Council housing – does Brent know what it is doing?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An aerial view of the Newland Court estate. (From Google Maps satellite view)

 

Although much of the attention at the 15 November Planning Committee meeting will be on the deferred Kilburn Square application, there is another Council infill housing application which may well be on the agenda. 

 

Brent New Council Homes Programme’s Newland Court garages proposals (22/3124) were first submitted on 7 September 2022. Many residents, both on the estate and whose homes backed onto the very narrow site, objected to the plans. My own objection was mainly because the established trees along the boundary, protected as part of the Barn Hill Conservation Area, grow both over and under the site, making it impractical for the proposed development.

 

Brent’s April 2023 revised five homes plan for the Newland Court infill scheme.

 

Although Planning Officers should have refused the application, they instead allowed the Council’s architects and planning agent to submit revised plans in April, which reduced the number of homes from seven to five (so extra cost, reduced viability). Surely this scheme could not go ahead? I’m grateful to Marc, and other Newland Court residents, for their permission to quote from correspondence they have received from Brent Council over recent months, which has inspired the title of this guest post.

 

As this threat of a detrimental development had been hanging over her head for a year, one resident wrote to Brent Council’s Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods in September 2023, to ask what was going on. This was the reply she received, from Brent’s Tenancy and Neighbourhoods Service Manager on 18 September:

 

‘Thank you for your e-mail dated 5 September, which is addressed to Kate Dian, Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods.

 

Newland Road is not a Private Road, as the site is own by the Council and based on a public land.

 

Due to current financial pressure the proposed infill will not go ahead. This has now been confirmed by our housing supply and partnership services.

 

Your site is included in the next round of consultation for ‘Off street-controlled parking’. We expect the consultation to take place before the end of this calendar year. As the proposed infill will not go ahead, the associated cost and its implications are now not relevant issues, which requires further clarity.’

 

The reply was shared with her neighbours, to great relief, although there was some puzzlement over the reference that “Newland Road” ‘is not a Private Road’, as the Council’s signs at either end of it say the opposite.

 

Signs at the gated entrance to one end of the Newland Court estate road.
(Courtesy of Michelle Hart)

 

Marc, one of the Newland Court residents who has been leading the battle against the plans, and the way in which he and his neighbours have been treated by the Council over them, was not convinced by this “good news”. He’d been told that Brent’s application would be going to Planning Committee on 18 October. He wrote to the Lead Member for Housing, seeking clarification, and this was the response he received on 4 October:

 

‘Dear Marc,

 

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry. I have now had an opportunity to review this matter and liaised with the development team; my findings are as follows.

 

As you will appreciate there is a chronic housing shortage in Brent, which the Council is committed to addressing, by utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.

 

Although building costs have increased due to the current economic climate, the Council are reviewing the pipeline and will continue to pursue planning permission for schemes within the New Council Homes Programme, including the Newland Court development site: should planning approval be secured, then an extensive financial review to assess the financial viability of each development going forward will be undertaken.

 

At this stage, no formal decision about the Newland Court development proposal has been made and on behalf of the Council I would like to sincerely apologise for any confusion caused because of recent communication which has been circulated.

 

I recognise this may not be the response you hoped for and note your comments, but I trust the above clarifies the Council’s position in respect of this matter.

 

Cllr Promise Knight
Stonebridge Ward
Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security’

 

So, Brent Council’s housing team is spending time and money, pressing on with seeking planning consent for schemes (often small ones) which it doesn’t know whether it will ever be able to afford to build.

 

I have to say, yet again, that if they had got on and built the 250 homes on the vacant Council-owned brownfield site at Cecil Avenue (the former Copland School), which they obtained full planning consent for in February 2021, and built them all as Council homes, they would have done much better in ‘utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.’ Instead, those homes won’t be available until  2026, 152 of them will be sold privately by Brent’s “developer partner”, and only 59 will be for Council tenants at London Affordable Rent.

 

The Rokesby Place car park on 3 October 2023.

