Key questions on Wembley regeneration for Scrutiny Committee

£

The Wembley skyline from Chalkhill Park

Tonight's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee is discussing a report on Wembley Regeneration LINK this evening.

The report by Amar Dave, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, reads more like a public relations plug for Quintain than an objective, warts and all assessment of the regeneration of Wembley so far.

The Scrutiny Committee are asked merely to note the contents of the report but I hope they will go a lot further in assessing this multi-million project.

Apart from the issue of  the 17.8m payment of CIL money for improvements to the public realm around Wembley Stadium, which includes new steps to replace the present stadium entrance ramps, there are other issues worthy of probing questions from committee members.

The issue of the provision of truly affordable housing looms large for many Brent people and the report claims that over 30% of the housing provided is affordable. This raises the question, aired many times on Wembley Matters, of what is meant by affordable. The committee should seek precise figures on how much has been provided at 80%, 65%, or 50% of marker rent or at the London Living Rent recommended by the GLA. What proportion of the housing could be afforded by Brent residents earning the median family income for the borough?

There is increasing criticism of the way high rise buildings are being squeezed into every available space by Quintain and it is worth assessing to what extent they have departed from the original plans and whether this more speculative build is the result of Quintain's takeover by Texas Star. The report merely notes that the acquisition has accelerated delivery without discussing whether this has led to any deterioration in quality.

Planning officers' recommendation of granting of planning permission even when  buildings do not meet London or Brent planning guidelines on factors such as height, light and density deserve probing as does the controversy surrounding the leader of the council's and lead member's meetings with developers.

The amount of student accommodation in the area deserves consideration following the planning department's decision to move the goal posts. They now assess the proportion against the target in terms of future build rather than current build enabling more applications to be approved.

The report makes great claims for job creation but the committee should be interested in the quality and sustainability of the jobs created, the proportion that are low paid or zero hours contracts as well as the number of jobs that have been lost when small businesses have moved out to make way for more high rise blocks.

There are many more issues but one of the most pressing is the plan to build a new three form entry primary free school, to be run by Ark,  on the site of the York House car park. Its position on a road with heavy polluting traffic and on a small site that necessitates a roof top playground has been criticised, but whether such a school is needed is also subject to debate.



 

So where has Brent Council's CIL cash gone?

The £17.8m Community Infrastructure Levy allocated to infrastructure improvement by Brent Council to the area around the stadium, including the replacement of the ramp by steps, has rightly caused considerable controversy. 

Quintain's total CIL liability to date is  £31.8m of which £11.4m has been paid. Add in the £17.8m and there isn't a lot left.

Of the total CIL monies 85% is alllocated to major infrastructure projects and 15% to Neighbourhood Projects.

These are the allocations for Round 1 of the Neighbourhood CIL projects. Around £250,000 went to projects in the Wembley area (Click square on bottom right to enlarge):

Another round of applications closes in June 2018.

In addition  Quintain and its development partners Wates, McLaren, Jon Sisk and Son, McAleer and Rushe have set up the Wembley Community Fund for projects in Wembley Park and 'the surrounding area'. Grants are betweem £1,000 and £10,000.

These are its allocations so far:

Is Brent's gift of £17.8m to Quintain and the F.A. a step too far?

The steps that will replace the ramp - courtesy of Brent Council Tax payers

Last summer on July 24th a decision was made by the Brent Council Cabinet to spend £17.8m of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies on 'Strategic Infrastructure improvements' on Wembley Stadium and Olympic Way. Although I reported this on Wembley Matters at the time LINK under the headline 'Is £17.8m spend on Wembley Stadium public realm a good use of CIL cash?' the decision caused little discussion at the time. It was Item 24 on the Cabinet agenda and it was the beginning of the summer holiday.

Now Paul Lorber, former leader of Brent Liberals on the council, and others are querying the expenditure.  It is worth recalling the original Quintain statement about one part of the expenditure, the replacement of the stadium entrance ramps with steps:

No mention in 2007  that Brent Council would end up paying for the 'world-class entrance to the world-class Stadium.'

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting of July 24th records Shama Tatler's justification for in effective giving back to Quintain and the Football Association (owners of Wembley Stadium) a significant amount of the CIL raised Quintain's development.  Part of the motivation to handover the cash was to get an assurance that the area outside the Civic Centre (the library entrance side) would not be built up with yet another high rise development. Brent Council had previously given outline planning permission for the site.

