Updated: Bush Farm Collective calls for support for application for shipping containers on site for up to 5 years for barn restoration

 

The barn and orchard are remnants of the former Bush Farm in a corner of Fryent Country Park. The barn is in a pretty dilapidated state and restoration is a long term aim.

The Bush Farm Collective has appealed on Facebook for people to support its planning application for the siting of two shipping containers on the site to contain materials for the restoration The area where they would be installed is outlined in red on the site map below. The barn is next to the site labelled Riding School:

 

 

This is Bush Farm Collective's Appeal:

 

BUSH FARM URGENTLY NEEDS YOUR HELP!

As you are aware we will be renovating our barn we've put in a planning application to have storage containers on site for a maximum of 5 years which is essential to do the works and before our full renovations planning application. 

 Brent wants people's views on this so please go to https://www.brent.gov.uk/.../viewing-or-commenting-on... (you will have to register if you haven't already) the only thing you need to enter is 25/0734 you will then add a wonderful comment about how beneficial everything is etc and click SUPPORT.

 I can not explain how vital this is, please please please share with your contacts for those that don't know bush farm collective is a grassroots community project with a dilapidated 400 year old barn the BFC team have worked endlessly to raise money to save it and bring it back to life to provide much needed education and well-being to all. feel free to view our instagram @bushfarmcollective or email bushfarmcollective@gmail.com with any enquiries.

 

The planning statement gives the cost of renovation as up to £2m.

At present there are 19 support submissions on the Brent Planning Portal and 11 objections. Only 7 local addresses were sent notice of the application. Some of the support submissions are from outside of Brent.

The Comments include this statement of support from the Brent Head of Property

Brent Letter of Support
To whom it may concern

Re: Community Ownership Fund Application. The Barn & Paddocks, Fryent Country Park, Salmon Street, NW9 8YA.

I write on behalf of the Dove Watson-Yorke in support of her proposal to the Communities and Local Government for a grant to fund the transformation of the Barn and Paddocks, a building and enclosed fenced fields that are in need of significant repair to create a modern shelter for horses and livestock. This proposal assists the Council's objective of improving access to fields and open spaces by young people in the local area.

The Barn is a unique one of a kind horse shelter facility in Brent and was previously occupied by another tenant that left the building and paddocks in a poor state of repair. Dove Watson-Yorke took over the Barn and the paddocks as her horses had been sheltered at the location with the consent of the previous tenant. The Council is seeking to enter into a Farm Tenancy Agreement with Dove Watson-Yorke for a 25 year term, subject to detailed heads of terms and the Barn and Paddocks repairs being carried out under an agreement to lease.

The Barn and Paddocks are in need of works and the Council has not been able to bring the property back into a reasonable state of repair due to the level of capital investment required. Repairs include those to the timber structure, replacement of asbestos roof, timber cladding to the outer walls, the addition of modern toilet and and kitchen facities updated services and subsantial field fence repairs. The improved conditions would allow a long term agreement to be entered into and would strongly aligned to the objectives of the Borough Plan. The Brent Borough Plan is charged with a renewed focus and actions to tackle cross-cutting issues such as health inequalities. The Council therefore considered Dove Watson-Yorke to be best placed to bring the Barn and Paddocks into good use and deliver outcomes for local young people. As part of evaluation we have considered Dove Watson-Yorks to have a business model and a plan for meeting these objectives.

We believe that Dove Watson-Yorke, will be able to gain access to and secure other sources of additional investment, and thus secure the future of the asset in the longer term for community benefit. Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use. The Council recognises that the letting has the potential to achieve a range of key objectives from promoting civic renewal, community cohesion, active citizenship and improving local public services to tackling poverty and promoting economic regeneration. If the proposed letting does not proceed, the Council may need to consider other options, such as demolition of the structure.

