Report Finds that “Affordable” Housing Increases Rents for Low-income Londoners

 

 

As the Labour Party Conference meets in Liverpool and Brent's lead member for Regeneration also takes on a leading role in the national Labour Yimby (Yes in May Backyard) Group a well-researched report has been published that raises doubts about the strategy.

The YIMBY Group seeks to label any opposition to massive housing developments as NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard) - self-interested communities interested only in maintaining their own privilege - the Public Interest Law Centre report shows that the issue is more nuanced.

Although Cllr Tatler has argued that any increase in housing supply in Brent will lower rents through market mechanisms, according to My London Office of National Statistic data shows that Brent has seen the steepest rise in rents over the past 12 months of any local area in England or Wales.

The average rent is now £2,121 per month - a rise of 33.6% since 2023. This compares with a London average rise of 9.6%. 

 From the Public Interest Law Centre website

 

“Immediate action is needed to adopt policies aligned with UN standards of affordability. Time is running out, and the impact on children in temporary accommodation is especially urgent.”

 

PILC has launched a report that has found that estate regeneration projects that feature demolition routinely underproduce truly affordable housing for low-income Londoners and increase rents of council and social housing by an average of more than £80 per week. 

 

We commissioned Dr Joe Penny of UCL’s Urban Laboratory to analyse six of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ regeneration projects across three London Boroughs including The Aylesbury Estate and The Heygate Estate.  

 

The report has found that the word “affordable” is used with no consideration for what is truly affordable for people who need these housing options the most and there will be a net loss of 2,151 truly affordable council homes. 

 

What is cross-subsidy estate regeneration? 

 

The cross-subsidy approach to estate regeneration has been the dominant model of estate regeneration for the past two decades and looks set to continue under the Labour government. 

It is when council estates are demolished to make way for expensive properties which are put on the market or rented privately. In theory, the new private homes fund the construction of “affordable” homes on the sites. 

 

“As legal aid lawyers, we witness daily injustices stemming from the housing crisis. This research, for the first time, clearly demonstrates the damage caused by current “affordable” housing policies and the push for demolition, which disproportionately affects many of our brave, working-class clients” said PILC’s legal caseworker and community legal organiser Saskia O’Hara.  

 

Challenging the narrative 

 

The new Labour government and the Greater London Authority maintain that cross-subsidy models are the answer to the housing crisis. However this report shows that it is making it worse. 

 

“The findings from this report evidence the urgent need for a fundamental rethink of estate regeneration in London” said Dr Joe Penny who wrote the report.  

 

“The current cross-subsidy model is badly failing council and social housing tenants, as well as those on housing waiting lists. Truly affordable homes – that is, homes that cost no more than 30% of net household incomes – are not being replaced in sufficient quantities; social and affordable rents are increasing beyond what those on the lowest incomes can afford; and structurally sound buildings are being wasted amid a deepening housing emergency.” 

 

Using the evidence in the fight for affordable housing 

 

To make the evidence as accessible as possible, PILC have created a short illustrated guide to the report and a video highlighting the top 5 things you need to know about council house building in London.  

 

These resources are designed to empower residents facing displacement from demolition of their housing estate and communities facing gentrification because of regeneration plans to challenge the plans with hard facts. 

---

We’ve been active in supporting local residents and grassroots campaigns to challenge injustice from gentrification for many years. |We use the law as a tool to assist, support and empower communities at the frontline of gentrification. 

We work to support local residents and campaigns to shift the power balance away from demolition and cross-subsidy regeneration back to the people who live there. 

As movement lawyers, we seek to be on the ground with campaigners, offering legal services as just one tool or tactic amongst others in a campaign. 

 

Download What Golden Era: A guide to help challenge estate demolition plans with hard facts. 

 

Download The promise of cross-subsidy: Why estate demolition cannot solve London’s housing emergency. 

 

Watch What Golden Era? 5 things you need to know about council house building in London. 

 

Contribute to London's nature recovery with your suggestions for our area

 

A static section of the interactive map that you can contribute to

From Brent Parks Forum 

Sent out by the London Federation of Friends of Parks Groups Chair for residents and green/blue space groups to respond to.  

