Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s “soft market testing” with developers including Higgins. Full and honest answers needed

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s proposed Cecil Avenue development.

 

It is more than four months since I first raised questions about Brent Council’s proposals for the Cecil Avenue site in its Wembley Housing Zone scheme. Brent has an urgent need for genuinely affordable Council homes. This is Council-owned land, and the Council has had full planning permission for it since February 2021. Why was it proposing that 152 of the 250 homes on this site should be for a private developer to sell for profit?

 

I got no answers from the Cabinet members or Council Officers that I asked to explain this “preferred option” (which Brent’s Cabinet approved on 16 August). In order to force them to say something on this matter, I asked a Public Question for November’s Full Council meeting. The written reply I received from Cllr. Shama Tatler before the meeting sidestepped the main points of my question.

 

A supplementary question was asked, on my behalf, at the Full Council meeting on 22 November, but the Lead Member for Regeneration was not there to answer it. I eventually received a written reply, but again the key points in it were not answered by Cllr.Tatler (or the Council Officer who composed the reply on her behalf).

 

As well as the lack of genuinely affordable housing in the Council’s scheme, I was troubled as to why Brent was involving a private developer in what should have been a solely Council housing project. In addition to preparing the supplementary question, I put in a Freedom of Information Act request for information about Brent’s “soft market testing” exercise in April 2021. I’ve now received the Council’s response, and you may well be interested to know what I have found out (and what Brent’s Officers still don’t want to disclose).

 

I learned that this “market testing” had taken place from this paragraph in the Wembley Housing Zone report to the 16 August 2021 Cabinet meeting:

 

'3.5.4 Soft market testing interviews with five developers undertaken April 2021 confirm general market appetite for new housing development opportunities, specific market appetite for Wembley as a location for private sales housing, the two planning schemes, preferred delivery approach for 50% affordable housing, procurement and contractual arrangements.'

 

But why were Brent’s Officers involving private developers in a Council scheme in the first place? An earlier paragraph in the report had said:

 

‘Cabinet Members were consulted in July 2020 and indicated a preferred delivery option for the Cecil Avenue site, namely that the Council finance construction, retain the affordable housing, and procure a developer partner to build out and take the private sales housing ….’

 

I’ve checked the minutes of the July 2020 Cabinet meeting, but I found nothing to substantiate that statement. If Cabinet members were consulted, it must have been “off record”, so who were they? Almost certainly the Lead Member for Regeneration, probably the Council Leader also, and possibly the Deputy Leader and / or Lead Member for Housing. Any of those who were not consulted are welcome to let me know.

 

Some of Cabinet’s “likely suspects” for Brent’s Cecil Avenue scheme.

 

So, what did I find out about the Council’s “soft market testing”, as part of its efforts to ‘procure a development partner’ for the Wembley Housing Zone? Here is the first question I asked, with the reply I received in red:

 

1) What were the names of the five developers who were interviewed?

 

                    Anthology, Higgins, London Square, Lovell and United Living.

 

 

Anyone who has read the Wembley Matters coverage on Granville New Homes and the Ridge Report will be as surprised as I was to see “Higgins” included on the list! They seem to crop up on a number of Brent Council schemes over recent years, almost as if they were a favoured contractor. The only excuse for them being invited to take part in this exercise is that it might have taken place a week or two before Council Officers were aware of the contents of the Ridge Report, including that:

 

 

‘Since taking handover of the buildings, from the original developer Higgins construction, problems with water ingress from the external envelope have been noted.’   and:

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

 

 

Higgins Homes is a client of Terrapin Communications, who have cropped up over local planning and development issues on “Wembley Matters” before. Back in 2017, Terrapin treated Cllrs Muhammed Butt and Shama Tatler to a three course dinner, where they met a number of the PR company’s developer clients. Those clients included London Square, who are building a scheme at Neasden Lane, with Clarion Housing.

 

 

Anthology are the company behind the Wembley Parade development at North End Road, Wembley Park, while one of United Living’s current schemes is with Network Homes in South Kilburn. Lovell are big nationwide housebuilders, but their only project in London at the moment is in Woolwich.

 

 

Why were these developers chosen for this “soft market testing”, and who chose them? Those were the points I raised in my next two FoI questions (with the Council’s replies in red):

 

2) What method or process was used by Brent Council to choose which developers to interview for this "soft market testing" exercise?

 

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing based on their knowledge and experience of the London property market, to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement; this is a standard approach taken in public procurement.

 

3) How many Council Officers, and how many elected members of the Council, were involved in choosing these developers? What positions within Brent Council did these Officers and elected members hold?

 

The Head of Regeneration and Regeneration Manager selected developers for the WHZ soft market testing. No elected members were involved in selecting developers for the WHZ soft market testing.

 

Now we get onto what Brent’s “soft market testing” actually involved:

 

4) How were the prospective interviewee developers for this exercise contacted to take part in these interviews? Please provide copies of the email, letter or other communication sent to the developers, and a copy of any information about the proposed Wembley Housing Zone developments provided to them in advance of the interviews.