 

They received planning consent for at least two small infill schemes last year. The August 2022 Planning Committee meeting approved Brent’s application to build two four-bedroom houses on the car park at Rokesby Place. These were supposed to be homes at Social Rent level, for Brent families in housing need, although Planning Officers changed that to London Affordable Rent (which would be £772 a year more, at 2022/23 levels).

 

By November 2022, Brent’s Cabinet were told that Rokesby Place would not be viable as genuinely affordable housing, so that one of the two houses might have to be sold privately. Even then, no action seems to have been taken to build the two houses, as shown by the recent photograph of the car park “site” above.

 

In December 2022, Planning Committee approved another Brent two houses infill application, for the garage site behind homes at Broadview (a late 1950s Wembley Council estate in Kingsbury, now with many houses privately-owned through “right to buy”). They did so despite misleading information from Planning Officers, which had been brought to their attention by objectors!

 

Has any progress been made on building those “much needed Council homes”? None that I can see, and I suspect that they will never be built. The houses on this tiny unsuitable site would cost more than usual to build because they would need extensive soundproofing (because they would be just 20 metres from the Jubilee Line tracks), and will need a special water tank constructed under the front forecourt (as fire engines could not get close enough to them, because of a long access drive only 2 metres wide).

 

Cllrs Butt, Tatler and Knight at the Watling Gardens “groundbreaking” event, October 2023.
(Brent Council publicity photograph)

 

Brent Council does claim that it is having some success in “Delivering New Council Homes”, as shown by this staged photograph taken at Watling Gardens. Their planning application was submitted in 2021, and received full consent in April 2022. Eighteen months later, they are just starting work on the project, and it will be ‘winter 2025’ before the homes are finally “delivered”.

 

That is not all. The Council’s June 2022 press release, headed “Another 125 new council homes for local families”, was rather misleading, as a blog by Martin at the time pointed out. 42 Council homes are being demolished to make way for the redevelopment, and 34 of the new homes will be used to house displaced tenants. 45 will be 1-bedroom “independent living” flats for elderly people (not for families). The Cabinet decided that 24 of the remainder should be “converted” from London Affordable Rent to shared ownership. That leaves only 22 of these “New Council Homes” available for local people waiting for a genuinely affordable home to rent.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security,
in a July 2022 Brent PR video promoting its Clement Close infill proposals.

 

There is no dispute that Brent needs thousands more genuinely affordable homes to rent, and the borough’s Labour leadership promised to build 1,000 of these in the five years up to March 2024, and a further 700 (part-funded by a promise of over £100m from the GLA) by 2028.

 

I agree with the Council that the steep rise in the cost of building materials, and in interest rates, has made their task more difficult. But poor decision making, and poor advice from some Council Officers, have played a big part in delaying some schemes, and seeing others put on hold.

 

Why has so much time and effort (and money) gone into small infill schemes which common sense should have told them would never work, either practically or financially?

 

Why have they wasted two years trying to push through an unacceptable proposal for Kilburn Square (missing out on the chunk of GLA 2016-2023 Affordable Homes Programme funding which would have been available), when if they had worked with the local community on a smaller scheme, construction could already be underway?

 

And to go back to my original question on Council housing: ‘does Brent know what it is doing?’

Philip Grant

'NEWLAND COURT - POSTSCRIPT:

A number of Newland Court residents have copied me into emails they have sent in the past ten days to Brent's Council Leader, Chief Executive, Planning Committee members and others at the Civic Centre.

These emails have listed what is wrong with the plans for their estate, the lack of any meaningful consultation with them over the proposals, the ignoring of their objections by Planning Officers, the Council's off-hand responses to correspondence over the proposals (one example: email responses 'seem like the respondent is reading of a script like a cold fish. We are not stupid, please get to the facts and stop insulting our intelligence.'), and they have called for the Planning Committee to visit the estate and see for themselves how ridiculous the plans are.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, or his Complaints and Casework Officer on his behalf (it's interesting that the Council Leader needs his own Complaints Officer!), has sent a letter to one of the residents, copied to others who have drawn these important issues to his attention. It says:

'Your enquiry has been forwarded to the respective department, who will look into the issue and make every effort to resolve it.'