*London Nature Recovery Interactive Map

The Greater London Authority (GLA) has launched an interactive mapping tool for Londoners to tell us where action to improve nature should be prioritised. The GLA will use the map, alongside other inputs, to set out the priorities for London’s nature in the London Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS), which is due to be published in Summer 2025.

You can access and add your suggestions to the interactive map here: LNRS Interactive Map (arcgis.com)

This interactive map is open to all organisations and individuals across London, so please share this with your friends, colleagues, family and communities living and working in Greater London. The map will be open for input until 23:59 on Wednesday 2nd October.

If you have any questions regarding the interactive map, please email biodiversity@london.gov.uk 

Morland Gardens – Brent Council ‘unable to make any commitments'

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Earlier this month I wrote “Morland Gardens – Report recommends Council does not proceed, but …”. The ‘but’ was because, although Brent cannot go ahead with its proposed redevelopment (as its planning consent has expired), it still has an outstanding “first stage” contract with Hill Group which includes the demolition of the Victorian villa “Altamira” (above).

 

At the end of my previous guest post I included the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, and other senior figures at the Civic Centre, seeking an assurance that this locally listed heritage asset would not be demolished, unless or until there was a legal requirement allowing for its demolition (which does not currently exist).

 

There was no mention of this at the Cabinet meeting on 11 December, when the Affordable Housing Supply update report (which recommended a review to come up with ‘an alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens) was dealt with. Last Friday afternoon I received this written response to my open email:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Morland Gardens and the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) Update Report  

 

Thank you for your open email dated 4th December 2023 addressed to Cllr Knight, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Council’s Corporate Director for Resident Services. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond on their behalf.

 

The Council is unable to make any commitments or assurances either verbally or in writing on whether there will be demolition of the Altamira building or not, until such time the Council has considered its options for the site. As provided in previous correspondence, the Council will be reviewing the site options including the Altamira building, and will present these to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

 

Further information about the Councils procedures can be found on the Council's website: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council

 

Kind regards

 

Head of Capital Programmes’

 

My concern, and that of other “Friends of Altamira”, is that someone at the Civic Centre will instruct Hill Group to carry out the demolition of the buildings on the site, under their existing contract, while the Council is still considering ‘its options for the site’. That is a risk, which could occur either by mistake, or deliberately out of vindictiveness (against the campaign which took advantage of the Council’s mistakes, in its fight to save this important heritage building).

 

 

There should not be any reason why Brent can’t give the assurance I’d requested. A similar one was given in June 2021, when the then Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment wrote to me (in response to me pointing out that Brent did not have the Stopping-up Order required before its proposed Morland Gardens development could take place): 

 

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

 

The Strategic Director had been made aware that there would be objections to any proposed Order, and the reasons for it. Yet it was not until 28 April 2022 that valid notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was given. That was just before Brent was finally ready to award a contract for the development. 

 

Given the uncertainty over whether the Council would obtain the legal right to build over the land outside 1 Morland Gardens, a group of Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors called-in his Key Decision to award the two-stage “Design and Build” contract. The minutes of the 9 June 2022 call-in meeting set out how he answered the reasons given by Cllr. Lorber and two members of the public about why the contract should not be awarded:

 

 

Mr Lunt’s argument was that “only” £1.1m was at risk (the estimated cost of stage one) if the contract was awarded, whereas the Council stood to lose £6.5m in GLA funding if the project did not go ahead. He gave the impression that the Stopping-up Order process would be over by the end of 2022. The minutes record his answer to a question from a Committee member:

 

‘It was confirmed that any objections to the stopping up order which were not withdrawn would be considered by the Mayor of London. Mr Lunt noted that in his experience, all stopping up orders had been confirmed.’

 

In fact, it was February 2023 before Brent supplied the GLA with all the information needed for the Mayor of London’s decision. When that decision came on 20 March, it did not confirm the Stopping-up Order. Instead, it said that the objections would need to be considered by a Public Inquiry, and Brent Council had still not arranged for that Inquiry to be held when its planning consent for the Morland Gardens development expired at the end of October!

 

The June 2022 call-in meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did agree that the contract should be awarded (although Mr Lunt had failed to tell them that he could not award it, as the “Contractor Framework” under which it was offered had expired at the end of May 2022!). A contract was actually awarded a couple of months later, under a different Framework, after a rushed decision by Brent’s Cabinet.

