renters manifesto' published by Generation Rent, which would bring considerable improvements to the lives of one in four households in London living in the private rented sector.

“The Assembly reaffirms its support for a number of Generation Rent's recommendations, which the Assembly put forward in its 'Rent reform' report in June 2013, including policies to stabilise rents, introduce longer tenancies and end retaliatory evictions.

“This Assembly supports further measures proposed by Generation Rent, including:

• longer notice periods for tenants who have lived in a home for a number of years
• banning letting agent fees
• closing loopholes on deposit protection schemes
• increasing the Rent a Room tax allowance
• scaling up the Community Land Trust model to create a large, secondary housing market affordable to Londoners

This Assembly also notes with regret the Mayor’s continued involvement with international property fairs such as MIPIM. His support for rich investors to build expensive flats for rich owners and landlords, who in turn let homes on insecure contracts in a dysfunctional rental market, is not providing for the needs of ordinary Londoners.

This Assembly therefore calls on the Mayor to set out his response to the 'Renters manifesto', to consider piloting some of the recommendations in his Housing Zones, and to require its implementation in any deals made at MIPIM.”

We'll be looking forward to Boris Johnson's response. 

Comment from Wembley Matters.  The  next four day MIPIM will be held in Cannes in March and costs 1490 Euros for each delegate plus accommodation. Brent's Director of Regeneration and Major Projects, Andy Donald, has been an attender in the past. LINK

Brent Council reported to intend to rent out space commercially at new Willesden Cultural Centre instead of providing a One Stop Shop

A Brent Council officer told a recent meeting of the Willesden Green Town Meeting that there would be no One Stop Shop at the new Willesden Cultural Centre.  Instead the Council would be looking for a commercial tenant for the space.

This follows the Council's decision to let two floors of the Civic Centre to Air Francis and squeeze Brent staff into the remaining space.

During the controversial planning application process for the WG Cultural Centre the Council made great play of the benefit to the community that would accrue from the development of unafffordable private flats (later sold on the Singapore market). The developement would finance the Cultural Centre and the One Stop Shop, along with council offices to serve the local area and this  out-weighed the loss of the old library, car park and open space according to  ex Executive member Cllr George Crane, then lead member for Regeneration and Major Projects.

This is an extract from Andy Donald's (Director Regeneneration and Major Projects) report:

4.6 The Council is currently driven by the overarching concept of One Council. This aims to provide excellent public services and deliver these in the most efficient way but also to build strong relationships and better communications between the Council and citizens ensuring local priorities are addressed and that local potential is nurtured. A redeveloped WGLC will play an important role in this strategy supporting both the One Council Library Transformation Project and the One Council Future Customer Service Project.

4.8 The Future Customer Service Project aims to improve efficiency and clarity of the services offered to citizens. The strategy is dependent on developing a new customer contact centre at WGLC providing a service for the south of the borough, an area where many of the Council‟s high need customers reside.

The Council appeared to have been driven, through the Council's budget crisis caused by Coalition cuts, to reneage on its promises to local people, especially those who formed the Keep Willesden Green campaign.

Residents were angry and asked if the Council intended to put these changes to what was supposed to be a local amenity to further consultation.

I understand that Andy Donald has replied that no decision on customer services at the Cultural Centre has been made but 'the Council’s cabinet will be considering a report in October in respect of the overall approach to customer access for the Council as a whole, which will then inform the shape of the customer access offer at the Civic Centre and Willesden going forward.'

He has promised that residents will be informed about any proposals as part of the dialogue over the use of the  new building.

Clearly an issue that residents will be monitoring.

Meanwhile someone who lives on the front line of the development told me earlier this week that a construction worker on site had told her that the open space between the flats and the Cultural Centre, offered in compensation for the lost open space in front of the 1980s library, was just going to be an 'ordinary road'.

I would be interested if anyone else had heard this.

Brent Labour in need of good political advice as spin doctor and organiser leave

Brent Labour Group is looking for a new Political Assistant following Richard Bell's departure. Richard Bell was the latest Political Assistant with a background in the Fabian Society. His predecessor Jack Stenner had been a Young Fabian. The two have published articles together LINK

If anyone out there fancies their chances (and there is an ex-councillor with time on his hands with very definite views on Brent Labour and democracy), I reproduce the application pack below:

Coincidentally (perhaps), Lee Skevington, Labour's borough organiser, has according to highly placed Labour sources, decided not to extend his contract. Skevington has been popular with rank and file Labour Party members.

