Showing posts with label GLA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GLA. Show all posts

Monday 18 December 2023

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.’

Tuesday 31 October 2023

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.

 

 

Friday 29 September 2023

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.

 


Monday 17 July 2023

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 10th 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.

Monday 3 July 2023

Brent Right to Food - a discussion on Free Universal School Meals July 8th Newman College

 

Regarding the London Mayor's extension of free school meals to all primary pupils issues have arisen that have been discussed in Schools Forum. As initially it is only for a year and the Mayoral elections take place in May schools are faced with short-term decisions on recruitng extra staff to cook and serve meals and  possible expansion of the kitchens to cope with cooking extra meals. This would impact on school budgets that are already under strain of the grant does not cover all costs.  There are also issues around employment rights for extra staff employed.

Schools have been told they could supply cold lunches or vouchers instead of a hot meal that rather undermines the healthy eating aspect of the scheme as well as the benefit of a hot meal in the winter months when children's homes may be under-heated or not heated at all due to unaffordable energy bills.

Some are quite cynical about a policy in which schoools are required to badge the additionale meals scheme to the London Mayor to parents in a pre-election period (see 4.3 below)

The long-term sustainability if the scheme into the next Mayoral term is in question and a topic that should be discussed at the above meeting.

This is an extract from the officers' report to Schools Forum:

Background


3.1 In February 2023, the Mayor informed all London authorities that he will provide
funding at £440 per child for all children in Key Stage 2 to receive Free School
Meals for the academic year 2023/24. The Mayor’s ambition was that the
funding offers all primary aged children access to a hot meal at least once a
day.


3.2 In correspondence received from the Mayor’s office on 28 April 2023, a total
budget of £130 million to provide FSMs to children in KS2 who are not currently
eligible was confirmed. In line with government policy and guidance, this
funding is only for state-funded primary schools and with all other funding of
free school meals schemes, it will not extend to children in independent schools.


3.3 Brent’s indicative grant allocation is £5,212,059.00 which is based on an
assumed 90% uptake for the number of children who are not eligible for the
current Government’s FSM grant. The indicative figure is based on October
2022 census and will be finalised once May 2023 school census figures are
published in July. Payment will be at a rate of £2.65 per meal. This is above
the Government rate of £2.41 because it includes funding for costs associated
with delivering FSMs, such as administration and staffing costs in schools.


3.4 Payment will be made termly in advance to allow for upfront costs to be covered
- 50% of the funding will be paid in July 2023, with a further 20% in December
and a further 20% in March 2024. A balance of 10% will be held back for the
final payment and will be adjusted based on the census day returns in October
2023 and January 2024. A balancing payment or claw back determined by the
difference will be made before the end of the summer term 2024. Also, if take
up exceeds 90%, the final grant allocation will be a top-up allocation instead of
a clawback.


3.5 Payment will be made directly to Local Authorities for their maintained schools
and non-maintained schools, with payment to academies and multi-academy
trusts made via each Local Authority for MATs in their area. The expectation is
that local authorities pass on the exact amount to each MAT based on set
allocations.


4. Grant Conditions


4.1 As part the scheme, Local Authorities must participate in evaluation and data
submission exercises and ongoing reviews of the programme as required by
the Mayor’s office. Communication to London Chief Executives (5 June 2023)
sets out details on the grant and the monitoring process. All participating Local
Authorities will be required to register on the GLA OPS system and sign a
contract.


4.2 As the KS2 UFSM programme progresses, GLA will request regular and
comprehensive information from Local Authorities to understand the value of
the programme.


4.3 Schools and local authorities are expected to promote the Mayor’s investment
in school meals through branding and communication which will be provided by
the GLA. Participating boroughs will be required to support the distribution of
communication from the Mayor of London to all affected families, parents or
carers on a termly basis. The letter addressed to the Chief Executive (5 June)
is the first of these communications and is required to be sent out this term.


4.4 The funding should be used for schemes that:
 continue to maximise registration by eligible families for pupil premium,
which may otherwise be impacted by the move to a universal approach
through the Mayor’s Emergency Free School Meals funding


 pay London Living Wage (LLW) to catering staff and include LLW in
any future tenders


 meet school food standards and ensure school food is culturally
appropriate. Brent recognises, however, that the available funding may
not meet the full cost of providing culturally appropriate food, such as
Kosher meals.


 take a whole school approach to healthy eating, participation in Healthy
Schools London and adoption of water only policies.


 meet sustainable catering guidelines and support environmental aims.
5. Grant Implementation


5.1 The Mayor’s office established a Partnership Advisory Group consisting of
senior London borough officers to provide guidance and expert input into the
development and implementation of the programme. The Partnership Advisory
Group were supported by four task and finish groups that focus on the approach
to delivery, including grant management, monitoring and evaluation,
sustainability, and policy implementation.