It is that contract which still poses a risk to the survival of the 150-year old beautiful and historic landmark building at 1 Morland Gardens. The Council has only to look at its own published words to know that it should not allow the unnecessary demolition of this heritage asset: 

 

From Brent’s May 2019 “Historic Environment Place-making Strategy”

 

I believe that Brent can and should make a commitment over “Altamira”, so I sent the following open email in reply to the response I’d received on 15 December:

 

‘Dear Mr Martin and Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email this afternoon, in response to my open email of 4 December. I have to say that I am disappointed by it.

 

I realise that the Council is carrying out a review to consider its options for the site at 1 Morland Gardens, and that recommendations will then be made to Brent's Cabinet. 

 

The assurance I requested does not need to wait for the outcome of those considerations, as it does not seek any commitment that there are no circumstances in which Brent Council would demolish the heritage building.

 

The assurance I am seeking is not an unreasonable one (given the Council's heritage assets policies and the fact that the flawed original consent, allowing the demolition of Altamira, has now expired). I will set out its terms again:

 

that there will be no demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, unless or until there are new plans in place for the site which would require the demolition of this heritage asset, and those plans have been properly consulted on, considered and given planning consent, and there are no outstanding legal requirements which need to be met before those new proposed development plans can go ahead.

 

I hope that, having reconsidered my request on a fair reading of the assurance I am seeking, Ms Wright can now give that assurance on behalf of Brent Council. Thank you. Best wishes, 

 

Philip Grant.’

Brent’s Halloween Nightmare – its Morland Gardens planning consent has expired!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

“Altamira”, 1 Morland Gardens, on 30 October 2023 (a significant date).

 

I’ve lost count of the number of guest posts I’ve written about Brent Council’s plans to redevelop (and demolish!) this locally listed heritage Victorian villa, then home to Brent Start, since they first submitted a planning application in February 2020.

 

The proposed development was mentioned in a report to Brent’s Cabinet earlier this month, which said: ‘The Morland Garden project is experiencing significant viability challenges whilst also being subject to a significant delay in the project delivery timescales dependent on the outcome of the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order.’

 

I pointed out one of the “significant viability challenges” in guest posts in July, including copies of open letters to Brent’s Chief Executive and to the Mayor of London. I showed that Brent’s claim to have achieved a “start of site” by 31 March 2023, in order to qualify for more than £6.5m in GLA 2016-2023 Affordable Homes Programme funding, was false.

 

At first Brent refused to accept this, but on 30 August I received a letter of apology from Kim Wright, including the following admissions:

 

‘In the past few days, I have been made aware of some delays to the works programme which have resulted in the GLA’s Start on Site definition not being met, and this is different to what I had been firmly assured by colleagues was the case and which I communicated to you.’

 

‘I have expressed my disappointment and frustration to those Officers involved, in that I should have been able to rely on the accuracy of what they were telling me, especially after I had probed this particular point thoroughly in order to satisfy myself as to the position.’

 

‘Having reviewed this with the GLA, the council is now aware that this means the Start on Site definition was not met …. The council informed the GLA as soon as we became aware of this error and we are committed to working closely with them to address any implications arising from it.’

 

So, currently NO funding from the GLA for this project, What about the delay caused by ‘the public inquiry in relation to the stopping up order’? The Mayor of London’s decision on 20 March 2023 advised Brent that a Public Inquiry would be necessary, but (as one of the objectors) I waited in vain to hear when that would be held. 

 

On 23 June I submitted an FoI request with a simple question:

 

‘Has a request to hold an Inquiry over the proposed Stopping-up Order been sent to the Inspector?’

 

All that it needed was a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Instead, on 31 July I received the following response from Brent’s Director of Property and Assets:

 

‘In relation to [your enquiry] above, I am unable to provide any of the information that you have requested, and, in this regard, I apply the EIR 2004 Exemptions set out in 12(4) (d) which states that the Council may refuse to disclose information where “the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion. This is because the Council is currently in the process of considering its options in relation to the Stopping-up-Order and no formal decision has been made as to how the Council will proceed.’

 

It appeared that the Council had not yet put the wheels in motion for an Inquiry into the objections (by four members of the public) against the proposed Stopping-up Order, but as the refusal to say “yes” or “no” seemed unreasonable, I requested an Internal Review. However, it appears that I didn’t understand how difficult it can be to provide a straight “yes” or “no” answer!