The departures leave quite a gap ahead of the General Election in nine months time. However influential Jim Moher remains firmly in the driving seat of Dawn Butler's Brent Central  campaign following Labour's AGM.

Brent Labour's need for good political advice became clear this week when the 'poor doors' issue hit national as well as local headlines. This segregation of private and affordable home tenants in the same block was justified by Margaret McLennan, lead member for housing and regeneration, on the basis that separate access was required to keep the service charges of affordable tenants down, but attacked by former Council leader Ann John as 'utterly ridiculous and dreadful'. Pete Firmin, also a Labour Party member and chair of Brent Trades Council, as well as a committee member of a local residents' association, said, 'It is outrageous and basically saying we are the privileged, keep out of our area.'

This controversy follows the revelation that a one bedroomed flat in the Willesden Green Library development, advertised in Singapore as 'benefitting' from having no social or key worker homes, was selling at £450,000.

I have sympathy with McLennan's point on service charges but surely this goes back to the planning stages of mixed developments and their marketing, when the private service charges could be set to subsidise affordable housing service charges.

It is worth noting that Muhammed Butt has refrained from commenting to the Kilburn Times and has not responded to Twitter requests for his reaction.

Former Ann John supporter, James Powney, has continued to raise issues about democracy in Brent on his blog and the need for proper scrutiny. In a recent posting he was critical of the budget process by the current leadership LINK:

I fear that Brent Council is just going to float along without proper planning, until suddenly the money simply isn't there and panic cuts have to be implemented.  When that happens, councillors cease to exercise any sense of priorities and simply try to balance this year's books, until they go through an even more difficult exercise next year.

Not exactly a vote of confidence in his Labour colleagues.

Today  LINK  Powney commends the nine Labour councillors who called the £40 'Garden tax' in for scrutiny at Wednesday's Scrutiny Committee but contrasts the current changes with 'the thoroughness of the last major change in Brent's recycling arrangements four years ago'. He was, of course, lead member for the environment four years ago.

Elsewhere, on Twitter, James Powney has been involved in an exchange about the police investigation into fraudulent emails supporting the Kensal Rise Library development. Brent Council itself instigated the investigation with Muhammed Butt initially insisting that the issue should be thoroughly investigated. Lately the Council has granted planning permission and the council does not appear to be pursuing the matter. Powney, who still has the twitter handle @CllrPowney was accused of wanting to drop the investigation.

The police investigation is not the only unfinished business carried forward from the last administration.

The previous Labour adminstration extended Christine Gilbert's contract as Interim Chief Executive until after the May elections. Fiona Ledden's report advocating this at the time cited a smooth transition to the Civic Centre, managing the local elections, and safeguarding of Brent's reputation, as well as prevailing market conditions for LA CEs as reasons for keeping Gilbert on.

Now, three months after the election, Gilbert is still in post, with no sign of any recruitment process. She is currently on holiday and Andy Donald is standing in as Acting Interim Chief Executive.

Ledden's report (with Cara Davani of HR fame as the other contact officer) adopted by the then Brent Executive stated:

.

-->

Taking these factors into account and taking a strategic view in relation to the optimum time to commence the permanent recruitment process, it is proposed that recruitment for a permanent Chief Executive commences after the May 2014 elections and that the current interim arrangements continue until a permanent appointment has been made and the individual is in post. This approach is fully supported by the Executive.

Unfortunately this (deliberate?) lose wording seems open to an interpretation  that the appointment can be made any time after May 2014. May 2020 perhaps?

Lastly, no independent investigation has yet been set up into the modus operandi of Brent's HR department.

The call-in of the 'Garden Tax' proposal is a welcome sign that some Labour councillors are prepared to question Cabinet decisions. I would hope that Labour councillors, committed to equality in housing, transparency in recruitment procedures, and good labour relations with employees, will also take up some of these other issues.

.

Brent Council reports one third increase in rough sleepers in borough

Guest blog by Scott Bartle
 

In a report to the executive dated 16/06/2014 Adam Salmon, Street Population Coordinator and Andy Donald, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Growth report an increase of a third in verified rough sleepers recorded in Brent for the year 2013/14. Salmon & Donald report that whilst the national average increase in the number of rough sleepers is 23% with a London average increase of 43% Brent’s increase was nearer 500%. Salmon & Donald go on to report that Brent has not traditionally had high numbers of people ‘living on the street’ but put the increasing trend down to the impact of the recession and welfare reform.