I will ask Martin to add a copy of the "Office of the Leader" letter below my article above, as evidence of his apparent indifference to the views of local residents, who are also Council housing estate tenants and leaseholders.

 

 

 

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’s “secret” Council Housing projects – now in the public domain!

 Guest post by Philip Grant

A month ago, Martin published the above map, from a report to Brent’s July Cabinet meeting, which included the locations of a number of the Council’s “infill” housing projects which were ‘not yet in public domain’.

 

I believe that our Council should be open with residents, especially those who will be most directly affected, about what its plans are (and I will say more about that later!). I added a comment to Martin’s 30 July blog, saying that I had asked for some information on the four ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes in Fryent Ward, where I live. 

 

I have now received a reply to that request, so am writing this to share that information with you. If you know anyone who lives in, or near, any of these estates, please bring this article to their attention, so that they are aware of what may be in store for their home. The Council estates mentioned below are Campbell Court, Elvin Court, Westcroft Court, Broadview (and Gauntlett Court in Sudbury).

 

Aerial view of Campbell Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury and surrounding area. (Source: Google Maps)

 

The four three-storey blocks of flats (diagonal to Church Lane) which make up Campbell Court were built around 1950, as part of Wembley’s post-war Council housing programme. They were named after a Second World War Mayor of the borough, Malcolm Campbell. As you can see, the compact site includes grassy areas and trees, pairs of senior citizens’ bungalows between each block and small access drives for deliveries and parking.

 

Like all of the four Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes, I was told that: ‘at present, the project is at the Feasibility stage’, and that: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage.’ “Feasibility” implies that they are looking at whether the project is possible (either structurally or financially), but Brent’s Cabinet have been told that 97 new homes could be delivered on this small estate. That suggests Council Officers already have a pretty firm idea of what they have in mind, even though they have not yet let residents there know what it is, or given them the chance to have their say!

 

The information I have now been given is that the Council are looking at a ‘mixture of rooftop development and infill’, with ‘1-2 stories added to Campbell [Court]’. Infill would inevitably mean the loss of some of the green space and mature trees around the existing homes. It would also mean more residents sharing a smaller amenity space. 

 

Building an extra one or two storeys onto the existing blocks may well be structurally possible. However, it would mean (quite apart from the disruption to the lives of existing residents during the construction work) some overshadowing and overlooking of the 1930s suburban homes in Boycroft Avenue, whose gardens back onto the estate. 

 

Gauntlett Court flats under construction, June 1950. (Brent Archives online image 3850)

 

Although it is in Sudbury, not Fryent, I will also mention the ‘not yet in public domain’ scheme for Gauntlett Court here. This Wembley Council estate was also built in 1950, with blocks to the same design as those at Campbell Court, and it too was named after a wartime Mayor, Herbert Gauntlett. You can read more about it in Sudbury – Then and Now (no.20).

 

The expected number of new homes on this site is 120. There is a small “green” between some of the blocks which could be “at risk” if the Council’s plans include “infill”, but otherwise it seems likely that “rooftop development” would be involved, adding one or more storeys to the existing blocks.

 

Elvin Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury.

 

Like Campbell Court, Wembley Council’s Elvin Court flats were built on a narrow strip of land alongside Church Lane. You can see the grass verge and access road (for deliveries and emergency vehicles) in front of the three-storey blocks, and there is a similar width behind them, before a line of trees which separates the estate from houses in Sycamore Grove.

 

These flats were built in the late 1950s / early 1960s, and named after Sir Arthur Elvin, a Freeman of the Borough of Wembley who had died in 1957. Some of the first tenants were families transferred from temporary “pre-fab” homes which had been built around the edge of Silver Jubilee Park in 1946.

