March 3rd - International Women's Day: SHE IS SUMMIT Valuing Girls and Women at Box Park Wembley

 

BOOK:

Part 1 Practitioners 10.00-15.30 

 Part 2 Young Women 15.30-18.00

 

She Is Summit is an opportunity to listen, better understand and seek solutions. Join us with Safer London, Brent Council, Streetgirl and Sancia Williams as we generate ideas to design multi-sectoral services to improve safety, protection and recovery, especially for those who already suffer multiple forms of discrimination.

Some mistake, surely? Brent Council wins planning awards while complaints about housing escalate

Chase House, South Kilburn

Guest post by Pete Firmin, South Kilburn Estate resident

Legend has it that emperor Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Brent Council leadership seem to be staging a modern re-enactment when, while receiving baubles for its planning team, it turns a blind eye to reports of the poor standard of housing being built.

The Council website proudly proclaims LINK 

Brent scoops planning award 

A UK planning industry award was handed to Brent council's planning team yesterday (24 April) in recognition of the projects and plans and commitments made by the team to borough.

The RTPI [Royal Town Planning Institute] awards for planning excellence is the longest running and most high-profile awards in the industry and celebrates the teams and projects that transform economies, environments and communities all over the UK and internationally.

Brent scooped the Local Authority Planning Team of the Year award ahead of nine other shortlisted authorities.

The judges noted how Brent's planning team excelled in all areas of work. They were impressed with their desire to continually reflect on their performance and look for ways to develop and improve their service.

Cllr Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning, said:

"This is a great achievement and one that we should be proud of. We were up against some of the best nationally to win Planning Team of the Year and it just shows that we are on the right path with what we are doing here in Brent for residents, creating new homes, opportunities and building a better borough.

In stark contrast, about the same time, Catalyst Housing announced that all residents would have to leave Merle Court in Carlton Vale within 18 months. Not only has the flammable cladding on the building to be removed, but Catalyst say that the need for major internal works mean residents have to move out.

In recent months local Councillors and the MP, Tulip Siddiq, have received many complaints from residents of Argo House in Kilburn Park road of major problems, including poor ventilation, internal mould, intermittent hot water and heating, loose cables and loose cladding. Residents also say they are getting little or now support from the property managers or Home Group Housing association.

A few weeks ago, residents of Chase House in Hansel Road tweeted photos of the state of their bloc, including mould. This week the Kilburn Times picks up on that LINK but with the additional facts this concerns not just Chase House, but also Franklin House (Carlton Vale) and Hollister House on Kilburn Park Road. The common factor to all three is that they are all managed by L & Q. Their common problems are like those of Argo House.

Such problems are not new. Like Merle Court, Swift House and George House (managed by L & Q) on Albert Road, have flammable cladding and have had 24-hour firewatch since shortly after the Grenfell tragedy. L & Q is currently in the process of removing the cladding on Swift House, which means residents are surrounded by ugly scaffold for an extended period.

George House also needed a new roof after the previous one leaked. It still has flat roofs which collect water.

Kilburn Quarter (Network Homes, Cambridge Road) had to have their balconies waterproofed after it was discovered they were leaking.

These problems come on top of a myriad of lesser issues (though not to the residents…) that have been reported for years, as well as issues of rocketing service charges imposed.

What all these properties have in common is that they have been built as part of Brent Council’s regeneration of South Kilburn. All are new, and the problems are common to both “social” and market-price residents.

Before this latest award, Brent won several plaudits for its “flagship” regeneration and refused to listen to those residents and community activists, including the local Kilburn branch of the Labour Party, who tried to raise these issues.

Clearly the problems are common to several different property developers and housing associations. Despite the awards (which never seem to involve local people among their judges), builders and housing associations have been taking advantage of Brent’s enthusiasm for regeneration to build sub-standard housing.

Brent appears to want to disclaim any responsibility for these problems, referring all enquiries from journalists about Merle Court to Catalyst without comment. However, not only was Merle Court built in partnership with Brent Council, but Brent gave panning permission for all these blocks (which replace previous Council housing). They are all part of the Council’s regeneration of South Kilburn, and social tenants in them were referred on by Brent after their Council housing was demolished. Brent shares some responsibility for this situation beyond simply being the Local Authority in which poor quality housing exists.

The concern is that, with South Kilburn regeneration to continue for many years, and Brent wanting to “regenerate” St Raphaels estate, we can see further similar problems.

South Kilburn residents and community activists are, however, getting organised. As well as calling for current faults to be rectified, we must call for a halt to regeneration until Brent and the community, are satisfied that housing is build to a decent standard and housing associations and property managers take real responsibility for their buildings.