The impact of Welfare reform and implementation of the Bedroom Tax on homelessness is something that the charity Crisis warned about in May 2013. It was reported by Randeep Ramesh, social affairs editor of the Guardian that Leslie Morphy chief executive of Crisis said: 

Without enough one-bedroom homes to move into, tens of thousands are powerless to avoid the anxiety, debt and arrears caused by the bedroom tax. Our fear is that many, through no fault of their own, will in the end become homeless as a direct result of government policy. Ministers must accept these facts and rethink the bedroom tax now.

The Green Party has been united in its opposition to evictions due to the bedroom tax. Councillor Liz Wakefield of Brighton described the bedroom tax as ‘yet more immoral and harmful legislation from a morality-free coalition government’.

Whilst Caroline Lucas MP told parliament that: 

The bedroom tax is a cruel and counterproductive measure from a Government that is intent on punishing the poor.  There is no evidence that all this will save the Government money, but what it will do is lead to mass evictions and homelessness, and all the related problems that brings to our communities.

Despite this, Brent Council’s Labour Executive pressed on and when Councillor Janice Long, now representing Dudden Hill ward, made the eviction threat via the Brent and Kilburn Times in March 2013 it is clear that they meant it. During the local elections Brent Labour announced that their ‘Manifesto is their contract’ and it is signed by our Labour Councillors. They promised ‘better backing to get through tough times’, ‘better care for our most vulnerable residents’ and ‘better connected communities’. Unless they recognise how immoral and harmful this policy is to people experiencing financial hardship and stop the evictions, they’ve already broken their promises. 

Brent Green Party has campaigned consistently against the Bedroom Tax and will continue to oppose evictions of tenants who have defaulted on rent payments because of this unfair tax.

 

References

1)      Salmon & Donald (2014) Authority to tender a contract for Rough Sleepers Outreach and Housing Advice and Resettlement Service. Brent Council. http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s24259/rg-rough-sleeping.pdf

2)      Ramesh, R. (2013) Bedroom tax ‘could make thousands of poor people homeless’ http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/27/bedroom-tax-poor-homeless

3)      Brighton Greens (2013) Greens say no to Bedroom Tax  Evictions http://www.brightonhovegreens.org/news/greens-say-no-to-bedroom-tax-evictions.html

4)      Walker, M. (2013) Eviction threat for brent residents hit by bedroom tax. Brent & Kilburn Times. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/eviction_threat_for_brent_residents_hit_by_bedroom_tax_1_1993763

5)      Brent Labour (2014) Manifesto. http://www.brentlabour.co.uk/manifesto_2014

Will changes to Brent's Planning Code address the real issues?

In addition to the constitutional changes already covered on Wembley Matters there are also recommendations for revisions to the Members' Code of Conduct and Licensing and Planning Codes of Practice.

Planning decisions in Brent have been controversial not least because departmentally it comes under the same Director and Lead Member as Regeneration and Growth.  Andy Donald, Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth has expressed the view that belief that the local authority should have the role of smoothing the way for developers.

Fiona Ledden's report states:

The aspect specific to planning identified as benefiting from inclusion in the Code was the position where the Council is the applicant or landowner.

The issue may appear dry and dull but arguably has the most impact on the lives of local people in somewhere like Willesden Green where the Council was giving land to a developer in exchange for the building of a new Cultural Centre and where the Council relieved the developer of any duty to provide affordable housing.

The question is whether the revised code will in any way give residents a voice faced with the Council-Developer combo.

The amendments can be found HERE but I will highlight some of the changes for the benefit of readers so that they can answer the above question for themselves.

Members of the Planning Committee are warned:

If a member does not abide by this Code the member may put the Council at risk of proceedings on the legality or maladministration of the related decision; and the member may be at risk of either being named in a report of the Audit and Governance Committee or Council; or if the failure to abide by the Code is also likely to be a breach of the Member Code of Conduct, of a complaint made to the Monitoring Officer.