 

On 11 September, I received the Council’s response to that Internal Review (from Brent’s Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, no less). It included this statement:

 

‘With respect to the public interest considerations, I am aware of our obligations to enable greater access to environmental information. I am also aware of the public interest in promoting accountability and transparency for decisions taken by Brent, especially in relation to Morland Gardens and the stopping up order.  However, I am also of the view, that providing a yes/no answer as you suggest, at that time, could disrupt the process and thinking of officers. I am therefore satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure.’

 

However, the GLA funding and the Public Inquiry required over the Stopping-up Order were not Brent’s only problems over its proposed Morland Gardens development. They seem to have overlooked Condition 1 of the planning consent they received on 30 October 2020:

 

Condition 1 from the Decision Notice issued on 30 October 2020,
accepting Brent Council’s Morland Gardens planning application 20/0345.

 

The Council’s flawed Morland Gardens project has seen mistake after mistake, delay after delay. I will ask Martin to attach below a copy of the Open Letter I sent today to Brent’s Chief Executive, advising her that the planning permission for the Morland Gardens development has expired. It has lots of information, pictures and legal argument, should you care to read it.

 

1 Morland Gardens and the Community Garden, with the sympathetically redeveloped
(about 20 years ago) Victorian villa at 2 Morland Gardens beyond, 30 October 2023,

 

Brent may try to find a way to wriggle out of the latest mess they have got themselves into, but I hope they will now have the good sense to drop their current plans, and design a development which provides an up-to-date college for Brent Start, with some affordable housing, but retains the beautiful heritage Victorian villa and the Community Garden area in front of it.

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

GLA Call for Evidence: Preventing Violence and Protecting Young People

 

The weekend's stabbings in Wembley Park and Neasden, as well as the death in Croydon, were very much on our minds last night at the Brent and Harrow hustings for the Green Party candidate for the GLA constituency.

The London Assembly Police and Crime Committee chaired by Green Assembly Member Caroline Russell, has launched an investigation into preventing violence and protecting young people. It will consider the root causes of violence affecting young people in London and what the Mayor and Metropolitan Police are doing to prevent violence in communities.

You can submit your own evidence to the investigation.  Details from  the GLA below.

 

How to respond 

 

The deadline for submission is Friday 13 October 2023.

 

The Committee would like to invite anyone with knowledge or experience of violence affecting young people to submit views and information to the investigation, including those working to protect young people and prevent violence, giving you the opportunity to inform the Committee’s work and influence its recommendations. Therefore, this call for evidence is open to all who would like to respond.

 

1.    What are the root causes of violence affecting young people in London?

2.    What role do non-policing solutions, including projects run by youth services, community organisations and charities, play in preventing violence and protecting young people in London? How do these projects help to reduce violence affecting young people?

3.    What more should schools and education providers be doing to protect children and young people at risk of violence in London?

4.    What impact has London’s Violence Reduction Unit had on reducing and preventing violence since it was established in 2019?

5.    How well does the Met work with partner organisations to prevent and reduce violence affecting young people? What more should it be doing?

6.    What actions should the Mayor be taking to build trust and confidence among young people and protect communities that are most impacted by violence?

7.    What action should be taken to engage young Londoners in initiatives to protect and support young people affected by violence?

 

Please send evidence by email to: scrutiny@london.gov.uk

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/media/102723/download

 

What we will do with your responses

The responses to this Call for Evidence will be used to inform the Committee’s discussion with invited stakeholders at its meetings in September and October 2023 and any subsequent recommendations. These are open meetings which will be held in City Hall, and anyone is welcome to attend as an audience member to watch the discussions. They will also be broadcast online.

Following the investigation, the Committee may produce an output in the form of a published letter or report. Information and/or quotations from submissions to this call for evidence may be used in this output, and we will ensure we cite you. We generally inform those who have submitted evidence about the outcome of the investigation in the form of link to a report or output when it is published.

 

Key questions on Brent Council's disposal of shared-ownership homes at Cabinet this morning

 Cllr Anton Georgiou has just asked this question re Item 13 on today's Cabinet Agenda

I am here to request clarifications on the report which focuses mainly on the proposed disposal of 23 shared ownership homes in my ward of Alperton but has wider implications for other schemes in the borough.  