Dove Watson-Yorke would be better placed than the Council to manage this asset in the local community, with her local knowledge, and hands-on management likely to lower overheads and achieve better and more intensive and sustainable use from the asset than might be the case under traditional models of service delivery. The letting would also support the delivery of service outcomes which would otherwise be unnaffordable by the Council. There is a lack of high quality assets available for community use in Brent. The proposed letting is therefore a rare opportunity to make use of a potentially high quality asset for community benefit.

The works to be carried out at the Barn and Paddocks, as a condition of the agreement to lease, will include Dove Watson Yorke funding and returning the Barn and Paddocks to a safe, compliant and lettable state of repair. 

The proposal meets the general objectives of providing targeted investment to strengthen capacity and capability in communities to support them to shape their place and develop sustainable community businesses. We strongly support this application and the focus on increasing the use of open spaces for local young people.

I look forward to working with you in improving opportunities for young people in our communities and achieving health equity.
Yours sincerely,


Head of Property
London Borough of Brent

 

There is a submission from a Trustee of the Barn Hill Conservation Group that looks after Fryent Country Park, writing in a personal capacity:

 

I am a long time resident in Kingsbury, a regular volunteer with Barn Hill Conservation Group BHCG and a trustee of BHCG charity. However, I write in a personal capacity.

The proposed redevelopment of the stables barn is a difficult, complex task. The stables with horses are a much loved feature of Fryent Country Park. The applicant has a very difficult task with limited resources. The proposal is an essential step along the way and has my full support.

 

An opposing view is put by a near neighbour:

 

Firstly, I believe granting permission for two storage containers would exacerbate the derelict site the area has become over the past few years, along with the large horse transporter that is used as a mobile home. Moreover, I question the necessity of such large containers for such a long period, especially considering that the barn's reconstruction is due to commence later this year. While I strongly support the barn's refurbishment, the requirement for these containers raises concerns about the timeline for its completion.


In reference to the letter of support submitted by the 'Head of Property' at Brent Council, it's evident that the council is merely pleased that someone else is taking on the responsibility of rebuilding the derelict barn, rather than have to address the issue themselves. They base their trust on a business plan filled with whimsical ideologies, disregarding the potential impact on local residents. The site is not a riding school, there has been no involvement with local schools, and community engagement is minimal at best. My back garden backs onto one of the paddocks, and I have three young children. This portal is the first time I've heard of the educational workshops purported in the business model. Perhaps we don't fit within the definition of 'local community'?


We have attended two events hosted by Bush Farm Collective, one of which we left due to the explicitly inappropriate music being played. Has anyone at Brent Council investigated the authenticity of the claims made in Bush Farm Collective's business proposal?


The 'Brent Council Head of Property' also stated, "Without intervention, the building will continue to deteriorate and may eventually be lost for community use." However, to my knowledge, the barn and 'riding school' have not been available for community use in the nine years we have lived here.


Currently, the area appears to be used as a personal party hub for BFC, with loud gatherings, music, dogs barking, and general noise disrupting the normally peaceful surroundings. Granting planning permission would only allow this free run of the land to continue, making it an impossible environment for us who live within it.

 

A supporting statement from outside the area gives a different view of the Bush Farm Collective's activities;

I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary storage at the paddocks and barn at Fryent Country Park. I have taken part in conservation activities with the Bush Farm Collective (BFC), planting hedges, and improving the land for wildlife. I have also attended and volunteered at the community events organised by the BFC in collaboration with the local community. I have witnessed the hard work and dedication the BFC put into these events. I see how much they benefit the local community members who engage with the group, attend events and get involved with activities. I am also aware of the important work the collective do to support volunteers and children with outdoor activities, that are so important for mental health and general well-being.

 

A further objection contains some points not covered above;

 

 As a daily user of Fryent Country Park and a local resident I was deeply concerned to hear, only two days ago, that this planning application had been submitted several weeks ago. There are no notices on the barn itself, the two noticeboards, the gate or nearby lamp-posts to alert the community around the park. Nor has anyone from the 'Bush Farm Collective' made any attempt to speak to park users or neighbours about their plans. As word of mouth has spread over the past few days, it is apparent that nobody was aware of these plans.