Councillor Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills, introduced the item and spoke about the regeneration of Wembley and the need to support the ongoing transformation of the area into a thriving, attractive environment. Councillor Tatler informed Cabinet there was scope to use some of the strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds which had been raised as a consequence of development in the area, to invest in the public realm along Olympic Way. She said that enhancing the public realm was a key element in a step change of the positive experience the Council was aiming to achieve for residents and visitors, including an environment which would encourage people to dwell both before and after events. In addition, the arrangement would also ensure that the space outside the Civic Centre, currently subject to a planning permission which could be implemented, was used to contribute to the proposed educational quarter and provide more of a public square. Councillor Tatler said that this would be a joint project with Quintain and the Stadium and referred to a letter from Quintain (see Appendix 1 to the report on page 605 to the Agenda pack). She added that the report sought the approval for funds up to £17.8 million to accelerate the delivery of the public realm in two zones – B and C, with public realm works Zone A being entirely funded by Quintain (see page 594-602 to the Agenda pack).

Councillor Miller commented that the proposal was focused on a concentrated area, but it would have significant national impact. In relation to the rest of the Community Infrastructure Levy contribution, Councillor Tatler confirmed that options to spend it across the Borough would be considered.   

Zone A is Olympic Way, Zone B the area around the ramp from Olympic Way up to Bridge Road and Zone C the stadium ramp.

Brent Council made the following responses to Paul Lorber's request for further information on the plans:

“By copy perhaps the Chief Executive can explain why at a time when basic services to local residents are being starved of money the Council could possibly agree to hand over £17 million of CIL money to one entity - Quintain - a company owned mainly by an equity fund based in Bermuda. Were the Cabinet Members aware that they were handing public money to a company owned from a Tax Haven?”

The decision was made by Cabinet, to support the regeneration of Wembley Park and the role that the Stadium has not only in that, but as a piece of national infrastructure. The Cabinet report is available here (see item 24).

The decision builds upon the existing partnership between the council, Quintain and the FA to enhance Wembley Park, and must be considered not only in terms of the economic benefit which the regeneration brings to Wembley and the wider borough, but also in terms of the international reputation and national benefit associated with the location of the Stadium – which necessitates appropriate investment to create a world class public realm to go alongside it. 

The location of the ownership of Quintain was not relevant to decision, which was focussed on public realm improvements and the enhancement of Wembley Park. Cabinet resolved that the contribution is contingent on Quintain fulfilling a number of requirements for the public benefit:

a)       Not pursuing development of site NW04 adjacent to the Civic Centre to the extent currently permitted in the parameters plans associated with outline planning permission 10/3032.

b)       Working with the Council to deliver a development that better complements the role and setting of the Civic Centre, in particular creating a significant new square outside the Civic Centre Library.

c)       Agreeing a business plan and heads of terms, between Quintain and the council, for the future sharing and reinvestment of net income generated through assets on Olympic Way.

Paul Lorber replied:
 

I note that the CIL money will be used for “strategic infrastructure projects” and the Council is considering which ones. How did it come about that £17.8 million was allocated to one project before the process of considering which projects to fund have been listed or even consulted on?

As you know Councillors (including members of the Cabinet) receive hospitality from both Quintain and the FA and it seems odd that a decision on one project was made in such a rush without being assessed against a list of others.

It also seems very odd that part of this substantial sum seem to be a ‘bribe’ to persuade Quintain not to build a large building next to the Civic Centre - why would this be such an important priority for millions of public funds?

As you know many residents around Wembley and Alperton are very concerned at the height of some buildings given planning permission. In view of the approach in respect of the site next to the Civic Centre why would it not be appropriate for residents of Alperton to ask that the developer of the site on the corner of Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road to be paid a chunk of CIL money to persuade them to reduce their tower from the 26 Storeys to say a more reasonable 12?

 I hope that the priority for the £17.8 million decision has nothing to do with the fact that the Stadium is in the ward of the Leader of the Council.

In any case the report clearly does not identify other priorities in Brent in need of substantial funding. The Budget report for example identifies £300,000 shortfall of funding from the Mayor of London and of course CIL money could be allocated to Bridge this gap. 

