Showing posts with label Cllr Southwood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cllr Southwood. Show all posts

Tuesday 3 May 2022

Deputation on Brent’s Poverty Commission Update – why no response?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 


At the end of a guest blog about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone on 15 April, I mentioned that I was waiting for the written response from the Council to a deputation of 9 March, on a report to a Scrutiny Committee about its progress on implementing the recommendations of the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report. I’m still waiting!

 

I was meant to present my deputation via zoom to a meeting of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, near the end of a meeting which went on for over three hours. However, not long into my presentation, the sound from me started to break up, and the Chair, Cllr. Roxanne Mashari, decided that they would have to cut me off. She asked me to send a written copy of my deputation, so that a written response could be sent. I was then immediately removed from the zoom link.

 

Martin, to whom I’d already sent a copy for information, published the text of my deputation straight away on “Wembley Matters”, and I sent an email to Cllr. Mashari, her committee members and its Governance Officer with a pdf copy of my deputation. The following morning, Martin sent me a screenshot of Cllr. Mashari’s “like” of his “tweet” sharing the link to that blog.

 


 

Two weeks later, as I’d heard nothing further, I emailed Cllr. Mashari, and Cllr. Eleanor Southwood, who I understood would be dealing with the Council’s response, as my deputation concentrated on the Housing section of the Poverty Commission Update. I attached another pdf copy of my deputation, and asked one of them, or the Governance Officer to whom it was copied, to let me have the response, or the date I could expect it, if it wasn’t ready then. 

 

At first, they denied having previously had a copy of my deputation. Then Cllr. Mashari told me, on 23 March, that she would seek to ensure I got 'a full response as soon as possible, at the latest within the next ten working days.' After further “chasing” I was told on 11 April that ‘a written response is being prepared [and] will be with you as soon as possible.’ Still nothing!

 

On 26 April, in response to yet another email, the Governance Officer wrote: ‘I can confirm that a response on the issues raised within your deputation is currently being prepared and will be shared with you as soon as it has been finalised.’ He also added that it was having to be prepared from ‘a copy of the version posted online’, as they had not received a document copy from me (despite these being sent on 9 and 23 March!).


 

You would have thought that Cllr. Southwood and Senior Council Officers would have wanted to answer the serious concerns I had raised about the Poverty Commission Update report (signed off by the Assistant Chief Executive). These had been publicised widely online, and they had been promised a “right of reply”, with their response also published on “Wembley Matters”. It now seems they are determined NOT to reply before the elections on 5 May. WHY?

 

Brent Poverty Commission recommendation on social rented homes.

 

The Poverty Commission’s key recommendation on housing, which Brent’s Cabinet accepted in 2020, was that the Council should invest more in building homes for letting at social rent levels. But the report (which recommended that Scrutiny Committee should simply “note” the progress made) did not mention the words “social rent” at all in its Housing section!

 

Instead, it repeated the Council’s claims of the great progress made with its New Council Homes programme. My deputation challenged that, using information from the excellent “Life in Kilburn” blog from September 2021, which exposed the reality of Brent’s claim to be building “1,000 New Council Homes” by 2024. [The Cabinet has since agreed to buy a couple of blocks of leasehold flats from developers, but that is not quite the same thing!]

 

My deputation also alleged that this concentration on the New Homes programme was an attempt to hide from Scrutiny that, so far, NO new Council homes had been built for letting at social rent levels. I will be very interested to read the Council’s response on that point, because Cllr. Southwood must have heard at least some of my zoom presentation on 9 March. When I went to Brent’s online webcast library to find out what had been said at the meeting after I was “thrown out” from it, she appeared to give an answer.

 

Cllr. Southwood appeared to say: ‘all of our housing is at social rents.’ I believe that statement to be, at the least, misleading! You’d think that someone who has been Lead Member for Housing for several years would know what the different types of homes which fall within the definition of “affordable housing” are. Here is part of a chart from the GLA website which explains them:

 

GLA Source LINK

 As the chart shows, “social rent” ‘is the only housing type really affordable to lower income Londoners’, that is why the Brent Poverty Commission recommended that it was the type of housing the Council should invest in for its new homes. One of the Poverty Commission’s key findings was that: ‘no family with two children (whether couple or lone parent) can afford any rent that is more expensive than LB Brent social rents.’

 

But most of the new homes Brent Council is building will be for London Affordable Rent (sometimes referred to ‘as “social rent”, which it is not’). That is higher than “social rent” levels. And some of the New Council Homes will be at “Intermediate” rent levels, or for Shared Ownership, which although these are still described as “affordable”, would not be for most Brent families in housing need. On the Council’s Cecil Avenue development, the proposed split of the 250 homes to be built is 37 for London Affordable Rent, 61 at Intermediate Rent or Shared Ownership, 152 for private sale by a developer partner and zero for social rent!

 

That is why my deputation called on the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to challenge the failure to comply with the Commission’s recommendation over social rented homes, and demand that Brent Council does better. I look forward to hearing how they will do that, but how much longer I will have to wait for their written response is an open question.


Philip Grant.

Monday 14 March 2022

LETTER: Response to Cllr Southwood's mollifying statement on the Kilburn Square development from silenced infuriated resident

 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

 

Wednesday 15 September 2021

Brent Council announcement that the proposed development of Kilburn Square is to be 'adapted' in collaboration with residents welcomed by campaigners

The existing design  (figures are the number of storeys) - Kilburn High Road is top right

 

This is Brent Council's Press Statement

The design proposal for the new homes on Kilburn Square Estate is set to be adapted through collaboration with residents, the council has announced today.