The 'business plan', for which this is supposedly the first step, would not stand up to scrutiny on any level. Quite apart from the substantial change of purpose for what is, and always has been, a community recreational facility with a small area of grazing land and pasture which is leased for private use, the information provided is riddled with inaccuracy throughout - not least that there is no existing Riding School, (which would surely require a license, insurance and a qualified instructor, in any case).

With regard to this application specifically, though, objections are as follows;

- Shipping containers are completely out of keeping with the natural character of the park and would constitute an eye sore.

- The 'Collective' has already parked a dilapidated horse box next to the barn, which could have been used as 'storage' but is frequently occupied overnight, despite there being no sanitation facilities.

- The 'Collective' was granted a substantial amount of money over two years ago but there has been no improvement to the barn or the surrounding paddocks since then. Whilst we understand that the barn itself is now beyond repair (partly as a result of the tenant's actions), there is no reason why the paddocks could not have been cleared of the accumulated junk, the fencing repaired properly and some form of shelter for the horses with an adequate water supply provided.

- Using whatever grant remains to pay for shipping containers, which could not be used to house animals, would be a mis-use of charitable funds.

- Contrary to what is submitted in the application, there is no hard-standing for these containers to be placed on, either in the area indicated on the plan or elsewhere within the leased paddocks.

- To get two 20 foot containers into the place indicated on the plan, a long established and healthy tree would have to be removed / destroyed.

- The plan alleges that installing two containers on the land for a period of 5 years will allow time for planning and work to replace the barn to be completed. Surely there should be planning permission in place first - then they can look at the best way to achieve the work?

- 5 years is not temporary. The 'business plan' talks about further fund raising and income from activities which require the use of the barn and the other 'developments' which means that there is no viable exit strategy should that income not be forthcoming. The containers could be there forever.

- There is a well established, long standing and active community group in Kingsbury which provides volunteers with the opportunity to take part in and learn about conservation and wildlife in the park. It has a garden which offers regular community events, it has direct links with Brent Parks Department and, importantly, a properly formed constitution and committee structure. The 'Collective' has none of these.

- Photographs to show the actual condition of the area around the barn, and the inadequate fencing will be emailed separately. It is an eyesore with an accumulation of dangerous materials left where the horses, dogs and children can easily be injured. For example, broken fence posts with nails sticking out and sheets of discarded rusty metal. This does not seem to correlate with the 'Collective's rhetoric.

A further support statement with some new points:

 I am writing in support of the planning application for temporary installation of 2 shipping containers on the land at Fryent Country Park. The Bush Farm Collective have developed over the past three years a community supported plan to transform the barn for community benefit, providing facilities for local partner charities to conduct their learning and development activities. This requires renovation of the barn to be fit for purpose and use. The shipping containers are required for storage of the barn contents during construction.

The barn restoration plan has been achieved with the support of funding from Brent's You Decide grant, determined by community support. This has been matched with funding by Government's COF Grants, which has achieved the funds required to renovate the barn. The restoration will reinstate the barn for community use, with construction planned to happen in the latter part of 2025.

The Collective is made up of local volunteers, who have worked hard to make the land and barn fit for community purpose, with facilities that will enable the site to contribute to increased community benefit once the barn is reinstated. This has all been achieved with the support and knowledge of Brent Council throughout.

Without the initiative and activities of the Collective over the years, the barn, which has fallen into dereliction, would not be restored, and remain the eyesore, and unused asset that it is presently is. As a borough that is in great need of community facilities, we know that this is seen positively by the Council and many local people. Our community events have always been well attended and supported, and have been used to communicate the plans for the barn, along with extensive consultation, community surveys and letterboxing.

We understand that for some residents, who have the great fortune to live adjacent to Fryent Park, have objections to any change to the public land. We encourage them to look at the architect's plans for the barn once they are live on the planning portal, which demonstrates the transformation possible to this neglected building. We also understand that change is sometimes difficult, however advocate that the benefit to the wider community that Bush Farm Collective are proposing is a change that is worth considering with positive spirit.

