LETTER: Lack of information on Brent Council's Gauntlett Court plans is unacceptable

Gauntlett Court, Sudbury 

 

Dear Editor,

Gauntlett Court in Sudbury is a 1950s/1960s development consisting of a number of 3 and 4 storey blocks with grassed communal areas. There are 102 flats within Gauntlett Court and another 12 flats in two 3 storey blocks on the Harrow Road frontage.

Around 50% of the units have now been sold to Leaseholders - many of these are sublet. 

Prior to the most recent local elections the Council published its NCHP (Brent's New Council Housing Programme). This included Gauntlett Court and stated the ambition to add 120 units to the existing number. There was no information as to how this was to be achieved - although the density of units on the site would more than double if 120 was added to the existing 114.

Prior to the elections I challenged the Council information and asked that the residents are advised what the Council was intending. When residents approached their then Labour Councillors they were told that this was all "just speculation" and they had nothing to worry about.

The Council never provided the answers I asked for before the election (and they still have not) They have however reissued the document after the election, with the same ambition for extra 120 units - but still without any meaningful information and detail. I think the residents have the right to know what the Council is intending for their Estate and what implications this will have on their quality of life for many years.

To achieve the target of 120 extra units the council would need to:

* Demolish the estate and rebuild it it a much higher density.

* Build extra flats on top of the existing ones

* take away all or most of the grassed areas to build on

or a combination of the above.

The officer sending out the publication has an interesting job title "Community Consultation and Engagement". Would it not be nice if the Council actually communicated and engaged properly on these kind of important issues?

Issuing a document stating that the Council has a plan to build extra 120 units on the site, without further information, creates confusion, concerns, and potentially blight - especially any leaseholder in the process of selling up and moving on. Those unlucky being caught up by this announcement will either not be able to sell at all or having to accept a substantially below market price. Council tenants living in the blocks also face years of uncertainty and the prospect of living on a building site for many years or being forced to move.

Other residents whose blocks are on the Council NCHP list will of course face similar uncertainty and issues.

So - besides issuing an out of date map - the Council should now explain clearly what the extra new build units mean for each location, how they expect to achieve their target number and over what timescale. Keeping local people most impacted by these ideas in the dark is no longer acceptable.

Paul Lorber

9 July 2022

Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects: Gauntlett Court, Sudbury. 'Airspace' explained

 Guest post, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Entrance to the Gauntlett Court estate, Harrow Road, Sudbury, February 2015.

 

At the end of August, I wrote an article about Brent Council’s “secret” plans for adding more homes to some of its existing housing estates. That guest blog was mainly about estates in Fryent Ward, but I did also mention that Gauntlett Court in Sudbury was shown as a project ‘not yet in public domain’. This was on a map prepared for a Cabinet meeting in July, with a figure of 120 new homes shown beside it.

 

Two weeks ago, Martin published the response I’d received to that article from Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. She said that everything shown in that map ‘is not a secret’ (although Brent has done nothing to publicise it!). One of the main themes of my article was that ‘the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account.’ Commenting on that Cllr. Southwood also said:

 

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects,’ and, 

 

‘I agree that working with residents is key and this will continue to be a core part of developing any proposals for new housing, balanced with the needs of residents who are currently homeless and the requirements of planning policy.’

 

You can judge for yourself how far Brent Council is living up to those words, from this further information which has reached me about Gauntlett Court from various sources. I am grateful to Paul Lorber, for letting me see a reply he received from Brent’s Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, which I will quote from below.

 

The Strategic Director’s report to Cabinet in July 2021, about Brent’s New Affordable Homes Programme, did include Gauntlett Court in a list of sites undergoing feasibility assessment. This showed the number of predicted new homes there as 5. He has recently apologised, saying that this was an old figure, which should have been updated.

 

The five new homes were bungalows, proposed to be built where there are currently garages. At least until recently, this was the only “infill” housing project at Gauntlett Court which one of the backbench Sudbury Ward councillors was aware of. Martin has let me have a photograph of a similar project underway at the Council flats in Kings Drive [readers of a similar age to me may remember Pete Seeger’s 1963 song “Little Boxes”].

 

New Brent Council bungalows under construction at Kings Drive, Wembley Park.