This comes after extensive engagement throughout the summer with those living on the estate and the local community. The council has listened to people’s feedback and agreed to review the proposals taking into account some of the most commonly raised concerns, while also maintaining its commitment to delivering a significant number of new council homes.

Each council housing scheme is different and will always be considered within its own specific context.

Cllr Southwood, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:

 Brent is in the grip of a severe housing crisis. There are more than 1,400 families living in temporary accommodation and many more whose home is completely unsuitable. We are doing everything in our power to build more council homes and create a fairer and more equal borough.

Since autumn 2020, we have been working with Kilburn Square residents on proposals to build new homes on the estate. We have received some helpful feedback and I want to thank everyone who has worked with us. I also want to thank everyone for being patient with us while we review the scheme and decide how best to take it forward.

We are keen to amend the existing design, working with the residents of Kilburn Square. It is essential that all tenants and leaseholders attend the workshops we will be holding shortly to have their say. By doing this, we can make sure the new homes we build and the changes we make across the estate are as good as they can be for the community, for future residents and for the council.

A letter and a newsletter will be sent to all residents living on Kilburn Square this week (w/c 13 September). This will include more information about this decision and the upcoming opportunities for residents to get involved in shaping the design.

The statement is partly in response to a public question posed for Cllr Southwood at Monday's Cabiner meeting on the Kilburn Square development that by the Kilburn Square Stakeholders Group,  a coalition of four local Residents' Associations and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Plan Forum. The KSSG is spearheaded by Kilburn Village Residents' Association - whose territory includes the Estate itself as well as the surrounding streets.

 

Keith Anderson, Kilburn Village Residents' Association chair said.

 

·       The saga of this huge "Infill" project has been running since last October. The Stakeholder Group was formed in January and since then we’ve been patiently dealing with Cllr Southwood, senior Officers and the project team, explaining why we believe the scheme is much too big. 

·         The drawn-out process came to a head in August, and our Question was designed to press the Council to finally deliver on its promise to heed the voices of the residents and the local community. We are grateful to Cllr Southwood and her colleagues for the written response being presented on Monday, to Council and the wider public.

·         We look forward to the promised shift to a more collaborative approach to finalising a smaller scheme that can, in Cllr Southwood’s words, “work for everyone".

Wednesday 24 February 2021

Cllr Southwood responds on Prospect House and urges residents to make contact as soon as possible

Philip Grant has now received a reply to his email of January 28th to Cllr Southwood, Brent Council' s Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, that expressed concern about Brent Council's response to the situation facing residents of Prospect House, on the North Circular Road.

Philip sent a reminder on February 16th pointing out that he had not yet received a reply:

Dear Councillor Southwood,

I wrote to you, in your role of Lead Member for Housing, on 28 January, with a copy to the Stonebridge Ward councillors in whose area Prospect House is situated. I have not heard back from you, or from any of the local Labour councillors.

A further blog article has been published about Prospect House, and the poor living conditions in this substandard accommodation, which Brent helped to fund when two floors of the building were converted from offices to flats, four to five years ago:

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/02/more-misery-for-prospect-house.html

 

I have added a comment to that blog, which I hope you will read, as it represents the sincere views of a long-time Brent resident:-

 

'To reinforce Alison's point about the 'deafening silence from Brent council and councillors':

On 28 January, I sent an email to the Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Southwood, with copy to the three Stonebridge Ward councillors, setting out a comment I had made on an earlier Prospect House blog article.

 

My email was headed "Tenants facing eviction from Prospect House", and I concluded by saying:


I hope you will take note of these views, and ensure that this matter is properly, and sympathetically, dealt with by Brent Council.'

 

I have not even received an acknowledgement, let alone a reply, from any of the recipients.

 

Brent Council appears to be ignoring the plight of the families they asked Shepherd's Bush H.A. to house in these substandard flats, as if it is nothing to do with them. 

 

I don't think that is an acceptable way to treat the borough's residents. Do you?' 

The longer that Brent Council tries to ignore the problems facing the Prospect House tenants, and their need for rehousing later this year, the worse it will look to the borough's residents.

 

I hope that you will take sympathetic action to resolve these issues. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

(Fryent Ward resident)

 

Dear Philip,

First, I’d like to reiterate my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was keen to understand the facts and to ensure that the council had taken appropriate action.

 

As you say, the families who moved into this previously empty office building were, at that time, homeless. The landlord leased the flats to SBHA to manage. The families who moved in did so under private rented sector offers, which ended their homelessness but with arrangements which were more secure than would have been the case in the private rented sector.

 

I have been assured that the conversion was done to a high standard. I’ve been extremely concerned to learn of the recent serious problems with the building. We’re working with SBHA now to understand the situation and how it will be remedied.

 

It’s clearly up to the landlord to decide what to do with his building and it seems he has decided not to renew the lease with SBHA, resulting in the families needing to find new homes. I appreciate that this is very stressful for them. I can’t comment on individual circumstances but I would urge any family who are concerned to contact us.

 

The families in Prospect House do not automatically have priority in terms of bidding for social housing but we’ll do all we can to help them find somewhere suitable. It’s no secret that Brent is a borough with relatively low wages and extremely high housing costs, which is incredibly challenging. There are 1,800 homeless households in Temporary Accommodation and a further 1031 in acute housing need.

 

Our total housing register is nearly 24,000. We’re working hard to improve supply – through our own ambitious building programme, working with landlords and through our own lettings company, I4B. But I appreciate that none of this makes it easier for families who are needing to move out of Prospect House.

 

Officers have written to everyone in Prospect House and if you’re in touch with any of the families, please do encourage them to contact us as soon as possible.

 

Best wishes,

Cllr Southwood

 

This is Cllr Southwood's email address: 

 cllr.eleanor.southwood@brent.gov.uk