All three of Brent Council's estate infill applications approved tonight

 

Kilburn Square opponents of the infill plans in the public gallery

 

 

 

 

Which should not surprise regular readers who will have got used to 'What Brent Council wants, Brent council gets' as far as the supposedly politically independent Planning Committee goes.

It's sad to see months of research, campaigning and well thought out representations by residents come to nothing as the Kelcher-Butt Juggernaut crunches on.

The three applications had much in common - new homes squeezed into estates at the expense of loss of green and amenity space, mature trees and access to daylight.

Kilburn Square was approved by 7 votes to one (Cllr Mauricer), Clement Close (which has received less publicity) approved unanimously, and Newland Court 6 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and  1 abstention (Cllr Seelan).

The pressing need for council homes trumps the quality of life of existing council residents every time.  However, as Cllr Georgiou pointed out, there is often the possibility of a compromise that provides additional homes on estates as well as respecting the views of existing residents. Speaking  in favour of the Kilburn Square application on behalf of himself and Cllr Conneely (Kilburn ward councillors),  Cllr  Molloy supported the application saying that the area was much less densely built than Paris or Barcelona and the opposition came from the owner occupiers of nearby streets.

As I have observed over years of attending Planning Committee residents attending for the first time are often shocked by the proceedings - not just the mumbled, often incoherent, contributions but the factual mistakes that shocked residents try to point out but are quickly silenced. Poor chairing enables senior planning officers to ramble on down all sorts of bye-ways.

Tonight there were desperate attempts to correct one officer who several stated that one flat facing a proposed new building, was north facing, when the plan on the screen clearly showed it was east facing. The resident who actually lives in the flat was told she was not allowed to speak, so decisions were made based on misinformation.

After the meeting, having watched it on the livewebcast, Philip Grant sent Wembley Matters this comment about the Kilburn Square proceedings:

 I've just watched the live webcast of the Planning Committee meeting for the Kilburn Square application.

Whether or not 100% affordable housing should be set down in Condition 3, rather than 'a minimum of 50%' was a live issue, with 100% supported by two Kilburn Ward councillors and Cllr. Georgiou, on the basis that anything other than that would not be acceptable if the application was accepted.

After fudging around it, Planning Officers finally admitted that the Committee could impose a 100% affordable housing condition, if that was what they decided was necessary to justify the harm which the application would cause.

There was some discussion about whether Brent Council would ever reduce the level of affordable housing from 100%, given their election promises and the acknowledged need for genuinely affordable homes.

The Chair, Cllr. Kelcher, said if the Council (or Cabinet) tried to reduce the amount of affordable housing, there were ways that could be challenged, such as call-in. He then moved the discussion on to other points of the application, and never came back to the affordable housing point. 

In particular, he did ask committee members whether they wished to change Condition 3 from 'a minimum of 50%' to 100%. At the end of the discussion he just asked who was in favour of accepting the recommendation to approve the application, putting up his hand and noting that five other Labour members of the Committee did the same.

Cllr. Kelcher must have known that his wife, Cllr. Mili Patel, supported a Cabinet decision in November 2022 which would mean the "conversion" of at least around 40 of the LAR homes proposed for Kilburn Square to "intermediate" homes, or even to private sale. 

The Vice Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Saqib Butt, also quick to put his hand up, must have known that his brother, the Council Leader, both supported and spoke in favour of the "conversion" of LAR homes at Kilburn Square at that Cabinet meeting.

Planning Committee could have ensured that 100% of the 99 general needs homes they approved for Kilburn Square were protected as genuinely affordable homes through Condition 3. They could also have ensured that any change to that which the Council later wanted to make would have to be by way of a fresh application for a "material change" (under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990), which would then need proper scrutiny and a possible further decision by Planning Committee.

The Chair of the Committee made sure that they did not even get a vote on that point (so that he and none of the other Labour councillors were seen to be directly voting against 100% affordable homes).

That is not how planning decisions on important points should be made - but it is the level that planning in Brent has sunk.

 

Clement Close – how Council housing began here

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant.

 

Clement Close was the subject of a recent blog, about residents’ opposition to Brent’s proposed in-fill scheme for this Council housing estate. But how did this estate come to be here, surrounded by suburban homes in Brondesbury Park? The answer lies in another time of acute housing shortage.