The disclosure of 'disclosable pecuniary interests' is added to the requirements and members are told that decisions should not be influenced by the interests of Councillors or because of pressure exerted by applicants, agents or third parties. A new paragraph is inserted:

Members of the Planning Committee must take decisions in the public interest and take account of only of material planning considerations. They should not allow themselves to be influenced by members of the public and applicants, agents or third parties who might approach them and they should not be influenced by party politics.

There is something rather odd about having to take decisions in the public interest but also not being influenced by the public. This is reinforced by the duty to follow the 'rules of natural justice' and give people a hearing:

The rules of natural justice include the duty to act fairly, the duty to give all those who will be affected by a decision the opportunity of a hearing before a decision is made; and the principle that no person should be a judge in his or her own cause. That principle means that members must be and be seen to be be impartial and without bias, and that members should not take part in any decision that affects their own interests.

A section of 'Bias and Predetermination' has been added:

Members should not take a decision on a matter when they are actually biased in favour or against the application, or when it might appear to a fair and informed observer that there was real possibility of boas, or where a member has predetermined the matter by closing their mind to the merits of the decision before they come to take it.

 ...A member taking part in a decision on a planning matters must be open to any new arguments about the matters up until the moment of a decision. A member should not comment or make any commitment in advance as to how they intend to vote which might indicate that they have closed their mind. Any planning decision made by a member who can be shown to have approached the decision with a closed mind will still expose the council to the risk of legal challenge.

The section on Interests has been amended to allow a member with a disclosable pecuniary interest to have a right to attend a meeting:

...where a member of the public has the right to attend the meeting, make representations, answer questions, or give evidence, then a member will have the same right. Once the member has exercised that right then they must withdraw from the room for the rest of that item and play no further part in the discussion or vote,

At present many planning decisions are made by officers alone but Council members have the power to 'call-in' decisions so that they will be decided by Committee. The Code is amended:

A member considering using the 'call-in' power should consider whether their objective could be achieved by an alternative means, for example by discussing the matter further with the relevant officer or facilitating a meeting between the objector and an officers, bearing in mind the additional cost to the council when a matter has to be considered by Committee. 

The key issue of planning submissions where the council is the applicant or landowner is covered by this paragraph:

Where the council itself is the landowner or planning applicant then a Planning member should consider whether he or she has had such a significant personal involvement in advocating or preparing or submitting the planning proposal that the member would be likely to be perceived as longer able to act impartially or to determine the proposal purely on its planning merits. A member would not be required to withdraw simply because they were, for example, a member of both the Cabinet, or a proposing committee, as well as the planning committee, However a member with a relevant portfolio or individual  responsibility for implementing a particular policy should carefully consider whether that role makes it inappropriate for them to participate in a particular planning decision.

 Does this sufficiently deal with the wider conflict of interest over the Planning Committee being the judge of the Council's own development schemes?

 On the issue of Committee member site visits a paragraph is added:

Members should take care not to show any apparent partiality to people they already know when acknowledging members of the public or applicants that are present. Members attending the site visit should avoid expressing opinions about the application either to another Planning member, or to any person present.

It begins to look like the three wise monkeys would be ideal members of the Planning Committee!

The local press may be interested in this amendment (38) which adds journalists to the list:

Members of the Planning Committee should not speak to members of the public (including applicants, agents and journalists) during a meeting of the Planning Committee or immediately prior to or after the meeting concerned, other than where permitted by this Code of Conduct.

I am sure that a case could be made in terms of freedom to report that journalists are rather more than 'members of the public'.

It is worth including in this report the existing Code in regard to Member and Officer relations which has been an issue in the past:

Any criticism by members of Planning Committee of officers in relation to the handling of any planning matters shall be made in writing to the Strategic Director Regeneration and Growth and not to the officer concerned. No such criticism shall be raised in public.

If any officer feels or suspects that pressure is being exerted upon him or her by any member of the Council in relation to any particular planning matter, he or she shall forthwith notify the matter in writing to the Strategic Director Regeneration and Growth.

A substantial section has been added to the Code requiring Planning Committee members to undergo a course of training on the planning system:

If a member of the Planning Committee fails to participate in compulsory elements of the training this may result in that member being asked to stand down as a member of the Planning Committee,

What do Brent councillors think about deferral of Kensal Rise planning application?

A lively and at times passionate debate is taking place on these pages over the redevelopment of the Kensal Rise building.