 

The Strategic Director has now clarified the position, saying that for Gauntlett Court: 

 

‘the current feasibility relates to a potential 120 units on the same site as the existing Gauntlett Court. The Council is considering a mix of airspace (building over existing blocks) and infill development in and around that site.’

 

He made it clear that: ‘feasibility assessments for sites under consideration.  In other words, they are early assessments of what might be possible, these numbers change as projects do or don’t progress.’ Yet they are there in the report to Cabinet, as predictions of what the Council’s Housing Supply and Partnerships (“HSP”) team expects to be able to deliver.

 

“Airspace” may be a new term to you (it was to me!). The July report to Cabinet said that one of the methods by which the HSP team would deliver 700 new homes by 2026 (using funding from the Mayor of London’s Affordable Homes Programme) was: ‘Airspace development using an offsite Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) solution.’ This appears to mean using modules built in a specialist factory, then delivered to the site on the back of a lorry and lowered into place by crane.

 

 

A factory building housing modules, and a module being lowered by crane. (Images from the internet)

 

The term “Modern Methods of Construction” covers a variety of pre-prepared materials delivered to building sites (such as panels used to clad the walls of buildings constructed on wooden, steel or concrete frames). Lowering new home units onto supports placed across the flat roofs of existing blocks appears to be the one which they have in mind for Gauntlett Court (and probably also for Campbell and Elvin Courts in Fryent Ward). 

 

I’m amused that this is considered a modern method of construction. It is what was being used to supply temporary factory-made bungalows, or “prefabs”, after the Second World War! If you’d like to discover more about local prefab homes, you can see the slides from an illustrated talk that I gave at Kingsbury Library, a couple of years ago, here.

 

 

Section of a prefab home being lowered into place by crane, 1946. (Image from the internet)

 

As well as “airspace” homes on the roofs of the existing 1950s brick-built three and four storey blocks, Brent’s HSP team are also looking to add “infill” homes. This would have to be on land that is currently grassy open space, with mature trees, or areas currently used for parking residents’ cars, or both.

 

What do the residents think?  Gauntlett Court has its own Residents’ Association, which meets regularly with local councillors and the Council’s housing management officers. One of the Association’s committee members said, as of two weeks ago, they had not been informed of or consulted about the HSP team’s proposals. Yet, a few days later, the Strategic Director wrote:

 

‘As I said above, these are early assessments, they will evolve as costs, site considerations and planning issues emerge.   All of this work will be done with local residents and councillors.’

 

I don’t think that it is right for such schemes to be kept “secret” until Council Officers have decided what they propose to do, in terms of method and numbers, on existing Council-owned estates. If they are to prepare plans that ‘work for everyone’ (to quote Cllr. Southwood’s promise to residents objecting to the plans for Kilburn Square), they need to discuss what could be acceptable at Gauntlett Court, or any other estate they are considering, from a very early stage. Surely they can see that, from the storm they caused at Kilburn Square, when they ploughed on with unacceptable plans for nearly a year before being willing to listen to what residents were telling them!

 

 

Harrow Road blocks on the Gauntlett Court estate, with a central green space beyond, February 2015.

 

The residents at Gauntlett Court are not all Council tenants. One estimate I’ve seen puts the number of leaseholders at around 50%, as a result of “right to buy”. You probably think that this was a “Thatcher-years” policy from the 1980s, but Winston Churchill’s Conservative government introduced a similar scheme in the 1950s. The Borough of Wembley Municipal Housing Handbook for 1960 records that this ‘Sale of Council Houses” scheme had caused them to sell 318 homes since December 1952.

 

Will these leaseholders want their green space built over, or new Council homes put on their roofs (with the associated building work and potential effect on the value of their own property)? What if there are subsequently problems with defects to these new homes - will they be indemnified from having to meet a share of the costs of remediation work? Such defects problems are not unknown, as we’ve seen very recently! Or will Brent Council, as freeholder, just ignore their concerns, or over-ride their “third party rights”? I sincerely hope not. 

 

Brent Council’s HSP team should let all the residents at Gauntlet Court know, in writing and without delay, what their current thoughts are about how the estate might be altered to provide more of the Council homes which the borough undoubtedly needs. It should then begin meetings with them, to discuss those ideas, and listen to the thoughts and ideas of the residents, to seek a reasonable compromise about plans going forward.