 

 

Some prefab homes in Clement Way, 1950s. (Photo courtesy of Brent Archives)

 

Even though they were in the middle of a major conflict in 1942, some members of the Churchill’s National Government were thinking ahead to how they would rebuild the country after the war. Housing people whose homes had been destroyed would be a major problem. One solution they came up with was the idea of temporary factory-made houses, and by 1944 local Councils were instructed to consider how many they would need, and where to put them.

 

One of the sites identified in the Borough Engineer’s report to Willesden Council on 15 January 1945 was the playing fields at Okehampton Road, where he thought there would be space for 135 “prefabs”, as they came to be known. The Council ‘noted’ the objections received by residents adjoining the playing fields, to the erection of emergency housing there, at its meeting on 19 February 1945. Despite this, at the end of May 1945 the Council applied for a loan of £31k from the Ministry of Health, for a period of ten years, and accepted tenders from two local companies to prepare a number of sites, including the Okehampton Road playing fields.

 

News of German P-o-Ws clearing a site for prefabs near Roundwood Park.
(From “Willesden Chronicle”, 22 June 1945 – Brent Archives local newspaper microfilms)

 

Because of the shortage of workers, German prisoners of war were used as additional labourers for preparing the sites, and work was underway at Okehampton Road by mid-June 1945. They would have been brought to work by lorry, probably from a large P-o-W camp near Watford. The concrete bases for prefab homes were laid out along a new street, called Clement Road (possibly after the new Labour Prime Minister!), linking Okehampton Road and Milverton Road, and a shorter road called Clement Way which came off of it.

 

The Clement Road prefab estate, from a 1959 O.S. map. (Source: Brent Archives maps collection)

 

There were several varieties of prefabs, and Willesden Council had expressed a preference for the Arcon design. But they had to take what was available, and what the Ministry of Works supplied for Clement Road was a “flat-pack” bungalow, made of timber and chipboard, supplied by America under the wartime Lend Lease agreement. While they had “all mod cons”, they’d been designed as married quarters accommodation for large U.S. Forces bases in the south of that country, so were not ideal for the British climate.

 

An American wooden prefab at 70 Clement Road in the 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

 Despite this, the prefabs on the Clement Road estate provided popular homes for around 130 local families, for far more than the ten years they were originally expected to last. As they were made of timber, it’s surprising that only two (as far as I know) were destroyed in house fires – but when a fire took, hold the effects could be devastating. These photos from Clement Road in the 1960s were taken by a schoolboy who lived there. What he did not know at the time was that a baby had died inside this burning prefab.

 

Firemen tackling a blaze at a Clement Road prefab in the 1960s. (Courtesy of, and © Brian Aris)

 

Families on the estate were gradually being rehoused into permanent Council homes, but as late as 1962, some were being relet to other families in housing need. Eventually, the prefabs at the northern end of the site were cleared, and the permanent Council homes of what was to be called Clement Close were built in the 1960s.

 

 

Mrs Maisey, in the back garden of her Clement Road prefab in the late 1960s,
with Clement Close homes in the background. (Courtesy of Irene Ottaway)

 

The Clement Road and Clement Way prefabs were finally removed by the early 1970s. Most of the Okehampton Road playing fields, which Willesden Council had requisitioned for post-war emergency housing in 1945, returned to their original use, but this time as additional grounds for the adjacent secondary school (now Queens Park Community College). The northern end, accessed from Milverton Road, was kept for Council housing, as Clement Close.

 

Philip Grant.

 

(With thanks to the former residents of the Clement Road prefab estate, who shared their stories and photographs with the Brent Archives “Prefabs Project” in 2011.)

 

Editor's Note:

If you are interested in the extent of the bombing locally during the London Blitz (7th October 1940 to 6th June 1941) that led to the destruction of many homes go to this interactive site. The information goes to street level.

Clement Close residents set out the reasons they oppose Brent Council's in-fill proposal

 

 Cllr Promise Knight sets out the Council's case for in-fill

 

View of the estate currently

 

In-fill highlighted

Residents of the Clement Close estate in Brondesbury Park have set up this petition opposing the Council's development proposals put forward as as part of their estate in-fill programme. 

The consultation is due to close tomorrow, July 13th, 2022.

 

Re: New Council Homes Programme – Clement Close, Brondesbury Park (NW6 7AL)

 

Dear Cllr Promise Knight,

On Friday 24 June 2022, leaflets were distributed across Clement Close and neighbouring properties to inform residents of the proposed redevelopment of Clement Close. 