My biggest issue is of course public money being handed over to a private company which is owned by Investors who are based in Bermuda for obvious tax reasons - when there is such a desperate need for cash to deal with the massive backlog of work to Brent’s crumbling roads and pavements. 

If the Council had consulted properly local residents would have made their views very clear. Every time they ask for anything to be done in their street - pavements, roads or verges - the answer is always the same “there is no money”.

That answer is of course not true as a staggering £17.8 million is being spent on something that most people in Brent do not regard as a priority.

in my view a wrong decision was made and Councillors were not given the right advice or proper options before making their decision. Sometimes officers advising should put themselves in the shoes of local residents - this might help determine local spending priorities.

Cllr Tatler challenged on Wembley Regeneration's alleged benefits

 

Brent Council 2002

I have received the following Anonymous guest blog in reaction to the lead members' Q&As published earlier LINK:

I read your blog about the forthcoming Full Council Meeting with intrigue, particularly the question  “1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:”  and the fantastical answer given by Councillor Tatler. I have added a few follow up questions that should now be asked. 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion.”

Additional Questions:  The public consensus is that they have failed miserably in their task, even the Daily Mail agree.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress”.

Additional Questions: That may be true, but it is a shame it has produced such an unqualified mess, just ask residents and the Daily Mail. The planning process has created a shambolic development becoming know as Rent City where there is no community, just a never ending churn of unknowns.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:  A 7 hectare public park”.

Additional Questions: Where is this then? Not another paved concourse with token raised planters and a few sapling trees, I hope.

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision”.

Additional Questions: Where abouts are these then?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Primary health care facility (1500m minimum)”.

Additional Questions:  According to the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at a recent meeting in public, this facility was turned down by the Council and is now used as a Gym.  If untrue, where is the Primary Health Care Facility?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “ Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area”.

Additional Questions:  Details please?  How much?  Aren’t all Brent Secondary Schools academies? Aren’t academies funded directly by the DoE!!!

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates”.

Additional Questions: Where is this located then??

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground - stations to improve capacity and the environment”.

Additional Questions:  Details please? or is this the £17million of CIL the Council are going to spend to improve the Quintain Development Area? This includes Olympic Way? where the Stadium ramps will be replaced by stairs (no doubt to fit another tower block or two? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects”.

Additional Questions:  Isn’t this money being spent across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road”.

Additional Questions:  Example please? The roads around the Triangle are normally at a standstill which delays the buses and other vehicles alike. Queues regularly form all the way back to Forty Lane.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses”.

Additional Questions:  What are these?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy”.

Additional Questions:  What are the council spending this money on? How much money excluding the CIL spent on items above?  How much is in this cash pot? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects”

Additional Questions:  This money is not being spent in the Regeneration/Development areas, it is being spread across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough”.

Additional Questions:  What is it going to be? Does the Council have any idea?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area”.

Additional Questions:  You wouldn’t have known it, is the current public consensus.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years” .

Additional Questions:  15-20 years? The powers that be cannot construct reliable plans for the short

term, so what hope have they in planning for the next 15-20 years? Is this new plan as advised by officers implying Metroland developments with their large gardens are being targeted for redeveloped into high density housing?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  "Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute" .

Additional Questions:  The Council CONSULT but do not LISTEN , and they certainly DON'T consider the views of residents or any criticism from these groups. How will this be different?

The sad decline of King Edward VII park in Wembley

On the day that Brent planning officers issued final approval for Tottenham Hotspurs' increase in full capacity events at the Stadium LINK I had sight of several emails from residents about the deterioration of King Edward VII Park on Park Lane.

As emissions from heavy vehicles, noise and dust pervade the area because of all the demolition and building work in the area King Eddies has become more important as a peaceful haven.

However budget cuts mean that the park itself is no longer regularly patrolled by wardens, waste paper bins are not emptied, graffiti has appeared on benches, and late night social drinking has increased with associated littering.

The long running drainage problem LINK remains and may have been worsened by the paving over of back gardens in houses bordering the park.  The Council is trying to persuade Thames Water to renew the main pipe.

