Dear Editor,
Thank you for publishing (LINK)
the text of my Kilburn Square petition speech to Cabinet on February 7, with a
brief summary of Cllr Southwood’s response. We residents of Kilburn Square have
enormous respect for Cllr Southwood; and with two thirds of residents being
Council tenants, we are acutely aware of the shortage of affordable housing and
the Council’s housing targets.
But as Cllr Southwood is well aware of our concerns, and did
have advance sight of my speech, I’m afraid we found her response deeply
unsatisfying.
Here is a full transcript of her statement; and, in italics, the
comments I would have made if we had been allowed a dialogue.
Councillor
Southwood response to Margaret von Stoll’s petition speech to Cabinet, Feb 7
2022
Thank you Margaret, for giving us a really helpful and
detailed overview of some of the journey we have been on over the past year or
so and outstanding residents’ concerns.
Throughout the process and I guess starting with our
initial commitment which was always to balance the need for and our response to
the need for family sized, genuinely affordable homes with improvements that
are made possible during a development programme, improvements that will
benefit people already living on Kilburn Square.
The balance needed all along has been between the acute housing
need in the borough, which we recognise, and the human rights and wellbeing of
the current – and for that matter incoming – residents of Kilburn Square.
It became clear last Summer when we’d done the sort of
first round of engagement that residents did have several considerable concerns;
My speech included the unambiguous conclusion from the resident
survey by our independent advisors Source Partnership “There is very little
demonstrable support for the Council’s proposals or trust in the consultation
process “
one was certainly around the height of the proposed
tower. I appreciate there was also concern about density and overcrowding and
it was and has been throughout really clear that residents on and off the
estate really value the green space that’s available
Our neighbours raised all three of our concerns, not just green
space, in their emphatic rejection of the original scheme
and I sort of took that informally to Cabinet colleagues around the
table, that feedback; and we collectively agreed to extend the pre-consultation
process
We welcomed that, and you promised the re-design would be done in collaboration with estate residents.
But in practice the project team continued dictating the rules just like in the
previous phase; see this Letter to our local paper from a fellow resident:
The Kilburn Square re-think
– a plea for meaningful collaboration
From the Brent and Kilburn Times Dec 16, 2021
Dear Editor. As a resident on the Kilburn Square Estate I’d
like to register a protest at Brent Council’s approach to the re-think (LINK: https://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/housing/brent-council-rethinks-kilburn-square-8385078 ) on its oversized expansion project.
·
They promised a collaborative approach, but in
reality it’s the project team who are making the rules – just like during the
months spent discussing the original scheme.
·
At a first pair of Drop-Ins - wrongly labelled Design Workshops - each
visitor (12% of households turned up) was presented with five ways of
distributing a reduction in scale of about 25%
·
A Newsletter then told us we had “chosen” two
Approaches labelled A and E, each removing only 20% of the original scale, and
neither fully addressing even one of
our three main objections acknowledged by Brent: No second tower, preserve
green space and trees, reduce density/overcrowding.
·
A would reduce the tower but still have ten
storeys; E would remove one but not both of the satellite Blocks on the green
space - and keep almost the full tower.
·
They quote outdated density ratios; but omit
Amenity Space rules laid down in Brent’s own Plan. On those, the Estate already has a serious shortfall; and either A or E would more than double that shortfall”. And
Brent’s Climate Emergency strategy seeks to increase green space, not reduce
it.
·
After two further Drop-Ins drew barely any
residents, the project team has resorted to knocking on doors to seek “votes”.
But they aren’t using our independent advisor, Source Partnership, whose
neutrality gained our trust in the July survey that prompted the re-think.
·
And we are told throughout that these are the
only options; asking to discuss a greater reduction is not allowed. An online
questionnaire allows us to comment on the wider picture only after ‘voting’ for one or the other
Approach.
·
We’ve seen scant details of the provision, or
re-provision, of community facilities and services; and tenants complain that
despite repeated promises they’re still awaiting details of priority access to
the new homes referred to by Cllr Ketan Sheth, in his recent Times article.
Brent, you’ve said you “want a scheme that can work for
everyone” and “will not force homes on anyone”. This is no way to honour those
words!
Yours sincerely, Charlotte O’Sullivan. Further information https://save-our-square.org
This obviously was a considerable change to the original
plan and I tasked the architects with coming with several options, not worked
up in detail obviously, we are always resource
constrained, which did in different and varying ways meet some of those
concerns.
And those options were then whittled down to two, A
& E, on which we got residents’ feedback.
Only 24% of our households were persuaded to “vote” and the
majority of those chose the other
Approach – see below for details
I realise there will be remaining concerns and
differing views about the extent of the process, about the extent to which
residents meaningfully were able to engage.
I think that is something that we will probably have
to agree to disagree on. What I am
confident about having reviewed all the various engagement mechanisms is that
the team have done their best to engage through this pre consultation process.
