Wembley Housing Zone – Estate Management Company and The Pages. Will the arrangement leave Brent Council at risk?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Work in progress on the Cecil Avenue site (aka The Pages Wembley), 9 June 2025.

 

I was in the High Road on Monday, and discovered that the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development at Cecil Avenue is now being marketed as “The Pages Wembley”. More on that later, but Cecil Avenue is also on the agenda for next week’s Brent Cabinet meeting, over an Estate Management Company.

 

Readers may remember that although Brent Council owns the Cecil Avenue site, and received full planning consent for the development there in February 2021, it was not until March 2023 that it entered into a WHZ partnership agreement with Wates. Work did not actually start on site until February 2024, and by that time I’d found out (through a Freedom of Information Act request) that under this “partnership”, 150 of the 237 homes would be for Wates to sell, and of the 87 Brent Council homes, only 56 (half of them family size units) would be for letting at London Affordable Rent level. Of the other Brent Council “affordable” homes, 28 would be for shared ownership and 3 would be sold at a discount from market price.

 

These are the main recommendations in the Report to Brent’s Cabinet, and the “Cabinet Member Foreword”, which gives the Council Officers’ “spin” on why they want our top elected councillors to agree the recommendations they have made:

 

 

 

All of the WHZ Council flats in Ujima House and the Council’s London Affordable Rent homes at Cecil Avenue will come under Brent’s Housing Revenue Account, but the Estate Management Company (“EMC”) will also require payment of service charges from tenants living on that site. As the services provided by the EMC are quite broad, and it appears that it will hire a managing agent to carry out some or all of those services, tenants at the Cecil Avenue site are likely to face quite high service charges on top of their “genuinely affordable” rent.

 

 

As ‘Wates have experience of setting up similar companies’, Brent will let them take the lead on setting up this EMC, but once Wates have sold all 150 of the 237 homes at Cecil Avenue (which our Council allowed them to have under the 2023 partnership agreement) they will walk away from the EMC. ‘Brent Council will then have full control, ownership and responsibility for the Company’, which in turn means that the Council will have full responsibility ‘for repair and maintenance of the structure’.

 

I may be a pessimist and a cynic, but I can’t help feeling that this will leave Brent Council, through its by then wholly-owned EMC subsidiary, at risk of a situation similar to that experienced when it had to bail out its First Wave Housing subsidiary over Granville New Homes. Those homes had been built through a partnership between Brent and the developer, Higgins. (Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Wates workmanship is on the same level as that of Higgins on that 2009 South Kilburn project!)

 

 

Turning to “The Pages”, when I was in the High Road, trying to take photographs of the Cecil Avenue site hoardings across the street (through the traffic tailed back from road works at the Ealing Road junction!), a visitor to Wembley asked me if I knew why the development had been given that name. Was it because it used to be a printing works, or something like that? I said it was the first time I had seen “The Pages Wembley” name, that there used to be a school on the site, and my guess was that it might be a reference to the Page family, who were major landowners in the area several centuries ago.

 

Sure enough, when I searched for "The Pages Wembley” online, I found that: ‘The name is a nod to the Page family, who became major landowners in Wembley in the 16th century.’ I also found that Savills are already marketing the private homes here on their website. This is a small sample of what is on offer:

 

Composite of images from a Savills video and Savills sales website.

 

It is interesting that the top image, from the video, shows that it was issued by Savills International Realty Limited, and the black letters under the Savills name in their logo appear to be in Chinese characters! Echoes of Brent’s “partnership” development at Willesden Green Library? The video showcases Wembley as a “world class location”, and most of its filming appears to have been done at Quintain’s Wembley Park development, with just a handful of CGI pictures of what “The Pages” is meant to look like when it is completed, which should be in late Summer or Autumn 2026 (not March/April 2026, as implied in the video)!

 

The opening line of Jane Austen’s novel “Pride and Prejudice”. (Image from the internet)

 

I can’t help thinking that the link between Brent Council’s development at Cecil Avenue and the Page family is ironic. The last of the wealthy Wembley Pages were four brothers, who were contemporaries of Jane Austen (the 250^th anniversary of whose birth is being celebrated by the BBC at the moment). As I showed in Part 2 of The Wembley Park Story, in 2020, they seemed to have overlooked the important truth that rich families needed to produce an heir, to pass on their wealth to. The will signed by the final Page brother left all of the family’s wealth to his solicitor (or so the solicitor claimed – he went on to live in one of their mansions in Sudbury, and became a governor of Harrow School). 