 

That is only fair and reasonable. It is also what Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, and Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, appear to have said is the Council’s approach. The Council Officers actually dealing with these matters, day-to-day, need to put that “working with residents” approach into practice. 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

Brent’s “secret” housing projects – the Council’s response

 

Extract from Brent’s housing projects map, with ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes in black.

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Three weeks ago, I wrote a guest blog about Brent Council plans for “infill” housing schemes which were ‘not yet in public domain’. In the comments beneath it, I shared the text of an email I’d sent to the councillors and Council officers most closely involved, offering them a “right of reply”.

 

I did receive a short email the same day, from one of my Fryent Ward councillors who I’d copied the email to. Shama Tatler, who is also the Lead Member for Regeneration in Brent’s Cabinet, wrote:

 

‘Thank you for your email. Yes, you can be assured that we as ward councillors will be involved early with any proposal and will ensure resident voice. We have been doing the same in other projects in the ward.’

 

Encouraging words, although they do beg the question: “if they had been involved early in the four ‘not yet in public domain’ proposals in their ward, why hadn’t residents been given a chance to have their say about them yet?”

 

I had to wait a couple of weeks for a substantive reply, but on 16 September I received Brent’s response to my article from Cllr. Eleanor Southwood, Lead Member for Housing. I will set out its full text below, and would encourage you all to read it. 

 

I believe that all citizens of the borough should be able to express their views, on issues they feel strongly about, to those at the Civic Centre who make the big decisions. But we also need to consider what they say. Having these exchanges of views publicly available can help us to understand each other. (It can also be useful in trying to ensure that the Council lives up to the words of the elected members who represent us!)

 

Here is the Council’s response:

 

‘Thank you for your email and again apologies for not responding sooner.

 

 

For clarity, the map that you included in your blog, entitled by you or other, ‘Brent’s secret housing projects’ was published alongside a cabinet report providing detail of all of Brent’s current housing projects – this report and its appendices were public and therefore by definition, everything included in it is not a secret.  However I agree that the term ‘not yet in the public domain’ used as a key on the map was unhelpful, and as such we will not be using this term in future to explain sites that are at the feasibility stage.

 

 

I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects, not just on the housing itself but also on the improvements that are made as part of each development we deliver.  We take this responsibility seriously - with workshops, public events, newsletters and questionnaires all used to discuss and get input on our proposals.  You’ll no doubt have seen my written response to a question at Full Council re the Kilburn Square development, which I think is good evidence of this.

 

 

However, as I’m sure you’re aware, the process isn’t that linear.  As you have also pointed out, in addition to our duty to existing residents, we also have a duty to residents who are homeless or in priority housing need – as at August 2021 there were 1487 families and individuals living in Temporary Accommodation, to whom the Council owes a housing duty.  Just for context, if we do nothing more to increase our housing stock some of those families could be waiting more than 15 years to get a suitable house that they can call home.  This is unacceptable and we’re committed to changing this outlook, which inevitably involves balancing differing views and priorities.

 

 

The approach to addressing the housing shortage in Brent is multi-pronged – we are working with Housing Associations and private developers to bring forward housing sites with good levels of genuinely affordable housing, we are reviewing and improving management of our existing stock so that we can make better use of what we have and, we are building our own housing for social rent to our residents. 

 

 

We don’t have a surplus of suitable land for development, so we are reviewing lots of sites across our borough to understand which might be suitable for housing – this is the feasibility work referred to earlier.  We’re always keen to engage with ward Cllrs and local residents ahead of any proposals going to planning.  I appreciate that proposed developments can create anxiety and that compromise is often required.  In addition, all of our work in housing development is framed by policy at a local and regional level, which provides strict requirements in terms of density, open space, parking etc, in order that Brent and London continue to provide homes whilst protecting what’s important for existing residents.   

 

 

I agree that working with residents is key and this will continue to be a core part of developing any proposals for new housing, balanced with the needs of residents who are currently homeless and the requirements of planning policy.

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best wishes,

Cllr Southwood’

 

Encouraging words again, especially her agreement that ‘Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects’, but we do need to see that happening in practice, and at an early stage of any proposed “infill” schemes. If you live at Campbell Court, Elvin Court, Westcroft Court or Gauntlett Court, or if you know anyone who does, have residents there been consulted about the Council’s proposals yet? Please add a comment below with the answer!