5.2 Initial discussions with Brent school leaders raised several practical concerns
about providing hot meals to all Key Stage 2 children, with views gathered via
a meeting with headteachers and a survey issued to headteachers of all primary
schools (community schools, voluntary aided and academies). While some
schools responded that it would be relatively easy for them to provide additional
school meals, others raised concerns about the implications for staffing and
kitchen infrastructure, the impact on Pupil Premium Grant applications in Key
Stage 2 and impact on the school timetable, as previously reported to PCG.
These were discussed at the Partnership Advisory Groups’ most recent briefing
on 24 April 2023.


5.3 A key shift in the GLA strategy in response to implementation concerns is that
schools can choose to provide a cold lunch service where it is not feasible to
provide a hot meal. Furthermore, where LA and/or school leaders identify that
the only way that they can implement the programme is by providing school
meal vouchers, they will be able to seek the agreement of the Mayor’s office.
This will be agreed on a case-by-case basis where there are exceptional
circumstances.


5.4 The Mayor’s office is rolling out a series of workshops to support school leaders
and address practical concerns by sharing good practice models. At the first
two sessions, officers from London Boroughs that already provide KS2 UFSM
shared case studies of best practice. These workshops have been well
attended by school leaders across London and headteachers can also now
access resources from the GLA website to help their planning.


5.5 The Brent FSM Project Group chaired by the Director of Education,
Partnerships and Strategy, is meeting regularly to plan and implement Brent’s
approach in line with GLA guidance as it is issued. Key completed activity
includes the development of timeline to ensure the dissemination of funds and
a communication strategy. Brent schools were notified of the details of the
programme in May. Schools will be provided with indicative allocations this
month, which will be confirmed when the Mayor of London’s office confirm
details of the autumn grant funding in July (based on June census) and once
confirmed, the local authority will allocate the funds accordingly.


5.6 The local authority will work with schools on a campaign to encourage Key
Stage 2 parents during 2023/24 to formally sign-up to FSMs to ensure that they
can access pupil premium funding. The first wave of communication on this will
be rolled out in June 2023. The local authority has also placed an advertisement
in the local resident’s magazine Your Brent and will continue to provide further
information about the programme for local residents on a termly basis


1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to Brent’s Chief Executive – it is time to pause and reflect

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens behind a corner of the community garden, 26 June 2023.

 

It is nearly three months since my last guest post about 1 Morland Gardens [“Brent’s latest NON-development (and a planning complaint)”], but that doesn’t mean that nothing has been happening.

 

My blog on 4 April said that Brent Council had lost its £6.5m GLA grant funding because no “start on site” had taken place at Morland Gardens. I’ve since found out, from the GLA, that Brent Council claimed it had achieved a “start on site” in January 2023, as part of applying (successfully) for an increased grant for the affordable homes it was building there!

 

Following several Freedom of Information Act requests to the GLA and Brent Council, I can now say categorically that Brent’s Morland Gardens redevelopment DID NOT “start on site” (as defined in its funding agreement with the GLA) in January. Nor was the Victorian villa demolished in March 2023 (you can see it in the photo from last week above!) as Brent claimed in January that it would be.

 

There is still no Stopping-up Order for the highway land in front of 1 Morland Gardens, so with a continuing delay before Brent could actually start their development, and the serious risk that Brent could lose its GLA funding for the housing element of the scheme, I sent an open letter to Brent’s new Chief Executive, Kim Wright, on 26 June. I will ask Martin to attach a copy of my letter at the end of this article, so that is “in the public domain” for anyone to read should they want to.

 

As Ms Wright will not know the full story of this flawed project, I have set out the main points from its history. I have asked her ‘to cast fresh eyes over the project, with a view to initiating a “whole case review” of whether the Council should still press ahead with it.’ 

 

It is a long letter, so I will set out some “highlights” in this article. I will deal with the detail over why Brent have not achieved a “start on site” when I share a second open letter, to the Mayor of London, with you.

 

In the Affordable Housing Update Report to Brent’s Cabinet last November, Officers admitted that the Morland Gardens project was not viable. I wrote a guest post then, with an open email I’d sent to the Council Leader. My suggestion for an alternative way forward was ignored.