What the team consciously chose NOT to do in the re-design
process was ask our trusted intermediary, Source Partnership, to provide a neutral channel for residents to
express their honest views, with no fear of recrimination; or to engage
residents in exploring what they value about the estate and what kind of
designs and improvements could both meet the need for new units and address their
objections, collaboratively.
We are not at the end; this was, if you like, an
additional opportunity for consultation – rightly, in line with the Mayor’s
guidance.
GLA funding requires an engagement process which is “transparent,
inclusive, responsive and meaningful“. We strongly argue those criteria have
thus far NOT been met
And also our own commitment as a Council to make sure
that residents are/have the opportunity to engage meaningfully when we have
development plans like this……… which are significant and we accept that. The
reduction in the height of the tower which you see in Option A I think does
respond to concerns about the height of the tower.
But that (almost) responds to just one of our three key objections – which you have acknowledged
I hear that
there are outstanding concerns about density and overcrowding. Much of that
rightly can be picked up through the planning process so I think there is
absolutely scope for residents to continue to provide that feedback and to seek
assurances. And obviously all the relevant reports will be appended to the
planning application which demonstrate the density being in line with
expectation in the area.
Brent’s own “Amenity Space” rules already show a deficit on the current estate; Approach A would double
the deficit. And it would add 68% more households vs 2019, on a smaller footprint
– how do you think that will not transform the character of what one
of your Officers described to our MP as “a brilliant estate”?
Since the Co-op was established 30 years ago, residents have
worked hard to establish a peaceful, sociable and crime-free estate; we are
concerned that this plan puts at risk our ability to sustain that
Just to clarify on allocations because there has been
some talk of overcrowding: obviously we
made recent changes to our allocations scheme which means families who are
overcrowded who live on the estate and who are eligible for housing transfer
will be prioritised with new housing, just to make that absolutely clear.
And the final thing to say is obviously our number one commitment is to families
living in temporary accommodation and have been doing so for many years in some
cases, in chronically unsuitable
unaffordable homes and those residents, for lots of reasons don’t have much of
a voice in these processes. And one of the things that, I think, I and the team
have been careful to do throughout is to consider those residents as well.
So I am enormously grateful to people on and off the
estate who have given a massive amount of time and energy through the process and
we are in a better place because of it that is absolutely unquestionable.
It doesn’t feel like a better place, Councillor, when all you
are offering, after well over a year of patient dialogue with you and your team,
is a 40% reduction in a tower that never belonged in our local skyscape in the
first place
We now move into a stage which is to put Option A into
the planning process that residents will have opportunity to continue to
provide feedback and comment on the Planning Application as we go into that
formal phase
This expansion is not even in the Local Plan!
We cannot for time reasons because we are committed to
certain deadlines with the GLA for funding we cannot extend this process any
further and I will be looking forward to working with you all as we move into
the formal planning process which will also include work around the green
space. It is quite clear that a lot of the green space on the estate… (?) so
we’ll be focusing on that (Margaret interrupts, visibly unhappy)
I do appreciate that passions run high in this and
that is the demonstration of how much people care about Kilburn Square and that
is entirely as it should be.
So we will be looking at how to make better use of the
green space that does exist and also taking a look around the estate; and I can’t
make clear commitments today, but Officers are looking at opportunities for
other improvements we might be able to make locally and we will continue to
work with everyone locally and to make those a reality through the planning
process.
It’s hard to imagine what those offsetting green space ideas
might be – on or off estate. But also our collective unhappiness with Blocks C
and D is not only about the green space and mature trees they would
remove, important though that is; but also about their visual impact on the
estate character and the local setting, and their contribution to the 68% increase in the estate population
vs 2019
We are asking you to drop those two Blocks as well as reducing
the tower to the height of surrounding buildings - before preparing the scheme
for a Planning Application
I think I’ll leave it there but I really do appreciate
Margaret, you coming and expressing so eloquently the views of local residents.
The outcome of the post-reset engagement process October to
January 2021-2
The team has now published the results of its efforts to engage
with KS residents (the views of the local community have been deemed irrelevant
until after the scale and shape of the revised scheme is fixed) from October to
January [https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16420115/kilburn-square-summary-and-feedback.pdf ]
Read the team’s commentary in conjunction with Charlotte’s
letter above; and then look at the data:
Of
the 270 households (including Sandwood, the 24-unit pre-phase of Infill,
completed in 2020)
·
64
(24%) were persuaded to express a preference between Approaches A and E
· 10 (4%) said they
wanted neither, even though that was not presented as an option
· Of the 64, 26 (10%)
said they favoured Approach A – which Brent now wants to take to a Planning
Application
· 38 (14%) preferred
Approach E – which would preserve some, though not all, of the green space and
trees
In conclusion
Our
message to Cllr Southwood, the Cabinet, the Leader and the senior Officers is this:
·
We’ve
heard your arguments for some further expansion on Kilburn
Square
·
But we
are still waiting for a scale and shape that “can work for everyone” as we’ve
been promised
·
…
and please don’t try to tell us, the
local electorate, or the GLA that Approach A has the support of residents and
neighbours!
Margaret von Stoll