 

I had read Cllr. Southwood’s written response to the question on Kilburn Square. Some of the points she made in that, particularly that 'the most cost effective building occurs when the council is able to build on land that it owns', reminded me that no one from Brent had responded to an email I sent to all members of the Cabinet on 13 August. That email was about my article on Council housing on the former Copland School site. I also had a letter on the same subject published in last week’s Brent & Kilburn Times (16 September). 

 

An elevation drawing from the Council’s plans for the Wembley housing development.

 

The Council owns the vacant site, and has full planning consent to build 250 homes there. It has access to over £100m of grant funding from the GLA to build social rent housing over the next five years. Yet Brent’s Cabinet has agreed to invite a private developer to get involved in the project, and to let that developer have more than 150 of the homes to sell at a profit!

 

I have replied to Cllr. Southwood, and raised this issue again. I can’t understand why, with the urgent need for Council homes that she emphasises, Brent isn’t building all of these 250 homes (including sixty-four 3 and 4-bedroom family dwellings) for affordable rent, instead of just 52!

 

I will include the text of my latest email to her in the comments section below. And I will, of course, share any response I receive with you.

Philip Grant.

 

Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects – now in the public domain!

 Guest post by Philip Grant

A month ago, Martin published the above map, from a report to Brent’s July Cabinet meeting, which included the locations of a number of the Council’s “infill” housing projects which were ‘not yet in public domain’.

 

I believe that our Council should be open with residents, especially those who will be most directly affected, about what its plans are (and I will say more about that later!). I added a comment to Martin’s 30 July blog, saying that I had asked for some information on the four ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes in Fryent Ward, where I live. 

 

I have now received a reply to that request, so am writing this to share that information with you. If you know anyone who lives in, or near, any of these estates, please bring this article to their attention, so that they are aware of what may be in store for their home. The Council estates mentioned below are Campbell Court, Elvin Court, Westcroft Court, Broadview (and Gauntlett Court in Sudbury).

 

Aerial view of Campbell Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury and surrounding area. (Source: Google Maps)

 

The four three-storey blocks of flats (diagonal to Church Lane) which make up Campbell Court were built around 1950, as part of Wembley’s post-war Council housing programme. They were named after a Second World War Mayor of the borough, Malcolm Campbell. As you can see, the compact site includes grassy areas and trees, pairs of senior citizens’ bungalows between each block and small access drives for deliveries and parking.

 

Like all of the four Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes, I was told that: ‘at present, the project is at the Feasibility stage’, and that: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage.’ “Feasibility” implies that they are looking at whether the project is possible (either structurally or financially), but Brent’s Cabinet have been told that 97 new homes could be delivered on this small estate. That suggests Council Officers already have a pretty firm idea of what they have in mind, even though they have not yet let residents there know what it is, or given them the chance to have their say!

 

The information I have now been given is that the Council are looking at a ‘mixture of rooftop development and infill’, with ‘1-2 stories added to Campbell [Court]’. Infill would inevitably mean the loss of some of the green space and mature trees around the existing homes. It would also mean more residents sharing a smaller amenity space. 

 

Building an extra one or two storeys onto the existing blocks may well be structurally possible. However, it would mean (quite apart from the disruption to the lives of existing residents during the construction work) some overshadowing and overlooking of the 1930s suburban homes in Boycroft Avenue, whose gardens back onto the estate. 

 

Gauntlett Court flats under construction, June 1950. (Brent Archives online image 3850)

 

Although it is in Sudbury, not Fryent, I will also mention the ‘not yet in public domain’ scheme for Gauntlett Court here. This Wembley Council estate was also built in 1950, with blocks to the same design as those at Campbell Court, and it too was named after a wartime Mayor, Herbert Gauntlett. You can read more about it in Sudbury – Then and Now (no.20).

 

The expected number of new homes on this site is 120. There is a small “green” between some of the blocks which could be “at risk” if the Council’s plans include “infill”, but otherwise it seems likely that “rooftop development” would be involved, adding one or more storeys to the existing blocks.

 

Elvin Court, Church Lane, Kingsbury.

 

Like Campbell Court, Wembley Council’s Elvin Court flats were built on a narrow strip of land alongside Church Lane. You can see the grass verge and access road (for deliveries and emergency vehicles) in front of the three-storey blocks, and there is a similar width behind them, before a line of trees which separates the estate from houses in Sycamore Grove.