One resident wrote:

1. Drug dealing - we have an ongoing problem with Drug Dealers dealing in the Park from approx 12.00 noon till late evening.  Despite numerous and consistent efforts by our local SNT the problem is ongoing.   They have no qualms about dealing in full view of the public, smoking around the children's play area.  The Police do not have the resources to be there everyday to deter and disrupt these youths.
2. Anti-Social Behaviour - there are still a hardcore group of drinkers who visit the park daily, especially early evening and remain long after the park is supposedly locked at night.  No only do they smash bottles and leave cans and cigarette butts all around, the are not averse to using anywhere as a public toilet.  It has been noted on many occasions that some are so drunk they think nothing of exposing themselves in broad daylight urinating in full view of park users.  This has to be stopped immediately.
3. In recent years we have had 4 stabbings in King Eddies, numerous Robbery's of phones and gold jewellery from young Asian mums who have been threatened with violence against their children in pushchairs to give up their possessions, again totally unacceptable, many of which now avoid the park at all costs. 

Although there are currently no funds for it one suggestion coming from residents is the refurbishment of the pavilion to include toilets. Having no toilet facilities available is a disincentive to use of the sports pitches,

King Edward VII Park was formerly a Green Flag winner but Brent Council withdrew from that scheme when it out-sourced parks maintenance to Veolia - it would not merit the ward at the moment.

Surely with millions being spent on the Quintain redevelopment sime CIL funds could be found to bring the park up to standard?

Have your say on how Community Infrastructure Levy is spent in Brent

From Brent Council

Brent Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Priorities 2017-2020

Title of consultation

Brent Neighbourhood CIL Priorities 2017-2020

Who is consulting?

Planning Policy & Projects

Why are we consulting?

When developers receive planning permission for some larger, new developments, they're required to make a payment to the council. This helps fund local infrastructure improvements. This payment is called Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Of this, between 15-25% of the funds has to be allocated by the Council as Neighbourhood CIL.

On the basis of feedback received from this consultation, the council will decide how to prioritise spending on particular Neighbourhood CIL funded projects. These projects could be delivered by the council if they relate to council assets, e.g. a park. The council could also deliver projects that are good ideas, but where no other body came forward to deliver them. Alternatively, the council could allocate funds to local community groups where it believes that these groups can deliver the projects themselves.

To streamline the running of Neighbourhood CIL in the borough, Brent has been divided into five local areas: Harlesden, Kilburn, Kingsbury and Kenton, Wembley and Willesden. These are large enough to generate funds that can deliver relatively big projects if this is what the community decides the funds should be spent on. The areas are, however, also  small enough to encourage communities to feel they are likely to benefit from the projects that are delivered. Ultimately, the decision on what to spend the funds on still rests with the council, but we will provide clear feedback on how we have come to any decisions.

Links

Consultation

CIL Cabinet report

CIL appendix

Developers and affordable housing, can Brent learn from Islington?

The issue of regeneration and development in London caused much controversey in London last year as property prices and rents soared and much new development was bought up by overseas investors.  In Brent the Willesden Green Library development was a prime example as the development was sold on twice and the price of a one bedroomed flat rose to £450,000. In Barnet West Hendon social housing tenants are being moved out to make for high rise luxury developments on the bank of the Welsh Harp.

In a widely quoted Guardian article LINK Oliver Wainwright wrote:

Across the country – and especially in superheated London, where stratospheric land values beget accordingly bloated developments – authorities are allowing planning policies to be continually flouted, affordable housing quotas to be waived, height limits breached, the interests of residents endlessly trampled. Places are becoming ever meaner and more divided, as public assets are relentlessly sold off, entire council estates flattened to make room for silos of luxury safe-deposit boxes in the sky. We are replacing homes with investment units, to be sold overseas and never inhabited, substituting community for vacancy. The more we build, the more our cities are emptied, producing dead swathes of zombie town where the lights might never even be switched on.

Islington Council moved to fine 'buy-to-leave' investors up to £60,000 for leaving house units empty LINK and decided LINK to clamp down on developers making 'artifically pessemistic' assessments of the viability of affordable housing schemes:

The council last week launched a consultation on supplementary planning guidance that would require all viability studies to be supported by ‘robust evidence’. This will include details of arrangements between landowners and developers, and information provided by the developer to banks.

Viability studies are commissioned by developers to assess how much affordable housing a scheme could provide while remaining financially viable.

Islington said it has received a ‘significant number’ of viability studies that do not provide underlying methodology and modelling.