I note the report has an Appendix which is not publicly available, that I have seen a redacted version of, however have been advised by Officers to not make reference to the information I have seen regarding the bids for these properties.

I also note that at the Full Council meeting on Monday 10^th July, I asked the Lead Member about this report and the response did not seem in line with the content of the document in front of us.

Where this report states that its purpose is to “seek authority to dispose of 23 shared ownership homes on the open market”, the Lead Member implied, with the Leader of the Council’s intervention, that these homes would in fact be repurposed by the Council.

So, my first question is:

-          What did the Lead Member mean by repurposing the 23 homes, is that the same as disposing of them? Perhaps Cllr Knight would like the opportunity to correct the record at this stage?

For historical context, I would like to understand how the Council initially defined these homes.

-          Were these 23 units referred to in this report counted in the 1,000 promised “New Council Homes” programme 2019/24?

 

-          If yes, why did the Council define these Shared Ownership units as Council Homes, something I have received assurances previously does not happen in Brent.

We all know that Shared Ownership is not an affordable housing model let alone helping to reduce the boroughs housing waiting list, which ought to be the Council’s number one housing priority.

This Council is often vocal about its record on Council House building, however, as I have argued we need to understand the full facts on what is actually being delivered and whether it is truly delivering Council Homes for Council tenants at the levels stated in Brent Council press releases and on Brent Council communications.

Assuming the decision is agreed to ‘dispose’ of these 23 homes:

-          Could you confirm that the units disposed of will be disposed to a Housing Association fully, to be rented at the London Living Rent level, which is what I assume is being referred to when a “new model” is mentioned in the report?

 

-          If that is not the case, could you please enlighten us as to what the “new model” the report refers to actually is?

I understand that the Council bought these properties under a 999-year lease.

-          Are the Council’s plans to sell the full 999-year lease, or is your plan to only grant a 125-year lease to the successful buyer?

 

-          This has implications for the legality of the sale, as mentioned in the report. You will be aware that local authorities cannot dispose of HRA assets without permission of the Secretary of State unless they are disposed at equal to market value. Are you confident this will be the case?

The financial implications for this sale are in the public’s interest.

-          How much money will Brent Council be losing or making out of this sell-off?

The delay in deciding what to do with these homes is concerning to me.

-          Can you explain why 22 of these units have remained empty since October 2022 and why this decision was not made earlier? We are now more than halfway through 2023, in light of the housing crisis in our borough and city, it is alarming that there has been such a delay in making this decision.

 

-          What was the cost of debt financing during this period for the Housing Revenue Account?

I would appreciate if Cabinet and Officers could address these questions at earliest convenience, as I believe it is important that when decisions like this are made by the Council, the full facts are known to residents and all stakeholders involved.

It is important to state that this may not be the only time a decision like this will need to be taken by the Council.

Earlier in the General Purposes Committee I made reference to the Shared Ownership units at Watling Gardens. It seems to me that there is considerable uncertainty and confusion around the Council’s plans on the delivery of affordable homes in the borough. In light of this report and potential upcoming decisions that will need to be taken regarding other schemes in the borough, I urge the Cabinet to review its housing plans.

I also recommend that an independent Scrutiny Task Group is set up urgently to provide the accountability and scrutiny needed in this important area, to be Chaired by Member not from the Majority Group on Brent Council.

 

Leader of the Council, Cllr Muhammed Butt, was clearly annoyed by the questions and said they should have been emailed in advance and in a testy exchange said that Cllr Georgiou should be grateful that he had been given the courtesy of an opportunity to speak to Cabinet. Georgiou replied that this was his right as a member of the council.

 

There was no direct response to the questions when the item was discussed. Lead Member Cllr Promise Knight  said that people in Brent still needed shared ownership homes and she was one of those people. Any surplus from the disposal would go back to providing homes via the HRA (Housing Revenue Account).  The model chosen would support reduced service charges.

Cllr Tatler commended the work carried out on this proposal and it was important that this decision still met the needs of local people.

Cllr Muhammed Butt reiterated that any surplus from the sale would go back to the HRA account and there was no loss to the council. The council would continue to provode homes at the right sort of tenure and was working with the GLA and Homes for England. The council was willing to have conversation with 'people out there' to provide homes.