 

These flats were built in the late 1950s / early 1960s, and named after Sir Arthur Elvin, a Freeman of the Borough of Wembley who had died in 1957. Some of the first tenants were families transferred from temporary “pre-fab” homes which had been built around the edge of Silver Jubilee Park in 1946.

 

The map above shows 40 new homes expected to be provided at Elvin Court. The information I have received says that this will be through ‘a mixture of rooftop development and infill’, and that, like Campbell Court, it would involve ‘1-2 stories added’. Once again: ‘no consultation has been undertaken at this stage’.

 

Maisonettes built by Wembley Council c.1960, at 353-359 Kingsbury Road.

 

The next Council estate where some new homes are proposed (but ‘not yet in public domain’) was actually part of Wembley’s post-War “pre-fabs” programme. In 1945, the Council had requisitioned spare land belonging to the Victoria Dance Hall in Kingsbury Road, and erected temporary factory-made bungalows there. These “pre-fabs” housed families until the late 1950s, and when they were demolished, Wembley Council built some attractive two-storey yellow-brick maisonettes, to the east of what had then become the Ritz Ballroom.

 

Development of the rest of the site was held up, because “the Ritz” was purchased by National Car Parks Ltd. From 1961, they submitted several planning applications for a petrol station and some housing. After a public inquiry in 1963, they were allowed to build their garage and car showroom (now the site of Kwikfit). As part of a land-swap deal, Wembley Council built a nine-storey block of 2-bedroom flats, and six 3-bedroom maisonettes in three-storey blocks, where the dance hall and its social club had stood. These were called Westcroft Court, after the old name of the field (most of which now forms part of Roe Green Park).

 

Westcroft Court, Kingsbury Road, opposite Roe Green Park.

 

The scheme which Brent Council are now looking at would add 16 new homes at Westcroft Court. I have been told that they do not intend to add any extra storeys to the main block (this may be because they already receive a good income from the mobile phone masts on its roof!), but that they are looking at part demolition and redevelopment on this small estate. 

 

The last of the proposed Fryent Ward ‘not yet in public domain’ schemes would be at Broadview, part of another Wembley Borough Council housing development. This small estate of semi-detached family homes was built around 1960, on a triangle of land between Fryent Way and the Bakerloo (now Jubilee) Line, just south of Kingsbury Station. Some of the original tenants were transferred here from the Pilgrims Way “pre-fab” estate, 114 factory-made aluminium bungalows erected after the Second World War as a temporary solution to the post-war housing shortage.

 

This proposal would be an “infill” development, for just three homes, described to me as ‘on garage site’. I have marked this site on the aerial view below, and you will see how small it is, tucked away behind the end houses in the road, and bordered by the tube line and the edge of Fryent Country Park. There is only a narrow access road to the site, between the side of a house and a wooded area of the Country Park, bordering the Gaderbrook stream, and that also provides access to the rear gardens (some with garages) of at least four homes. Space for any new homes here would be very restricted, and both the Country Park and the railway bank are local nature reserves, where the existing trees and bushes should not be destroyed.

 

Aerial view of the proposed site at Broadview, off Fryent Way, Kingsbury. (Source: Google Maps)

 

Surely the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account? We have seen recently, with its Kilburn Square housing proposals, the mess that Brent Council can get itself into by not consulting properly. 

 

In that case, it appears Council officers had already decided how many extra homes they could build on an existing Council estate, and that it would be acceptable to reduce the “green space” used by existing residents, while greatly increasing the number of people who would need to share it. This was before any “consultation”, which was then only about “design details”, not whether the scheme was one that made good sense! There is a danger that the Council will make the same mistake over its ‘not yet in public domain’ proposals.

 

Brent does need to provide more homes for people on its waiting list, but it should also take into account the needs of existing residents. The Council needs to be open and honest about what it has in mind, before any detailed proposals are made. It should discuss with those living in homes on its estates (who will include leaseholders who actually own those homes) how best extra homes could be provided. It should listen, and be prepared to think again and compromise. It should not just bulldoze through plans which might look good on paper in the Civic Centre, but would be detrimental to our borough’s community if actually built.

Philip Grant.

 

Editor's note: Yesterday the Guardian published this story when mentions the Kilburn Square development previously covered on Wembley Matters:

Protests grow against new council homes on green spaces in London

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/aug/30/protests-grow-against-new-council-homes-on-green-spaces-in-london