-->

Some vital additional information on South Kilburn for Brent Cabinet

The South Kilburn Regeneration is on the Cabinet agenda tonight and members are updated on progress. They are given an officer's report that went to Scrutiny Committee but not a report from Scrutiny Committee itself.

So that they can be informed I print below the Minutes of that meeting including points made by Pete Firm for the residents and tenants and the Committee's request for further information.

Readers may be interested to hear that another report reveals that the South Kilburn Trust has c£6m in its coffers LINK  

The Chair invited Pete Firmin, Chair of the Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association to address the committee.  He referred to the circulated report and stated that whilst it updated the committee there was no reference to some of the problems that had arisen from the redevelopment of the area.  There was a need to critically appraise the project, review the balance between the provision of private and social housing and the implications of the delays to the project.  He stated that the experience of contractors working with local people had not been all good.  A new health centre was being provided but this was needed for the existing population before it increased from the new housing being provided.  Pete Firmin also referred to a lack of consultation on the changes resulting from HS2.  He felt that as the regeneration project moved forward there needed to be a new commitment to work with local residents.  In response Richard Barrett (Operational Director, Property and Projects) replied that the report before the committee provided a broad outline of activity.  He acknowledged that there was now a need to engage local people in the review of the South Kilburn masterplan.  Councillor McLennan (Lead Member for Housing and Development) reminded the committee that the remit of the South Kilburn regeneration programme was to provide new housing with every secure tenant being offered housing within the redeveloped scheme.  She responded to the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation and assured the committee that there was engagement with the local community and the regeneration scheme was giving hope to people that things would get better. 

Questions were asked regarding how many units of social housing were being provided as compared to private housing.  Councillor McLennan undertook to provide this figure.  It was pointed out that successive schemes within the project appeared to result in the provision of less social housing. Concern was expressed that as budgets got tighter less social housing would be provided.  Richard Barrett clarified that the target was to provide 50% social housing within the regeneration scheme overall. 

Members enquired about the slippage to the programme and how local residents were informed of this.  Richard Barrett stated that he attended a tenants steering group every 2-3 months to keep them up to date.  He agreed that the delays were unwelcome and led to longer periods of disruption for local people.  However, the scheme still offered local people the best opportunity for moving into better accommodation.   

Reference was made to complaints received from residents about the behaviour of some contractors.  It was explained that it was the responsibility of Brent Housing Partnership or the housing associations to work with the contractors. It was recognised that the Catalyst scheme had been the worst managed scheme and this had been raised with the developer and lessons learnt from it. 

Questions were asked about employment opportunities within the area created by the regeneration programme.  In answer to a question about Coventry Close, Richard Barratt explained that this was outside the regeneration area but the opportunity was being taken to try to influence the improvement of the area. The Committee heard how work with the police attempted to design out trouble spots within the new redevelopments.  Members were interested in receiving more information on this. 

Members were also concerned that the planned expansion of local schools would provide sufficient places for local children.  Richard Barrett explained the plans for the expansion of Carlton Vale Infants and Kilburn Park Junior schools.  He explained that discussions were ongoing to get agreement to an arrangement that both schools supported but that it was at an early stage.

Members expressed their continuing concern over the need to provide better outcomes for local people and not just provide new housing.  At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Conneely addressed the committee and stated that local people were very concerned about the way they were being decanted and moved back into the area.  There was concern that local communities were being split up and the implication of this particularly for older people.  She wanted to see the process completed on time and people treated fairly.  Richard Barrett replied that every tenant was visited to assess their needs for the property they were moving in to.  In partnership with the housing service, decanted flats were being used for temporary accommodation.  Members asked for more detail on how this arrangement was working. 

The Chair thanked Councillor McLennan and Richard Barrett for their attendance.  

Requests for information:

·         accurate figures on the number of social housing units existing pre redevelopment and the number post redevelopment compared to the number of private units provided.

·         members to be provided with a schedule of rents for the area including a comparison with the pre redevelopment level of rents.

·         a population profile for the area showing how the number of people was projected to rise.

·         information on employment in the area so that it could be seen if the regeneration of the area was leading to a rising employment rate.

·         more information on how the plans for the area attempted to design out potential crime and the involvement of the police in this.

·         more information on the use of decanted units to house homeless people, including the number involved, the timeframes involved and the financial considerations.

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

Developer's perspective & that of residents at odds

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

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

We’ve had enough!

Motion to the AGM of Alpha, Gorefield & Canterbury TRA

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

In fact: 

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

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

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

Rather:

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

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

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

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