 

It is a truth (almost) universally acknowledged that a London Borough has thousands of people in want of an affordable home to rent. And if you look at some of the signs on the hoardings outside “The Pages” in the High Road, that is what you would think Brent Council was building there.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet made its formal decision on the WHZ development in August 2021, they knew what the borough’s housing needs were. These had been spelt out in the Brent Poverty Commission report, whose recommendations (including borrowing when interest rates were low to build more Council homes, especially those for social rent level, which was all that many local people could afford) the Cabinet had accepted less than a year before. 

So what was ‘the Wembley Housing Zone Vision’ which they were delivering? I think that the deal they signed with Wates has “swindled” many Brent residents in housing need out of a home that they could have had (and could have had by 2024, if the Council had not gone down the “developer partner” route). What do you think?

Philip Grant.

 

UPDATED: Cost of putting Granville New Homes right rises to £25m. Brent Council purchased them for £17.1m

 

Tucked away in the Housing Management Update tabled for next Thrsday's Scrutiny and Wellbeing Committee is the above paragraph, devoid of context.

Granville New Homes were built via  partnership between Higgins and Brent Council in 2009, and purchased by Brent Council for £17.1m.

In 2021 mounting defects led to the independent Ridge report that put the costs of remediation at c£13.5m:

 

 

Philip Grant queried a report to Scrutiny in October 2021  that put the costs of remediation at £18.5m and Debra Norman replied for Brent Council LINK:

 

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

 

 

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

Brent Council had rejected various options to address the problems including a rebuild.

 Instead they settled for a complex financial arrangement with FWH (First Wave Housing) disposing of the blocks to the Council's Housing Revenue account. LINK

The Extraordinary Scrutiny Committee of October 2021 asked some tough questions, not least Ketan Sheth's on why Higgins was still being offered contracts by the Council after its Granville New Homes failure,. With superb irony Higgins having been involved with building a block that needed £13.5m/£18.5m remediation was awarded the remediation countract, for another faulty block, Merle Court.

The Committee were told that the amount of time that had passed since 2009 meant the Council were not likely to succeed in any settlement claim against Higgins. I believe that changes in the law about time limits means that is no longer the case and there are reports that the Council may be in tlaks with Higgins.

Certainly that is something that Scrutiny should take up with the Council as well as the failure to complete the works by October 2023 as first forecast and of course the rise of costs to £25m which with the original purchase price of £17.1m brings the total to c£42m. It would also be useful to know if the bald £25m is the end of the story or other costs will need to be added as in Debra Norman's response.

It may be instructive for Scrutiny Committee members to revisit the Minutes of their October 2021 meeting. Here is an extract:

The Committee queried whether the Council, as Guarantor of FWH, had chosen to challenge FWH on the issues. Minesh Patel advised that the Council’s role as a Guarantor was to meet with the Board of FWH on a regular basis to go through Key Performance Indicators and understand how the Company was running. The Guarantor had not been made aware of any issues prior to the final Ridge report.

Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) advised that the properties were managed by Brent Housing Management (BHM) on behalf of FWH, and they had managed the repairs in those blocks up until the inspection. He advised that it was in rectifying the fire safety issues a decision was taken to rectify any other issues as well.

The Committee noted that Higgins had been appointed to design and build the blocks in 2009, and had heard from residents and staff that there had been problems with the blocks since they were built. They queried what legal action against Higgins, as the contractor, had been pursued, considering the roofs had been previously replaced when FWH took over the building. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that BHP had replaced one of the roofs before FWH took over, and once FWH had taken over they had done works on water ingress issues and had planned to replace all roofs over time as part of previously published business plans for the Company, with an original cost estimate of £2m – 2.5m. With regard to any legal action taken, Peter Gadsdon advised that the records showed the building had been signed off and handed to the Council, but he was unable to comment on anything before 2017 when FWH took over the buildings. He advised that FWH had not had any conversations with Higgins regarding the defects which they were made aware of in May 2021. Legal advice was previously sought about whether there was any chance of redress but due to the passage of time were advised it was unlikely. The Board’s priority was to ensure the properties were repaired back to safety.