Although we understand the need for more affordable housing and agree with Brent’s Council aspiration to make the most of its under-used land and property assets, we argue that Clement Close is NOT under-used, nor is it suitable for the outlined development, and we strongly oppose this proposal. 

After careful review of your proposal, we the residents of Clement Close have put together the following summary of our concerns. The proposed development would result in:

1.    Substantial loss of privacy for many residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties: The windows of the new buildings would be overlooking the windows and/or gardens of existing properties.

2.   Substantial overshadowing of adjoining buildings: The importance of natural light on physical and mental health has been well-established. Cramming 22 new family homes in “gaps” would have a severe impact on the wellbeing of all Clement Close residents.

3.   Loss of trees: Clement Close boasts many beautiful mature trees, which would need to be removed if the proposal goes ahead. The role of trees in a city cannot be underestimated. Not only do they absorb excess CO2 and slow down the rate of global warming, but they release oxygen, reduce wind speeds, cool the air, prevent flooding and boost wildlife. Removing these trees from the estate while increasing human occupancy by 25% would go against Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy and Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement, which specifically state Brent’s commitment to “enhancing the ecological value of land for which the Council is responsible”, and “integrating environmental and sustainability considerations into all decision making considered to have significant environmental implications”.

4.   Adequacy of parking/loading/turning and concerns around access for emergency vehicles: With the proposal to narrow the road to a single lane to make space for a row of new houses on the eastern side of Clement Close, parking, turning and road access would be severely impacted. Access to the far end of the site by wide vehicles, such as emergency vehicles or refuse collection trucks would be seriously compromised. The Cabinet for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security is probably aware that #1 Clement Close is a recently redeveloped, council-owned facility for adults with special needs, and that ambulances have been called to the site regularly. In addition, refuse collection trucks are already struggling with access.

5.    Increased road traffic: The increased vehicle traffic resulting from 25% more occupancy of Clement Close would result in increased congestion, noise, air pollution, directly contradicting Brent Healthy Neighbourhood scheme. It would also pose a threat to the numerous children, elderly and disabled currently living in Clement Close.

6.   Substantial impact on visual amenity resulting from the layout and density of building: the addition of new buildings, combined with the loss of green spaces, would turn Clement Close into a concrete jungle. The overcrowding would also result in higher levels of noises and disturbances, which would be detrimental to the wellbeing of all residents – current and new. This would again go against Brent’s commitment to “improving the quality of life”, as highlighted in Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement.

7.    Loss of existing services: the current plans appear to threaten existing amenities relied upon by many residents including: ground-floor storage cupboards for upper-floor flats, bicycle storage (some of which has only just been installed), recycling facilities. There is no clear plan for where these existing services would be rebuilt/moved to on the current plans. Most importantly for our youngest residents the plans seem to involve building over the existing climbing frame/slide and a bench which form a central part of community life for Clement Close children.

We also condemn the way Brent Council delivered this information to Clement Close residents:

• The leaflets were unenveloped and not specifically addressed to the residents who will be severely impacted by the proposal. They were delivered by hand, through the letterbox, like advertising leaflets and flyers.
• The leaflet looks innocuous enough to be ignored. The front page gives a high-level description of Brent’s programme and makes no mention of Clement Close.
• The summary of proposed development, starting with “Landscape improvement for all residents”, is deceptive.
• The leaflet does not clearly describe where the newbuilds will be located. It only makes mention of one bungalow to be demolished (#54 Clement Close). The only way of understanding the proposal is by carefully examining a map with no caption.
• The residents of #54 Clement Close were unaware of the proposal to have their home demolished and heard about it from their neighbours. It is completely unacceptable for the family whose lives would be turned upside-down by eviction and demolition of their family home to have not been properly consulted and reassured of their security.
• The time frame of under 3 weeks until the closing of the consultation phase is inadequate for the magnitude of the changes proposed.
• The feedback form provided with the leaflet is not specific to Clement Close.
• The QR code and URL provided on the leaflet link to Brent’s Community Engagement Hub, and not to the consultation page. It is not straightforward to find the consultation page from the hub.
• The questionnaire is inappropriately structured and includes leading questions such as “do you agree with …?”, which could influence respondents’ views and comments on the proposal. Such bias goes against the standards of ethical conduct and reporting of survey research.
• There is no confirmation email or acknowledgement that the completed consultation form was received by Brent after submission.

We, the residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties, are hereby firmly opposing the current development proposal.