LINK TO PLANNING PORTAL TO COMMENT

 In response to request from a reader on the first publication of this story here is more about the Bush Farm Collective's plans.

 

 

'Is this REALLY normal?' commentary on Brent Council Planning's pre-application process

Guest post by Gaynor Lloyd

 

I read Martin's report of what he described as the shambles at Planning Committee when the Mumbai Junction application was decided. LINK  It was concerning to see that not only did officers give no assistance to Committee members in articulating their reasons for the vote against when they were in such evident difficulties but acted to press for change to deferral. An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate can give residents an opportunity to be heard. 

 

However, what I wanted to respond to was Martin's report of the Chair's comment on the normality of the Planning Committee’s pre-application meeting with Fruition Properties, the developer of Mumbai Junction.  I was the author of the complaint and made both requests for the recusal of Committee members. I do have in-depth knowledge of the background here. 

 

For me, everything started when, in preparing my objection, I spotted a one-liner in the developer's application pack: Pre-application presentation to the Planning Committee. (I also noted a meeting with Cllrs Butt & Tatler).  I was completely taken aback and followed up with a Freedom of Information Request (FOIR) about these meetings. The response provided the agenda, and pre-briefing for the Planning Committee and draft Feedback notes. I also received notes of the Cllr Butt & Tatler meeting with 4 representatives of the developer. 

 

Before making my FOIR, I had looked at the Council's protocols, and could see no constitutional basis on which such pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee could take place. I also looked at National guidance - again I could find no basis. (The Council deny this; I await the Council's evidence to the contrary as part of my Stage 2 complaint)

 

It is true that the Council added numerous provisions to its Planning Code and Protocol, re pre-application processes in November 2022, several months after the meeting with the Planning Committee - but adding those evidences there were none at the time. It is also true that the Council added them after a scheduled review of its planning processes. This was  conducted by a  Local Government Association Independent Reviewer but it seems that the Independent Reviewer could not have been aware that the Planning Committee could take pre-app presentations, as he/she pointed out that no protocols were in existence for  the engagement of any Councillor in the pre-app process, and that it would avoid confusion if, for example, ward councillors knew how they should behave when approached by residents. To be helpful, the Independent Inspector gave the Council some examples of good pre-app practice in 2 other Councils; neither of those Councils invite developers in for a cosy pre-chat with the Planning Committee who will hear their application. 

 

Did the Council devise its protocols to cover its then existing practice?

Was that existing process, right?

Is it accountable? 

How often was it used? 

Who knew about it? 

 

In a world where even a Government Department is now for "Levelling Up", what should we think of  a private and confidential meeting that planning officers can just offer at a price to categories of developer - a meeting with the very Committee to which their planning  application will be presented - when an ordinary resident with a planning objection -whose very life may be affected by the development nearby  - cannot even speak to a single member of the self-same Committee without being batted away with suggestions of the impropriety of an attempt to influence, and a direction (if they must) to give details in writing to all Committee members.

 

But, in this case, it looks worse.  I have been told by an officer that developers of "larger" projects are invited by officers to request a pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee. There is a £2000 extra fee for that private and confidential presentation to the Planning Committee. The availability of this service is not on the website - nor details of the fee nor the criteria officers apply. This is not in accordance with national guidance. How many such applications have been prefaced by a pre-meeting with planning committee is an interesting question: I have got a FOIR in on that - but it does link with Cllr Kelcher’s reported reaction to Cllr Lorber's challenge at Committee on this very topic.

 

Martin in his report says, " Cllr Kelcher reacted angrily saying that that the pre-application meeting was part of the normal process." Yes, well...it would certainly appear that it was indeed part of usual practice at the time - look at the emails trail  below - which arrived as part of the Council's  FOIR response to outline how the meeting with the Committee came about. I have asked for the redactions of names to be replaced by descriptions of postholder/members.