 

Developers were contacted by telephone and emailed a diary invitation and an information pack in advance of the meeting, copy of which is included in this response (names are redacted as personal information exempt under s40(2) FOIA).

 

The email, sent 19 April 2021, was brief, and I will just include its main text here, but the ‘information pack’ is very informative, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of that at the end of this article:

 

‘Hi …(redacted)…

Please find attached information pack which would be useful to review ahead of our meeting tomorrow, as it provides you with some further information about the schemes we will be discussing.

Look forward to seeing you then! Best,
……(redacted)……

Regeneration Project Manager.’

 

Final page of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone “information pack” for developers, April 2021.

 

From the “Scheme Design” details for the Cecil Avenue site on page 2, it is clear that Council Officers (perhaps in consultation with a Lead Member?) had decided, well in advance of submitting proposals to Cabinet for a decision, that 152 of the 250 homes to be built on the former Copland School land would be for private sale, including 20 of the 64 family-sized homes. 

 

Although said to be an exercise ‘to obtain market intelligence to inform the proposed WHZ procurement’, this was clearly a very specific piece of “market testing”. This can be seen from the way the exercise was carried out, and the Council Officers involved in it:

 

5) How were the interviews actually conducted in practice (e.g. telephone, online meeting, face-to-face meeting, written questionnaire)? How many representatives of Brent Council took part in each interview, and what positions in the Council did each one hold?

 

All WHZ soft market testing sessions were held online and attended by the Regeneration Manager and a Procurement Officer. The Head of Regeneration, a Senior Lawyer, and a Regeneration Officer also attended some sessions.

 

If a Senior Brent Council Lawyer was involved in some of the sessions, it suggests that at least some of the prospective developers were getting quite serious about the chance of becoming Brent’s “development partner” for this Wembley Housing Zone scheme!

 

That was the last of my FoI questions that Brent (through its Head of Regeneration, Jonathan Kay) were prepared to disclose information on. I had asked for copies of the notes of the five interviews, and was not surprised that these were refused, as being confidential and commercially sensitive. However, I was disappointed with the response to my final point:

 

7) If the person(s) who conducted the interviews produced a report summarising the results obtained, please let me have a copy of that report, and the position(s) at Brent Council of the person(s) to whom that report was addressed.

 

We consider the summary report from the WHZ soft market testing is confidential (s41 FOIA) and commercially sensitive (s43 FOIA) and therefore exempt from disclosure.

 

I won’t bore you with “chapter and verse” of Brent’s legal arguments over why they consider that Sections 41 and 43(2) of the Freedom of Information Act apply in this case. Nor will I bore you with my reasons why they don’t apply to much of the information in that summary report, but I have made my case and asked for an Internal Review of the refusal to supply a copy. 

 

Brent clearly doesn’t want me, or you, to know what was going on over its discussions with private developers in connection with its Cecil Avenue development. But why should those private developers be invited to make a profit from selling 152 homes on a Council scheme, that Brent residents urgently need? Will anyone at the Civic Centre give us a full and honest answer, and if not, why not?

 

Philip Grant.

 

 

Granville New Homes and the Ridge Report – Brent Council explains “discrepancies”.

 A “report back” blog by Philip Grant:

Some Granville New Homes images from the Ridge Report.

 

There was great interest in October, when Martin shared details of the scandal over Granville New Homes, where repairs to these South Kilburn flats would cost more than the blocks cost to build, only twelve years ago.

 

Proposals for these homes to be taken over by the Council from its company, First Wave Housing Ltd (“FWH”), were considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee on 7 October. Committee members were told that the repairs would cost £18.5m, but had to rely on a report which had been prepared for a Cabinet meeting the following week, and on information and answers given to them by Council Officers and Cabinet members. 

 

Title page of the Ridge Report.

 

The committee had not been allowed to see a copy of the report by the consultants, Ridge and Partners, who had carried out a detailed survey of the Granville New Homes buildings. Martin obtained a copy of that Report from Brent Council, under the Freedom of Information Act, and published it on “Wembley Matters” in November.

 

When I read the Report online, there seemed to be discrepancies between some of the details it showed, and what the Scrutiny Committee, and an earlier Audit & Standards Committee meeting, had been told. I added a comment below the 11 November blog, and sent a copy of that comment in an email to the two Committee Chairs involved, to draw those “discrepancies” to their attention.

 

I heard nothing more about it until 7 December, when I received an email from Brent’s Legal Director, saying: ‘The councillor, the Independent Chair and the Chief Executive have asked that I consider your email and respond and I will be in contact with you as soon as possible.’ I’ve now received her response, and as my original comment is “in the public domain”, I think it only fair that Brent Council’s explanation for the “discrepancies” should also be publicly available. I will set out my original comment, and the Council’s response below.

 

I will not comment further on them, other than to say that when a small number Senior Council Officers and Cabinet Members have so much power, I believe that they should provide full, accurate and clear information to the elected councillors whose scrutiny of their decisions is an important safeguard on behalf of the local community. You can judge for yourselves whether they did so over Granville New homes and the Ridge Report.