Continuing to discuss the contract with Higgins, the Board queried why the Council were not communicating with them on this considering they were current contractors on other blocks being built. They queried whether there was a risk of this happening in other blocks that had been built or were being built. Minesh Patel advised that he did not have the details on the construction contracts with Higgins as that was a procurement process, but nothing had been brought to his attention that there were any concerns on any of the blocks Higgins had worked on.

Councillor Southwood advised that the contractor had been awarded work by the Council through a procurement process without prejudice, the specification of which would have applied modern building control and expectations to whatever they built, and which would include monitoring on the delivery of their contracts. From a FWH perspective it was highly unlikely any other stock would have these issues as Granville New Homes were the only medium rise buildings in the assets. Peter Gadsdon added that, like the Council, FWH and i4B commissioned stock condition surveys and had Fire Risk Assessments in place and there were no issues in that regard. Councillor Southwood agreed to provide written assurances to the Committee that there was no issues in any of the blocks Higgins had worked on, and further information on the procurement process such as whether past performance of a contractor was considered before awarding a contract.

 

Philip Grant adds:

 

 

Another interesting sideline on Granville New Homes is that Brent Council is supposed to have acquired Granville New Homes (for its Housing Revenue Account) from First Wave Housing Ltd for £0 in early 2021. [That should probably say early 2022]

This was part of a refinancing arrangement that would reduce the interest payable on the £17.8m loan Brent had made to Brent Housing Partnership Ltd (as it was then called) to buy Granville New Homes from Higgins (or to pay them for building the four blocks).

It appears that the £17.8m loan is still outstanding, but according to the Charges Register in the Companies House records for First Wave Housing Ltd (as at today, 16 November 2023), that loan is still secured on a property known as Granville New Homes!

How can a loan be "secured" by a 'Fixed Charge over land known as Granville New Homes, Granville Road, South Kilburn, London NW6 0JJ', when First Wave Housing Ltd no longer owns that property?

And another odd thing from the Companies House records. Despite owing Brent Council £17.8m on a loan for a property it no longer owns, as at 31 March 2023, First Wave Housing Ltd had £11,028,334 in its bank account, up from £4,231,167 at 31 March 2022. What is going on?

Perhaps the Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee should be asking Peter Gadsdon, Corporate Director of Resident Services, about that, when he makes his Report to its meeting next week. He should know the answers, because he is also a Director of, and Company Secretary of, First Wave Housing Ltd (a company wholly owned by Brent Council, but a separate legal entity from the Council).

LINK TO FIXED CHARGE CERTIFICATE

 

SCANDAL UPDATE: Brent Council's remediation costs for Granville New Homes, puchased from Higgins for £17.1m, could rise to £22m plus VAT. Number of residents due to be decanted during works is uncertain.

 

The buildings known collectively as Granville New Homes sold by builders Higgins to Brent Council for £17.1m now look likely to cost Brent Council taxpayers  £20m-£22m to bring up to standard. Market conditions, including the cost of materials means that officers warn the council that costs could rise further. If more people have to be decanted than allowed for whilst works go on, that will also add to costs.

The whole thing is a scandal and a nightmare for residentts and tenants in which Higgins seem to have got away scot free. They have even been given additional work by Brent Council:

 

The report going to Cabinet on November 14th clearly outlines the poor quality of the build:

4.0  Survey Findings

4.1  There are two main issues with the blocks. These are the water ingress at various locations in the blocks and uncertainty about the fire rating of the external and internal walls and floors. These two issues are interlinked as they are generally related to the same construction elements. Thus, both issues will be resolved in tandem.

Fire Safety

4.2  The fire risk assessment for the blocks, and the subsequent intrusive investigations have identified that the construction is poor. The blocks have two distinct methods of cladding. One is formed of cementitious panels and the other is of brick effect panels. Both of these appear to have a variety of insulation materials, including expanded polystyrene, mineral wool and void spaces. Because of this, the fire rating of the blocks is uncertain. However, they will certainly not comply with current building regulations and are unlikely to have complied with the class 0 requirements at the time of construction.

4.3  The panels and insulation will require to be removed and replaced with A1 or A2 rated materials to comply with building regulations.