The article has attracted more comments than  almost any other on this blog and I am posting this to invite readers who may have missed it to join in.

In particular I am inviting councillors and council election candidates to respond to what is clearly an important local matter.

One major theme is whether the planning application should be deferred until after police have completed their investigation into the alleged fraudulent emails submitted in support of the developer Andrew Gillick's previous planning application. LINK

Other matters include whether the space offered to the trustees of Friends of Kensal Rise Library for a community library is sufficient, and how robust that agreement is.

The original article by the trustees of the Friends of Kensal Rise Library and subsequent comments can be seen HERE

Since this was written responses have started coming in via Twitter. I will update here:

1. Martin Francis ‏@WembleyMatters 1h

   .@CllrButt What do you think? http://www.wembleymatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/what-do-brent-councillors-think-about.html …
2. Cllr. Muhammed Butt ‏@CllrButt 1h

   .@WembleyMatters we have a statutory responsibility to look at application. 1000's apps in Brent. Do we check the person or application

   
   

    Vicky Zentner ‏@vickyzentner 56m

   @WembleyMatters @CllrButt isn't ignoring the suspicion over fraudulent emails at very least morally wrong and at worst, collusion?
3. Meg Howarth ‏@howarthm 47m

   @CllrButt Both person& app.need flagging up.Planning cmtee statutorily independent&can vote to defer hearing>
4. Alex Colas ‏@AlexWG2014 18m
   

   .@WembleyMatters Planning cmtee should defer decision on this application until investigation into fraud allegations are completed.

@WembleyMatters 1/2 Strongly agree planning app should be deferred until outcome of investigation. Result might invalidate, for example. Alison Hopkins  @Hopkins_Alison   @WembleyMatters 2/2 FKRL know if space enough. I want VERY watertight legal guarantees. I've bad experiences with developers (Brent X!

Attempt to clear up confusion on council rent increases not entirely successful

Pete Firmin

Speaking to Brent Executive last night, Pete Firmin, secretary of Brent TUC, a South Kilburn resident and Labour Party member, lambasted the Council's stance on council rent increases.  He said that the annual above inflation increases, which in his case would mean an increase of 40% over 5 years, should be unacceptable to a Labour Council.

The plans were included in the Housing Strategy officers' report which Firmin described as impenetrable. Several people had tried to make sense of it, including Brent Central potential Labour candidate Kingsley Abrams, and had been unable to say with absolute certainty what was proposed. His local Kilburn councillors had said they knew nothing about it and when he asked Cllr Margaret McLennan and Cllr Michael Pavey, both members of the Executive what it meant, they confirmed rent rises over five years to 80% of market rents.

He said that the Council would be adding to the financial problems of people already hit by benefit cuts, council tax benefit changes and higher food and energy prices. He asked why tenants were being forced to fund new build through the rent increases and contrasted that with the freezing of the Council Tax.

Firmin said that this was not something the Council had to do and he circulated information from Islington Council  on its approach.

Muhammed Butt defended the Council's approach saying that new housing was imperative. Cllr  Margaret McLennan, lead member for housing, said that the policy referred to social rent and not market rents (a search of the report reveals that the only mention of social rent is one about the possible national fixing of these).  She said that the Council had not yet decided on their definition of an affordable social rent.  She said that that the planned new build was good news ands that the plans had receved a high level of endorsement.The priority was to house people on the waiting list.

Andy Donald, head of Regeneration and Major Project, said the new build would go straight to an 'affordable' rent of between 60% and 80% of market rent. This was the government's definition and the Council would have to charge that to use a government grant. If new build was at an 'affordable rent' it would help fund the refurbishment of existing stock. The actual rent rises would be fixed in February 2013 and would be roughly 4% higher in 2014-15.

Cllr Pavey waded in to say that Pete Firmin should have discussed this earlier, the Islington document was interesting but why hadn't Pete circulated it beforehand (and anyway they had more land available than Brent) and then ended with what is fast becoming his mantra: this is not perfect but the best we can do in difficult times.

Many of us left not entirely clear on what was proposed and I suspect that was also true of the Executive members who voted to approve the strategy.

Is Donald's the right development road for Brent?

In December 2011, long before the Brent Council leadership coup, I posted an article on 'Brent Council: Who's in charge?' about the relationship between the then leader Ann John and Gareth Daniel LINK which commented on Garth Daniel's increasingly political comments.