 

The top email of 26 May 17:16 (in very prompt response to the request from the developer's adviser below) refers to a meeting the next day between redacted names and the Chair & Vice Chair of the Planning Committee. (There was no actual planning Committee meeting in May 2022) Apparently, "they” will "bring up pre-app presentations to committee."  "Presentations" plural - clearly "business as usual". Maybe it was   but it was not a process constitutionally authorised by Brent Council in May/June/July 2022. Nor (I maintain) in accordance with national guidance. 

 

I was told that the reason for the silence on the website re the availability of the Planning Committee to developers of "larger" projects is because this is offered by officers and not available on request. 

 

 

Yet, look at the earlier email in the screenshot   - 26 May at 14:52 from the Planning Director, Stantec UK, Fruition’s consultants.  What is to be made of these sentences in their email to Team Leader North Area:" I have just had a call with my client, who informs me he has had a call with [name redacted] .... but [name redacted] has advised that we make a formal request to you that we present the scheme to the planning committee. Thus, this email is that request. Can you look to set this up as soon as possible?" 

 

Who was the call with the developer with? Clearly not the Team Leader. If the Head of Planning, surely, he could have organised it himself. Whatever, it seems that   a developer can tell a Council planning officer to set up a meeting with the Planning Committee.

 

Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks the tone of the email to the Council's Area Team Leader very telling?

 

And, talking of tone... what exactly is an ordinary resident supposed to do? Ms Lester, the senior officer charged with dealing with my complaint, had the solution off pat: "If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review." Ah, that's alright then- if I just had the cash, and the professional advisers...Puts me in mind of the adage. One rule for one....

MUMBAI JUNCTION LATEST: Brent Council refuse to recuse councillors or defer application - consideration will go ahead tomorrow

Alice Lester, Brent Council's Director of Regeneration, Growth and Employment, has refused the request to recluse some councillors or defer the Mumbai Junction item.

In an email she wrote:

You have requested a stage 2 review of your complaint, and also that some members of the planning committee are recused from consideration of the planning application reference 22/3260, 231 Watford Road.  

 

You also suggest that the application should be deferred from the committee as given this request for a stage 2 review, the complaints process is ongoing.  

 

The Council’s position is that the investigation into the stage 1 complaint demonstrated that the planning application can be considered by the committee as currently constituted, and a sound decision is able to be made.  A stage 2 complaint investigation does not outweigh the process of determining planning applications in a timely manner.  

 

If a person sufficiently affected by the planning decision believes that the decision is legally flawed, the correct process to follow is to challenge it via a judicial review.  

 

The complaints team will progress the stage 2 review on behalf of the Chief Executive.  

Another flood zone development in Stonebridge at Planning Committee tomorrow

 

Prospect House as was

The new development on the Prospect House site next to Shurgaard

Readers may remember controversy over the appalling conditions at Prospect House, manahed by Shepherd's Bush Housing Association LINK and its rather dubious history LINK. The planning application to be decided tomorrow at Brent Planning Committee replaces it with  23 storey storey building with residential accommodation from the third floor up.

The building lies between the Grand Union Canal that crosses the North Circular by aqueduct nearhy and the River Brent. It is in a flood zone and a short distance from Tokyngton Avenue and the Agenta House site opposite Stonebridge Park station. Tokyngton Avenue has been flooded three times in the last few weeks.

 

The site is described by planning officers:

The site is immediately adjacent to the River Brent and near to the Grand Union Canal. The site falls within flood zone 3a. Protection of and access to the River Brent is a keyelement of the scheme as is the flood mitigation measures needed to ensure flood resilience.

 

This includes reducing the footprint of the built structures, raising floor levels, locating the more sensitive uses i.e. the residential element, at 3rd floor level and above, and the creation of a Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan. A SuDS strategy is proposed to retain and re-use as much rainfall prior to discharge into the public sewer.

It is worth looking at some of the comments on the Planning Portal. It is unclear whether the Metropolitan Police objection has been  satisfactorily answered.