 

LINK TO THE PETITION

LINK TO BRENT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSALS

Vulnerable children in need of care not cuts, a review of the impact of Council decisions since 2011

Guest blog by Anon.
 

During the Kenton by-election in February 2011, Muhammed Butt rang my doorbell and asked me if I was going to vote for the Labour candidate. I responded by saying I wasn't sure, that it was unlikely, and he asked why.  I said was very disappointed with the Council, particularly the Labour group, who appeared to be supporting severe cuts to frontline services, which, in my opinion, would affect the most vulnerable in our community. 

Mo asked me for an example and I told him that I heard the Council were proposing to close 24 Crawford Avenue (a large 6 bedroom house that had a 1/3rd of an acre of play space and is situated in the heart of Wembley).  Incidentally, the house was bequeathed to Barnardos specifically for the use of children in need. It was leased to Brent Council for decades at a reasonable annual rent. 

The Council leased the property for decades from Barnardos without any major issues. The unit was registered to provide overnight short breaks for up to 6 children, in addition to providing valuable day care during the school holidays and at weekends for another 6 children. It also accepted lockouts and emergency child protection cases.  Those who benefited from the service were children aged between 5-18 years, who although mobile, suffered from moderate to severe disabilities, including learning difficulties and some with challenging behaviours. In addition to giving children greater opportunities to develop and socialise and through play it also gave families much needed short breaks.

 However, whilst standing in my doorway, touting for my vote, Mo Butt responded absentmindedly. He said, "Oh yes, Crawford Avenue is going to close. Ironically, this was before any official community consultations had begun.  When I raised further concerns about how disappointed I was, he proudly informed me that he was the Deputy Leader of the Council and that I should put my concerns in writing to him.

Months later, the so-called public consultations eventually began and many people put their concerns in writing. Service users took a legal challenge to the high court.  The Council continued to argue that they knew best. That they were building a 'state of the art' unit, which eventually became known as the Ade Adepitan Centre, situated adjacent to the new Villlage School in Grove Park.  Whilst the new build was being built, the Council officially closed Crawford Avenue and merged it with Clement Close, a very small respite unit for children of families who had Profound and Multiple Learning Difficulties (PMLD) and other disabilities, designed for wheelchair users. 

 This effectively meant that the service provision was more than halved for both groups of children, as it wasn't safe for the young people to be booked in together. In addition to this, despite some basic refurbishment, the building was not fit for purpose and many families from Crawford declined to send their children to Clement.  Crawford Avenue was eventually closed in January 2012. Interestingly, months later, a pre-change of use planning application was submitted by someone, who recognised the enormous potential of this property. This was in December 2012.   For further details on this matter see LINK

Sadly, Crawford Avenue (a potential jewel in the crown of Wembley) was eventually sold by Barnardos for about £875,000 and the buyer succeeded in their application to the Council for cessation in lease for the  continued use of building as a children's home.

 Meantime, much community unhappiness developed at Clement Close as staff and service users tried to adapt to many changes in a building that was not fit for purpose.  It also appeared that more serious incidents occurred, including assaults on staff by children and in September 2012 an unhappy vulnerable child absconded.

Such incidents are of concern when you hear councillors and managers say that, 'The impact on the child must be our primary concern'.  From January 2012 to February 2013 staff, children and families endured many changes. In March 2013 Neil Macdonald (Interim Head of Service Children’s Commissioning) delivered reported to the Council on short breaks provision for Children with Disabilities. He confirmed that new Village short breaks centre was now open and had received its first children for respite care on 8 February 2013. 

 He said, "The centre was registered to provide short breaks for up to 8 children, double the capacity of Clement Close. The council was currently exploring how best to use this additional capacity" because of the low occupancy. Something, I understand, they still struggle with, possibly due to the institutional feel and poor design that cannot always accommodate the two different client groups safely.

 As for day care and after school care, I understand this has yet to be provided, despite misleading reports from Mr MacDonald to the Executive Committee.  

Further, Sara Williams (Acting Director of Children & Families) and her team, also reported to the Executive Committee in November 2013, less than a year after the closure of Crawford Avenue, that, 'The lack of appropriate children's residential care homes also hampers the council in its duty to take reasonable practicable steps to secure sufficient accommodation for looked after children where it's their best interest to be accommodated locally.

It really does beggar belief that our leaders can be so short sighted. Where will the  cuts end and what impact will they really have on our community in years to come?  

ANON