Now the same question is being asked about Brent's Regeneration and Major Projects department and the relationship between the Director, Andy Donald and lead member, Cllr George Crane. I have commented before on the domination of the council by Major Projects and the delegating of many powers to Andy Donald by the Executive.

In March 2010 Jackie Sadek on EstatesGazette,com gushed with enthusiasm about the then assistant Director and the lead  member:

Councillor John Detre (lead member for regeneration for Brent) and Andy Donald (his AD Regeneration) are a formidable team and I congratulate them. They are clearly on a roll.  We are taking a number of jv opportunities from Brent out to MIPIM in just a few days; developers and investors would be very silly not to take Brent very seriously over the next five years. In a time of uncertain political futures, the stability of this London borough coupled with its glorious asset base (my emphasis) and its serious intent to develop and regenerate, make it fertile territory indeed. And they're green: sustainability is key. They are showing the way.

In July 2010 the Money List put Brent Council at No.9 in its list of the Top 100 Public Sector Investors in the UK, just below the then London Development  Agency:

Top 100 projects 2010 £115m
Key contact Andy Donald, assistant director for regeneration, 020 8937 1049


The north-west London borough is in the top 10 due to its commitments to two of London's biggest regeneration projects. First, there is the council's establishment of a £100 million civic centre near Wembley Stadium that is intended to act as a catalyst for the £3.8 billion Wembley City project. Brent is also lead developer for the £772 million housing estate renewal project in south Kilburn, where it has so far spent £15 million on planning, demolition and buying out leaseholders.

"Local authorities should take more direct responsibility for the delivery of regeneration when there is market failure," says assistant director for regeneration Andy Donald. "In South Kilburn we want to stay in control of the quality and timescale of delivery. Looking forward we are likely to continue with that approach in order to make the most of our land and assets."

'Making the most of our land and assets' has become Andy Donald's crusade under the current administration.  The promise of  new buildings and redevelopment at  'nil cost'  to the Council is clearly attractive to them at a time of reduced budgets. However 'our land' is not just the council's - it is OUR land - the people of Brent. That is where the battles over regeneration get nasty, as in the case of Willesden Green Library Centre. The council has given 'our land' and the profits they will get from 92 housing units to developers Galliford Try in exchange for a Cultural Centre. During Margaret Thatcher's period in office and the selling off of public assets to the private sector there was much talk of 'selling the family silver'. Brent Council now appears to be in the same business.

Andy Donald was appointed Director on Major Projects and Regeneration in October 2010. The Brent Council website states:

Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects
Andy’s responsibilities include the delivery of the council’s ambitious regeneration and housing agenda, and he currently leads on major projects such as South Kilburn, Wembley, the new Civic Centre, Willesden Green, and the council’s programme for new and improved schools. Service responsibilities include housing, planning, building control, property and asset management, education assets, regeneration, employment and economic Development. Andy also has responsibility for overseeing the Council’s Housing Management delivery vehicle, Brent Housing Partnership.

The department employs some 450 people, including four assistant directors.He is responsible for a significant revenue budget, including the housing revenue account, and for overseeing a large proportion of the council’s capital programme – currently to a value of £100 million.
Andy is a founding board member of the Future of London, and an active
member of the Smart Urbanism group.

The emphasis on planning and regeneration is mine and reflects my  concern about a possible conflict the between the two. Brent Planning Committee  is advised by council planning officers but has a statutorily independent role,  However councillors usually follow officers' advice and increasing numbers of decisions are made by officers following planning guidelines, rather than the committee.

In the MIPIM Round Table discussion in Cannes in April 2010, referred to by Jackie Sadek, Andy Donald revealed some of his thinking, which perhaps demonstrates a rather cavalier approach to his brief.

This contribution from Donald reinforces my concern over possible conflict between planning and regeneration functions:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The council acting as developer and taking things through planning themselves, successfully marginalises the local community. In the Willesden Green Cultural Centre case the council formed a partnership with Galliford Try and initially it appeared that the planning application would be made in both names. This was changed so it became a Galliford Try/Linden Homes application with a Brent Council Planning Officer, a PR company, and latterly Library Labs all involved in the much criticised consultation process.