Environment Agency

 

Following an initial objection in relation to an inadequate flood risk assessment; its proximity to a watercourse; and a detrimental impact on nature conservation, the objections have been removed following the submission of additional information. Conditions are proposed to secure details of ecological enhancements for flood risk; and a landscape and ecological management plan.

 

Inland Waterways Association

 

Objections are raised for the following reasons:

· The sheer height and bulk of the proposed development would have a harmful visual impact on the adjacent canal as well as frequently causing wind problems for boats and non-boating visitors on the towpath.

· To mitigate, the Council should seek contributions for the provision of community moorings, visitor moorings and/or residential moorings, and the provision of an electrical supply and a water point for servicing the moorings.

 

Local Lead Flood Authority

 

No objections are raised because the Flood Risk Assessment is considered acceptable. A condition is requested for details of: an overall drainage plan to include SudS attenuation such as blue roofs; and an access / egress diagram

 

Metropolitan Police

 

The Secure By Design Officer does not support the application for the following reasons:

· The walk from the tube station to the site using the footpath next to the A406. During the day there would be some activity but at night it would be poorly used and observed leading to a risk of robbery and other violent crimes from occurring.

· The plans to make the site more permeable and attractive to acquisitive forms of crime such as burglary.

· On the actual main building there is no active frontage on the first two floors (overnight), light industrial is proposed but this would close after a certain time and possibly weekends also leaving no legitimate activity.

There is an interesting comment from the owners of the current Prospect House who say thay have had problems marketing it as 'it is not located in the immediate vicinity of local amenities or the High Street (sic) lowering the appeal to potential tenants.'

Brent Council officers continue to term Shared Ownership as affordable in their description of the accommodation despite admitting recently that it is not affordable to people on the median Brent income.

A viability assessment stated that the amount of affordable housing (35% by habital room) was acceptable despite not hitting the 50% target. Shared Ownership should perhaps be subtracted from that percentage.

 The development will be situated next to the highly polluted North Circular Road and a rather poignant diagram shows the distance a parent or carer would need to walk their child to a green space.

 

 

Brent’s Broadview infill plans – do genuinely affordable homes and the environment matter?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Aerial view of the Broadview Garages site. (From Google Maps website)

 

I first mentioned Brent’s plans for infill homes on a small garage site behind Broadview in August 2021, when I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing Projects. I was not aware of the current planning application for two houses on this site until I saw it on the agenda for next Wednesday’s (14 December) Planning Committee meeting. I took a quick look through the Officer Report, initially just out of interest, but what I read left me knowing that I had to object to the application!

 

I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my illustrated objection comments document at the end of this article, so that you can read it if you wish to. It is another application where Planning Officers recommend approval, because what they describe as ‘the limited conflict with policy’ would be outweighed by building new homes.

 

The first point that I felt really strongly about is that, although Brent’s application states that both new homes would be for London Affordable Rent, Planning Officers say that there does not need to be an affordable housing condition in the consent letter. I have explained why, if these homes are to be built (despite the good planning reasons why the application should be refused), the “benefit” of them needs to be guaranteed by making it a condition that they are let to Brent residents in housing need at “genuinely affordable” rent level.

 

The rest of my objection points arise mainly from Planning Officers relying on inaccurate, and at times wholly misleading, information in reports prepared on behalf of the applicant, and ignoring the true facts given to them by local residents in their objection comments. This is not the first time I’ve raised the importance of looking at such reports critically (because they are prepared by firms paid to support the application, so not impartial). Most recently this was in connection with trees, and the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”) for the trees at the Newland Court infill site.

 

The Broadview Garages AIA (as well as the Ecological Impact Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment) were prepared by the same firm as the Newland AIA. That is not the only similarity, as the applicant (Brent Council, possibly with the same Project Manager), planning agent and Planning Case Officer dealing with the application are also the same as the Rokesby Place and Newland Court applications (cynics might say: ‘How “cosy” is that?’). The firm begins its Broadview Garages AIA as follows:

 

 
 

OK, that’s just a minor slip, probably because they are using the same template for many reports for Brent infill schemes! My main concern with their AIA is that they misrepresent where an important tree ‘on the boundary of the site’ actually is, so that they can justify having it cut down. It is actually growing inside Fryent Country Park, so that it should be protected. Their original AIA, later amended, said that both of the tall ash trees you can see on the left of this photograph could be cut down and removed!