 

In January, Brent asked the GLA for increased funds (there was still spare money “in the kitty”, as some other schemes, e.g. Kilburn Square, would not be able to “start on site” before the deadline of 31 March 2023). The GLA asked (in black) for some information, and Brent added their answer (in red) in an email of 23 January – this is an extract from it:

 


The amount of Brent’s £43m budget for Morland Gardens already spent is redacted, but I would guess at between £3m and £4m (including at least £1.5m on moving the Brent Start college to a temporary home, which has blocked any work on the Council’s 67-home Twybridge Way housing scheme).

 

The GLA’s Affordable Housing Programme Review Board considered Brent’s application at the end of January, and agreed to replace the original funding of £6.5m (£100k for each of 65 proposed homes) with a larger new grant (amount unknown, because it was redacted) under a Project-by-Project agreement. But as this grant was also from the AHP 2016-2023 scheme, the Morland Gardens 2 project still needed to Start on Site (“SOS”) by 31 March 2023.

 

Brent had already claimed to have achieved that “milestone”, based on details set out (again in red) in an email response to GLA questions on 20 January:

 


 

The claims that work had already begun on the site, that demolition would take place in March and that the “main build” construction works would begin by the end of April were vital for showing that the project had not only started but would continue ‘without a fallow period’, which was another requirement for the funding. Those claims were confirmed when Brent Council Officers held their quarterly meeting with the GLA’s area housing team on 7 February. Here is the Morland Gardens entry from Brent’s minutes of that meeting:

 



And it was not just minor Brent Council officials supporting these (what turned out to be false) claims to the GLA. This is the list of attendees from that minutes document (with names redacted to protect their identities, though most could be named from their job titles!):

 



Although an answer in the 20 January email said the stopping-up order (still with GLA planners) ‘won’t delay the progression of SOS’, the 7 February minutes acknowledged that there were still ‘challenges with the stopping-up order objections’. Those challenges were about to increase, as although Brent had told the GLA planners that all of the objection points raised by the objectors had already been dealt with during the planning application process in 2020, the GLA planners, that same day, had asked for copies of the original objections, not just Brent’s summary of what they were!

 



Anyone who read my guest post, “1 Morland Gardens – is proposed Stopping-Up Order another mistake?”, on 28 April 2022 will know that the harmful effects of the proposed development on air quality for pedestrians was not considered as part of the planning process, and there was a whole section on that in the objection comments I submitted in May 2022. That failure to consider the increased exposure to air pollution which the stopping-up would cause was the main reason why the (Deputy) Mayor of London’s decision letter to Brent Council on 20 March said that an Inquiry was not unnecessary:

 


 

More than three months after that decision, I have still heard nothing about when an Inquiry will be held, or who will be conducting it. Council Officers have not replied to requests for information on this, so I’ve had to submit an FoI request just to find out those details. Ridiculous!

 

Brent’s long delays over the Stopping-up Order they would need for their proposed Morland Gardens development to go ahead, and attempts to mislead the GLA over “progress” on the project, have put their plans at serious risk of failure. My open letter to Kim Wright spells that out, but also suggests some alternatives. One of these could be to leave the Brent Start college, permanently, at the Twybridge Way site.

 

That site was supposed to be Phase 2 of Brent’s Stonebridge new homes scheme, and could have been nearing completion by now if Brent’s Cabinet, on the advice of Officers, had not agreed in January 2020 to use it as a temporary home (from August 2020 to August 2022!) for Brent Start while the Morland Gardens redevelopment took place.

 

The opening paragraph from “Your Brent News”, 5 May 2023.

 

There was no mention of Stonebridge Phase 2 when the Council Leader publicised his visit to some of the Phase 1 homes (recently completed by Higgins) with the Mayor of London two months ago. But perhaps there was a hint that Cllr. Butt might be ready to accept that his plans for Morland Gardens need to be reconsidered in this paragraph, further down in the same report:

 

‘While I was in Stonebridge, I also stopped by the new Brent Start Adult Education Centre on Hillside to see its new home, say hello to the Team and meet some of the students. New homes may be the foundation for families to build their lives upon, but skills and learning are the bricks that will make that foundation stronger and open up a wave of new opportunities for local people so I’m thrilled that Stonebridge residents have this new and improved centre right on their doorstep.’

 

Brent Council certainly needs to pause and reflect on its proposals for 1 Morland Gardens, and I hope they will take the opportunity to do that, and choose a more sensible path.


Philip Grant.