 

The map above shows 40 new homes expected to be provided at Elvin Court. The information I have received says that this will be through ‘a mixture of rooftop development and infill’, and that, like Campbell Court, it would involve ‘1-2 stories added’. Once again: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage’.

 

Maisonettes built by Wembley Council c.1960, at 353-359 Kingsbury Road.

 

The next Council estate where some new homes are proposed (but ‘not yet in public domain’) was actually part of Wembley’s post-War “pre-fabs” programme. In 1945, the Council had requisitioned spare land belonging to the Victoria Dance Hall in Kingsbury Road, and erected temporary factory-made bungalows there. These “pre-fabs” housed families until the late 1950s, and when they were demolished, Wembley Council built some attractive two-storey yellow-brick maisonettes, to the east of what had then become the Ritz Ballroom.

 

Development of the rest of the site was held up, because “the Ritz” was purchased by National Car Parks Ltd. From 1961, they submitted several planning applications for a petrol station and some housing. After a public inquiry in 1963, they were allowed to build their garage and car showroom (now the site of Kwikfit). As part of a land-swap deal, Wembley Council built a nine-storey block of 2-bedroom flats, and six 3-bedroom maisonettes in three-storey blocks, where the dance hall and its social club had stood. These were called Westcroft Court, after the old name of the field (most of which now forms part of Roe Green Park).

 

Westcroft Court, Kingsbury Road, opposite Roe Green Park.

 

The scheme which Brent Council are now looking at would add 16 new homes at Westcroft Court. I have been told that they do not intend to add any extra storeys to the main block (this may be because they already receive a good income from the mobile phone masts on its roof!), but that they are looking at part demolition and redevelopment on this small estate. 

 

The last of the proposed Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes would be at Broadview, part of another Wembley Borough Council housing development. This small estate of semi-detached family homes was built around 1960, on a triangle of land between Fryent Way and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) Line, just south of Kingsbury Station. Some of the original tenants were transferred here from the Pilgrims Way “pre-fab” estate, 114 factory-made aluminium bungalows erected after the Second World War as a temporary solution to the post-war housing shortage.

 

This proposal would be an “infill” development, for just three homes, described to me as ‘on garage site’. I have marked this site on the aerial view below, and you will see how small it is, tucked away behind the end houses in the road, and bordered by the tube line and the edge of Fryent Country Park. There is only a narrow access road to the site, between the side of a house and a wooded area of the Country Park, bordering the Gaderbrook stream, and that also provides access to the rear gardens (some with garages) of at least four homes. Space for any new homes here would be very restricted, and both the Country Park and the railway bank are local nature reserves, where the existing trees and bushes should not be destroyed.

 

Aerial view of the proposed site at Broadview, off Fryent Way, Kingsbury. (Source: Google Maps)

 

Surely the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account? We have seen recently, with its Kilburn Square housing proposals, the mess that Brent Council can get itself into by not consulting properly. 

 

In that case, it appears Council officers had already decided how many extra homes they could build on an existing Council estate, and that it would be acceptable to reduce the “green space” used by existing residents, while greatly increasing the number of people who would need to share it. This was before any “consultation”, which was then only about “design details”, not whether the scheme was one that made good sense! There is a danger that the Council will make the same mistake over its ‘not yet in public domain’ proposals.

 

Brent does need to provide more homes for people on its waiting list, but it should also take into account the needs of existing residents. The Council needs to be open and honest about what it has in mind, before any detailed proposals are made. It should discuss with those living in homes on its estates (who will include leaseholders who actually own those homes) how best extra homes could be provided. It should listen, and be prepared to think again and compromise. It should not just bulldoze through plans which might look good on paper in the Civic Centre, but would be detrimental to our borough’s community if actually built.

Philip Grant.

 

Editor's note: Yesterday the Guardian published this story when mentions the Kilburn Square development previously covered on Wembley Matters:

Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/30/protests-grow-against-new-council-homes-on-green-spaces-in-london