 

The Broadview Garages site, with Fryent Country Park on the left, 8 December 2022.

 

My objection comments should give rise to a Supplementary Report to the Planning Committee meeting on 14 December. It will be interesting to see which change, if any, having the true facts, with supporting evidence, will have on the outcome of the application!

[]

Philip Grant.

Brent Council, the developer’s friend – the proof in black and white

Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity):-

 

Extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

It looks bad. It looks wrong. That’s why I will persist in shining a light on the Brent Cabinet decision to allow a developer to profit from the sale of 152 new Council homes, to be built on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, until either the Council provides a satisfactory explanation of why that is the right thing to do, or agrees it is wrong and that all 250 homes in that development should be for Brent people in housing need.

 

In an article last month, I shared the information I’d received from a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise, in April 2021, which was supposedly to find out whether developers would be interested in being part of the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. But some of the information I’d asked for was withheld by Brent’s Head of Regeneration, who claimed that it was excluded from disclosure because:

 

·      It contained information obtained from and related to the financial and business affairs of 5 private developers (Confidentiality - Section 41 of FOIA);

·      It would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority holding it (Commercially Sensitive – S.43(2) FOIA); and,

·      That in applying the public interest test required by S.43(2), ‘it is considered that the balance of maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.’

 

On 12 December 2021, I sent an Internal Review request, setting out (with detailed reasons) why information prepared for Cabinet by Council Officers as a result of the exercise was not exempt information under FOIA, and why it was in the public interest that it should be disclosed. I agreed that if a report included confidential information received from developers, that could be redacted (blacked out) in the copy of the report sent to me.

 

I received the Council’s response on 15 January from Alice Lester, Operational Director (Regeneration, Growth and Employment). On a careful reading of her letter, I can’t see that she actually admitted any error in the initial refusal of my request. But her letter concluded: ‘However, I agree that a redacted copy of the report could be provided and this is attached.’ It is always worth sticking up for what you believe, if you think the Council has got it wrong!

 

In the interests of fairness to all five developers, and to show that I am keeping what they told Brent Council confidential, here is the second page of the report I was sent:-

 

Second extract from the “Soft Market Testing” report to Cabinet, August 2021.

 

I was expecting those sections of the report to be blacked out, but I was surprised to see that part of the last sentence of the “Market Commentary”, written by Officers, was also redacted:

 

The opening section of the report to Cabinet in August 2021.
[Don’t worry! The pipelines developers were talking about are forward plans to ensure they get as much work lined-up for future years as possible.]

 

The first version of the document sent to me was followed by an urgent request not to open it, as ‘it appears that the attachment wasn’t properly redacted.’ I didn’t open it, but waited for the corrected version (above). As that concealed words I believed should probably be disclosed, I did then look at the original, and although those words had also been blacked out, they weren’t securely redacted.  

 

I wrote to Ms Lester on Monday 17^th, to explain why I should be able to make the last seven words public, and on 19 January I received another ‘revised redacted document’.  The explanation was: ‘After further consultation with legal colleagues, the words to which you refer have been unredacted.’ After two challenges, I had finally been given information that I was entitled to request in the first place.

 

I can see why Brent’s senior Regeneration Officers might have wanted to keep these seven words about the developers from the public: ‘… and all stated interest in this opportunity.’ 

 

Of course all the developers were interested! The market opportunity they were offered was so “soft” that I don’t think any contractor / property developer would be likely to turn it down. Which begs the question, was that the answer that Regeneration Officers (and the Lead Member?) wanted from the “market testing”, so that they could put the idea of involving a developer as the ‘preferred delivery option’ for this scheme?