Water Penetration

4.4  The properties have suffered from water penetration for many years. Attempts at remediation have been unsuccessful.

4.5  Ridge Consultants were commissioned to undertake an intrusive survey of the blocks and to identify any significant areas of defect.

4.6  Ridge’s findings are as follows:-

o The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.

o There is a lack of information available, relating to the original build and it is clear that what has been installed on site has not worked.

o The doors and windows are suffering rot and timber decay, which is not, a defect readily associated with buildings of this age.

o The horizontal surfaces to the external envelopes (roofs, balconies and walkways) have been poorly finished.

o A further note is that none of the components that have been installed should have failed because of age.

4.7  Ridge’s recommendations are as follows:

o   ·  The defects noted in relation to the buildings’ external envelopes are not easily repairable in a way that will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems.

o   ·  All specified systems and products will have long insurance backed guarantees. All designers and the main contractor will provide warranties. The Council’s legal team will review these before making any appointments.

 

4.8  A key to being able to complete these works without decanting residents is being able to work without disturbing the internal blockwork leaf of the system. It is likely that once the cladding is removed, the blockwork wall behind it will remain intact. This may mean that not all residents require being decanted. Only vulnerable residents may require decanting.

Energy Efficiency

4.9  As a consequence of the fire safety works specification. The energy efficiency rating of the properties will also be improved.

5.0  Works undertaken to Date

5.1  It was identified that the blocks have suffered from a number of defects, which included fire safety issues, water penetration, window and cladding defects.

5.2  In addition to the above the Fire Brigade served FWH with Enforcement Notices, which led to a waking watch to be introduced in the blocks.

5.3  A comprehensive communal and dwelling interlinked fire alarm system has been installed into the properties. This has now been set up with alarm monitoring arrangements.

5.4  In addition, combustible materials have been removed from communal areas and additional fire stopping has being installed. The waking watch has been removed as the alarm monitoring has been commissioned and now in use.

5.5  The fire alarm system will be monitored in order that any suspected smoke or fire is alerted to the London Fire Brigade.

6.0  Budget Requirements

6.1  The nature of the works is significant and therefore costly. The estimated cost of the works and associated works and consultancy services is £19,870,804. This includes costs associated with supporting more vulnerable residents such as respite care and temporary decanting, inflation and a contingency. The works are high risk and the market is currently extremely volatile in terms of costs and pricing, hence the large contingency. In addition, it is prudent at this stage to make provision for the potential decant of a significant number of residents who may not be vulnerable but who may not be able to stay in their homes during some or all of the works. Therefore, Cabinet is requested to allocate £22M plus VAT to this project.

6.2 The difference in cost from the 6 December Cabinet report is due to ongoing uncertain market cost conditions, and the addition of VAT. Some allowance has been made for ongoing building cost inflation. However, due to several uncertainties in the marketplace and world events, there may be further building cost increases. Cabinet will be advised of this should this become apparent during the course of the project.

 HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Brent Executive Plans including Wembley and South Kilburn when there was a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition LINK

Impact Needs Assessment completed by Robert Johnson, then Housing and Community Care Project Manager, South Kilburn, now a Labour councillor.  LINK

Reponse to a Freedom of Information Request re the South Kilburn Redevelopment LINK

Brent Council to spend £22m on refurbishment of Granville New Homes that they purchased for £17.1m

 

A section of the Granville New Homes development, South Kilburn

 

Brent Council's November 14th Cabinet will be asked to rubber stamp approval for the expenditure of £22m on the refurbishment of Granville New Homes that were purchased by the Council for £17.1m.

The original remediation costs were put at £18.5m.

The homes were built by Higgins Partnerships but Brent Council has not sought compensation on behalf of council tax payers for the poor quality of the build. Indeed Higgins have been awarded further work by the council:

 

 

 

The Forward Plan Item reads: 

1.    Approve the procurement of a suitably experienced Technical Consultancy that will manage the design, procurement and delivery of the refurbishment works to the properties.

2.     Approve the procurement of a suitably experienced Contractor that will undertake the refurbishment works to the properties.

3.    Approve the allocation of £22M from the existing capital budget to fund the Technical Consultancy services and the Works.

 

  Granville New Homes Scandal

 

Scrutiny Committee Considers the Issue