These studies are ‘unsupported by robust evidence’ and create ‘an artificially pessimistic outcome’, leading to what the council calls ‘super-profit’.

The council proposes that viability studies that lack ‘all relevant information required’ to have a reduced weight in terms of decision making.

Speaking at a Communities and Local Government committee meeting on 10 September, James Murray, executive member for housing and development at Islington, said: ‘The modelling is often not shared with the council, so we have to try to extrapolate from that. We need national action.

London Councils, the body that represents local authorities in London, said it is ‘aware of concerns from a number of councils’ about viability studies and transparency.

Richard Lemon, associate director of planning at property consultancy CBRE, said: ‘One can be as transparent as you like, but you need skills in-house to be able to properly scrutinise viability.’

In October Isling Council took steps to ensure that there was hoising at social rents at the soon to be developed Clerkenwell Firer Station which had been closed by Boris Johnson. LINK

Another issue is around Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, 'planning gain' monies paid by developers to Councils to provide infrastructure for projects.  The regulations for CIL in Brent can be found HERE and there is a process by which developers can claim exceptional relief.

In 2013 Quintain, developer of the area around Wembey Stadium, last year challenged Brent Council over Section 106 obligations LINK

WEM36 and WEM38 set out requirements that major new development provides new open space and food growing facilities. Such exceptional provision, which also includes the provision of play space in WEM40 and wildlife enhancements inWEM41, will have an impact on viability and thus will have an impact on Section 106 obligations, after CIL.

I said in that article report that Quintain seemed to want to build dense and build high. It appears from the recent application to build high rise flats on land behind the Civic Centre  LINK that Quintain has overcome Brent Council's earlier reluctance to approve high density, high rise housing units in the area due to their concerns about open space, loss of light and concealing views of the stadium.

Open space, play space and food growing areas do not seem to be priorities at present.

Blocks up to 20 storeys high are planned for the Quintain site

Last year's Localis Report on local authorities and development was reported by Public Finance  said that they were now acting more like developers themselves:

Councils across England will redevelop £13.5bn worth of land and assets over the next five years as part of local plans to turn underused land into a source of revenue, an examination by Localis has found.

A survey of local authorities by the think-tank found many were reacting to ongoing austerity by acting more like property developers.

Instead of deciding to sell buildings and land for one-off capital receipts, authorities were looking to redevelop assets to derive revenue income from them that they can use to help support public services.

To help further develop this process, today’s Public Land, Public Good report called for councils to come together to establish a ‘hit squad’ of highly experienced council officers who could provide advice on maximising returns on council assets. The report suggested that if they could deliver a 5% increase on the £13.5bn assets, this would produce almost £700m of extra revenue.

Certainly the Corporate Risk Register being considered by the Audit Committee this week makes no bones about Brent Council's role. Addressing the risk of lack of external investment in the borough the risk reduction strategy is:

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

This reflects what Andy Donald, head of Brent Regeneration and Growth, said at a MIPIM Round Table discussion back in April 2010:

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 Regeneration and Growth department covers both development and planning and I have discussed before whether there is a conflict in these two roles. Planning Officers write reports for the statutorily independent  planning committee on developments that their department have helped instigate.  The experience in Brent seems to be that this approach of smoothing the way for developers leaves out the local community. The default position is in favour of development and a close relationshiop with developers. The public become an irritant when the public oppose developments which change the nature of the neighbourhood or seem aimed at overseas investors rather than local people in need of affordable housing.  The Willesden Green Library development, advertised overseas as having the unique selling point of no affordable or key worker housing on site is a case in point.

That irritation is evident in another section of the Regeneration and Growth section of the Corporate Risk Register when this risk is recorded.

Political pressure from local community/ groups affect abiility to deliver the  new Willesden Green Cultural Centre to budget and time.

That pressure, I presume, is about the new Cultural Centre fulfilling the promises made as a result of consultation and the 'gain' embodied in it for the local community at the cost of a development that has no affordable housing and removes a public open space. 

I think the question that should be asked is whether being 'hand in glove' with developers is preventing  Brent Council from adopting the much more robust approach we see in Labour Islington? Certainly Scrutiny Committee needs to examine the 'deal' that it is getting from Brent's approach as far as 'planning gain' and returns on council assets are concerned.

Dave Hill has written more fully on  Islington's approach HERE