 

Normally a developer would have to find a site to build homes on, buy it (very expensive in London), get an architect’s team to design the proposed scheme for them, go through the planning process, then build the homes before it could get any return on its development, for which it would have borrowed £millions, over several years, in order to finance.

 

The key page from Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

 

The opportunity Brent was offering, in its “market testing exercise”, was to pay whichever developer won the “procurement and contract structure” bid outlined above for building the Council’s housing scheme. Once built, the Council would agree to sell the developer 152 homes, for a fixed price agreed in advance. That price would have been included in the developer’s ‘bid submission’ for the contract, and none of the developers bidding would have offered ‘a guaranteed monetary consideration’ that would not give them a profit!

 

The report which included this “Confidential Appendix” went to Brent’s Cabinet in August 2021, and you can see from the minutes how enthusiastic they were about the proposals:-

 

Did none of the Cabinet members stop to think, and ask: ‘why are we handing half of the homes on this Council housing development to a private developer?’ Perhaps they were taken in by the statement in the Officer’s Report: ‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated [this] preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site ….’? 

 

As I set out in my earlier article about the “soft market testing”, that consultation appears to have been “off record” and may have involved as few as two Cabinet members (the Leader and Lead Member for Regeneration). Didn’t other Cabinet members reading that think: ‘I don’t remember being consulted’, and if they did, why didn’t they question it?

 

Cabinet members apparently enthused about ‘the inclusion of London Affordable Rents as part of the offer’. Most of these would actually be the 54 homes on the Ujima House site, only 8 of which would be 3-bedroom “family homes” (with a 5sqm balcony as private outdoor space!). I had emailed the Cabinet members several days before, to highlight the problems with this Wembley Housing Zone scheme, and the need for more homes to be for genuine social rents.

 

Perhaps the Cabinet members didn’t have time to read my email before the meeting, but apart from a couple of automatic acknowledgements, none of them responded. I had to ask a public question for the Full Council meeting in November, and a follow-up question, but I still didn’t get any proper explanation for the Cabinet’s decision from Cllr. Shama Tatler.

 

Cllr. Tatler claimed that making all the Wembley Housing Zone homes affordable ‘is not financially viable’. How could it NOT be financially viable? The Council already owns the site. The Council could borrow the money to build the homes at some of the lowest ever interest rates. 

 

In answer to my straight question: ‘why is Brent Council not proposing to build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue as affordable rented Council housing?’ Cllr. Tatler’s reply was: ‘the Wembley Housing Zone programme together proposes 50% affordable housing.’ 50% affordable housing is Brent, and London’s, target for all large private housing developments, even though that is rarely, if ever, achieved in the planning process.

 

Cecil Avenue is a Brent Council development, on Council owned land. The Council has paid (with public money from the GLA) to design the scheme and get it through planning consent. The Council will borrow the money to build the 250 homes. Why shouldn’t all of those homes be Council homes?

 

I make no apology for sharing again this parody of a Brent Council publicity photograph for its New Council Homes campaign. It shows exactly what Brent’s Cabinet has agreed should happen Cecil Avenue. 

 

If you want to deliver 1,000 new Council homes in Brent, why “give away” 152 of the new Council homes you are building at Cecil Avenue to a private developer? One way the Council seems to have compensated for this is to agree to buy a tower block with 155 leasehold flats from the developer of the Alperton Bus Garage site, at a cost of £48m. That guaranteed sale of one third of the homes will help the developer, Telford Homes, to obtain the finance to actually build this high-rise scheme, which was strongly opposed by local residents.

 

Why are a small number of Cabinet Members and Senior Council Officers seemingly favouring private developers like this? Why are their fellow Cabinet members not questioning why? Why are Brent’s Scrutiny Committees not asking for explanations? Why are the rest of Brent’s elected councillors not asking the Leader or Lead Member for Regeneration “Why”?

 

IT LOOKS BAD. IT LOOKS WRONG. 

 

Why is it left to an ordinary member of the public to ask WHY?

Philip Grant.