The question is, has the project got so much momentum that it cannot be stopped? The campaigners have had some success in slowly things down. The question for councillors, who are accountable to the public and the electorate is: Is this how things should be done if we want to retain the public's confidence?

Andy Donald went on to say:

As local authorities we’ve got to start realising and recommending to politicians. The focus should be on doing some delivery, generating the market for delivery, rather than diverting activity around producing big masterplans, often on big areas we don’t own, and trying to tell the market they must deliver this across this area over the next thirty years. Starting small and generating momentum seems to me to be the way to do it.

We want to try and remove some of the technical aspects of the process. If you ask planners what they want to do, it will be to draw a masterplan. But a masterplan won’t make the Thames Gateway happen or make a scheme the size of Wembley happen. More local authorities are realising this, realising we should instead be starting from the site upwards, or the plot upwards.

Donald's enthusiasm and confidence glows as bright as the sunshine in the south of France, but is it a vision shared by Brent Council?

The attitude to local people is revealed again in this interchange in the round table discussion:

Peter Finch The difference between the French and the British is that while Paris was busy delivering the Charles de Gaulle airport, it took the same time for us to get the public inquiry for Terminal 5. Mitterrand was asked how this could be. He gave a very witty response. He said: ‘Very simple. In France, when we wish to drain the pond, we get rid of the frogs first’.

There is a sense that Britain is neither brutal nor generous enough. When we finally get CPOs (Compulsory Purchase Orders), we’re never generous enough and we always make it nasty. We’re not brutal enough to say, we just don’t care, here’s twenty times worth the value, now just go away. Or we’ll arrest you!

Andrew Donald: But we never know if we actually do want to drain the pond. And that’s the big issue. It comes back to leadership. It doesn’t matter what scale you’re working on. There are very few people I come across in the public sector who will nail their colours to mast and say: ‘This is what we want to see happening now’. To be confident enough to know that over the 30-year lifespan of that scheme it is going to involve, there should be more confidence to say: “This is what we want now, but in five years time, if we change our minds, it is okay, as long as we’ve done something in those five years”. That is critical.

Roger Zogolovitch later in the discussions says:
Rather than getting rid of the frogs before draining the pond we’re giving authority to the frogs!

The Civic Centre opens in 2013 and its cost will be paid back over 25 years. Will the council change their minds in 2018?

Donald, despite Brent's 'green development' image, seems impatient with such demands:

I would take out in one fell swoop all the requirements around environmental requirements and transport requirements. I think that their original purpose was quite worthy but now, frankly, it is a pile this big for even tiny application. Replace that with something to the point about what this development is going to make to local area, written in plain English. The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers. To release the development from the upfront cost of these, maybe we can be more collaborative here in saying what a scheme is going to bring to an area in terms of improvement, from the people side and commercial side as well. What does a scheme bring to a place? It is much more about whether a scheme makes a place better or not.

Donald's  idea of  'starting small and generating momentum'  rather than having a Masterplan, seems to be behind the Meanwhile Project reviewed here in an earlier posting LINK  

The proposal greed by the Executive gives Donald the delegated power to buy up unused premises and let them out on fixed term contracts with no tenant right to renewal. His report states:

The term “meanwhile” is used to describe the use of vacant premises or land while it is not being used – it is the pause in the development process between the old and the new. This pause can be a few months or a number of years.

In other words those trendy spaces let out to 'pop up' shops or businesses could eventually become the pieces of a development jigsaw that all fall into place at a later date. Again, are councillors happy with this approach and won't the public be presented, in time, with a development  fait accompli? 

 The council's Corporate Risk Register builds the relationship with developers into the risk management strategy. It addresses the risk of lack of  investment in the borough thus:

De-risking by assisting with planning permissions etc on behalf of developers. Maintaining dialogue with investors/developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

In April of this year Andrew Donald was shorlisted for the Alan Cherry Award:

A shortlist of nine eminent ‘placemakers’ has been announced for the Alan Cherry Award for Placemaking.  The annual award is presented in recognition of the significant contribution made to the quality of placemaking in their communities by a leading figure in the public sector.

Alan Cherry was the founder of Countryside Properties. Countryside Properties was Brent Council's development partner for the Barham Park Estate.

Elsewhere Andy Donald has been named as a 'Rising Star' and a mentor for young people involved in regeneration. He clearly has commitment and energy. The question arises as to whether this is taking Brent Council in the right direction.