 

My comment of 12 November 2021 (under published copy of the Ridge Report):

 

‘There appear to be some discrepancies between the Ridge Report above, and how it was presented to Cabinet on 11 October 2021, in a report signed off by Brent's Chief Executive.

The opening paragraph of the report to Cabinet members says:

 

'First Wave Housing (FWH) has commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville Road, Princess Road, and Canterbury Road blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m. This makes the FWH business plan unviable.'

 

This clearly states that fire safety was investigated as part of the Ridge Report; but the report itself (see bottom of page 24 of the document in the blog above) says:

 

'Fire safety matters, relating to the cladding have not been commented on in this report as they are excluded from the scope. From what was seen, during the opening up of the cladding, there are a number of issues which should be further investigated by a façade specialist and fire engineer. These include possible combustible insulation and seemingly a lack of cavity barriers within the cladding system. The cladding systems should be reviewed, from a fire safety perspective, as a matter of urgency.'

 

Page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the budget cost estimates of the work identified as a result of this consultant's investigations:

'TOTAL COSTS by block:

Granville Road East £2,185,000
Granville Road West £2,475,000
Peel Square £4,550,000
Pilgrims Corner £4,435,000

TOTAL £13,645,000'

 

Clearly, there is a difference between the £13.645m figure in the Ridge Report which has now been disclosed under FoI (and which was not made available to the members of the Audit or Scrutiny Committees, when they considered the problems and proposed solutions over Granville New Homes), and the £18.5m figure in the report to Cabinet.

Was there a second specialist report on the fire safety issues, with the estimated cost of that remediation making up the almost £5m difference between the two figures?

 

If not, what is the explanation for that difference?

 

And if there was a separate fire safety defects report, why was that not mentioned in the report to Cabinet, and why has that report not been disclosed to councillors, or made public?’

 

Relevant extracts from the Ridge Report.

Brent Council response of 9 December 2021:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

 

Your email below was shared with David Ewart, the Independent Chair of the Audit and Standards Advisory Committee, by Cllr Lo.  It was also drawn to the attention of the Chief Executive by Cllr Sheth.  The Chief Executive, Cllrs Lo and Sheth and the Independent Chair have asked that I consider your email and respond.

 

 

Your email references reports considered by three council bodies, Audit and Standards Advisory (22 September 2021 (ASAC)) Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny (7 October 2021) and Cabinet (11 October 2021) and raises three areas of concern which I address below.

 

1. Commissioning of the Ridge Report

 

You are concerned that the Scrutiny Committee Report referred to the Ridge Report as being commissioned by First Wave Housing (FWH) while the Ridge Report itself refers to the report being commissioned by FWH and Brent Council.  You seek clarity as to who commissioned and paid for the report.

  

 

The council provides housing management services to FWH.  Therefore, FWH asked the council to commission the report on its behalf and the cost will be borne by FWH.

 

 

2. Ambit of the Ridge Report

 

You refer to the first paragraph of the Cabinet report, part of which reads: 
“commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues”and to the Ridge Report which refers to: “Fire safety matters relating to the cladding” being excluded from its commission. 

 

The paragraph you refer to in the Cabinet report is a summary paragraph and the detail behind that summary appears later in the report.  Paragraph 3.6 of the Cabinet report refers to the council’s own Housing Property Services presenting the result of fire risk assessments and intrusive investigations into fire safety concerns and to Ridge presenting the result of intrusive investigation into water penetration, cladding and window issues.   I consider this corrects any misunderstanding as to the scope of the investigations commissioned from Ridge that the summary paragraph may have led to. 

 

 

Further, the Ridge Report, makes reference to fire safety issues which happened to be observed during Ridge’s investigations and suggests that cladding systems be reviewed from a fire safety perspective as a matter of urgency.  The review had effectively already been undertaken following the Fire Brigade Improvement Notice and therefore included in the presentation by Housing Property Services referred to in the report.

 

 

3. Discrepancy in figures given for estimated costs of repairs

 

 

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.

 

 

Although these elements are not explicitly referred to in paragraph 3.4 of the Scrutiny report, the Cabinet report was in the papers presented to the Scrutiny Committee and did contain this information.  This level of detail was not in the report to the ASAC, but as the report was a general update report of which this particular issue was only one element and pre-dated the matter being put to Cabinet as the decision maker, this is unsurprising.

 

 

At the time when Ridge were commissioned, they were aware of the fire safety issues identified through fire notices and the test results of the combustibility of the external wall system which had been carried out previously.  The Ridge Report and their cost estimate included the work to remediate these issues. The report of the test results does not include any costs.

 

 

In light of the above, I do not consider there is any reason to fear that members were misled by the reports as to the essential issues.  These were that the estimated costs to FWH of dealing with the issues identified in relation to Granville New Homes would render the company’s business plan unviable and an assessment of options for dealing with the situation was required as set out in the report. 

 

Best wishes

 

Debra Norman 

Director of Legal, HR, Audit & Investigations’

 

 

 

Prepared on behalf of: