Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity-

 

The Scrutiny page on Brent Council’s website includes the following question and answer:

 

From: https://www.brent.gov.uk/the-council-and-democracy/council-meetings-and-decision-making/scrutiny#Whatisscrutiny

 

For the Scrutiny system to operate effectively, the information given to Scrutiny Committees by Cabinet members and Council Officers needs to be truthful. Within the Brent Members’ Code of Conduct, this is spelt out: ‘you must comply with the seven principles of conduct in public life set out in Appendix 1.’ The seven principles include “Honesty”, and “Accountability” which is defined as: 

 

‘You should be accountable to the public for your actions and the manner in which you carry out your responsibilities, and should co-operate fully and honestly with any scrutiny appropriate to your particular office.’

 

Martin posted a blog article, “Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues”, following the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April 2024). It included a video, taken from the Council’s webcast of the meeting, which I watched with interest.

 

I have tried several times, since January 2022, to get proper scrutiny of the August 2021 Cabinet decision to allow a developer to sell at least half of the homes at Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) development (including most at the more favourable Cecil Avenue site) for private profit. WHZ was in the first of the regeneration growth areas dealt with in the Officer Report to the Scrutiny Committee meeting:

 

 

 

When I heard what Cllr. Shama Tatler said about WHZ when addressing the meeting, I could hardly believe what I had heard. I submitted a short comment, saying: ‘I'm sure I heard Cllr. Tatler claim that Brent did.not own the Wembley Housing Zone land, which is why it was not viable to build more affordable housing there.’ I finished my comment with: ‘Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?’

 

After further research, I submitted a follow-up comment, which Martin has agreed to post as a separate item on Wembley Matters. This is what I wrote:

 

‘I asked above: 'Was Cllr. Tatler being "economical with the truth"?'

 

This was in relation to the Wembley Housing Zone, where I have been campaigning for more genuinely affordable housing, and writing guest posts about it, since August 2021.

 

I have gone back to the webcast, and transcribed what Cllr. Tatler said. Martin kindly sent me a document from a Brent Executive meeting in April 2014 on proposed land rationalisation at Copland Community School and adjacent lands.

 

This is the relevant extract from the webcast of Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting, with Cllr. Tatler addressing the committee on Brent's regeneration schemes:

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well. And we are looking at how we deal with affordable housing on the scheme. Ideally we would want to deliver 100% social housing on any of our land ....'

 

This is the key paragraph from the April 2014 Report to Brent's Executive (now Cabinet), whose recommendations were approved and put in place. CCS is Copland Community School, which had been served with an Academy Order by the Secretary of State, and the IEB is the Interim Executive Board, which Brent Council as Local Education Authority had put in place instead of CCS's previous governing body, to run the school until it was taken over by the Ark Academy group.

 

'CCS is a foundation school and therefore the land and buildings are mainly in the ownership of the school itself, the responsibility for which is vested in the IEB. The IEB has expressed agreement to transfer the freehold of the site which it currently owns to the Council instead, in order for the Council to rationalise the ownership and use of the site overall, ensuring an optimum footprint for the school. The ARK would under these proposals be granted a 125 year lease on the final school site.'

 

In the "Financial Implications" section of the Report, these were the key points from the proposals (which were approved and put in place):

 

'2. The IEB transfer to the Council the freehold interest in the CCS site at nil consideration.

3. The Council accepts a surrender of CCS’s leasehold interests at nil consideration.

5. The Council grants the ARK a short term lease of the existing CCS buildings at peppercorn rent.

7. The Council will grant the ARK a 125 year lease of the new school siteat a peppercorn rent.

8. The ARK will surrender the lease to the existing school at nil consideration.'

 

So, Brent became the freehold owners of all of the original Copland School site and playing fields in 2014, granting ARK a temporary lease of the original school buildings from 1 September 2014. 

 

When the new school was built on the playing fields behind the original school buildings, Brent then granted ARK a 125 year lease for the new school site, BUT retained the freehold of the original Copland School land, now the Wembley Housing Zone Cecil Avenue site, at no cost to the Council.

 

The other, smaller, part of Brent's Wembley Housing Zone scheme, for which it received an £8m grant from the GLA in 2015, is Ujima House. Brent bought that office building in 2016, using £4.8m of the initial £8m GLA funding. It has since received further GLA funding to be used on affordable housing as part of the WHZ.

Cllr. Tatler DID mislead the Scrutiny Committee when she said that Brent did not own the Wembley Housing Zone land and had to purchase it!’

 

Map showing the land around Copland School and its ownership, prior to the rationalisation.
(From an Appendix to the Report to the April 2014 meeting of Brent’s Executive)

 

If there was any doubt about Brent Council’s ownership of the former Copland School site, the freehold of all the land hatched in green on the map above was transferred to Brent in 2014. The only land that Brent had to purchase for its WHZ scheme was the much smaller Ujima House site (which will provide 54 of the 291 WHZ homes, scheduled for completion in 2026).

 

Back in November 2021, Cllr. Tatler, in answer to a public question I had asked ahead of a Full Council meeting, said: ‘it is not financially viable to deliver all 250 homes at Cecil Avenue as socially rented housing.’ [Her scheme only delivered 37 affordable rented homes there then!]

 

Yet neither she, nor anyone else at Brent Council, has been willing or able to answer my question of why it would not be viable to build far more of the Cecil Avenue homes for genuinely affordable rent to Council tenants (see my January 2024 guest post for the latest figures), when the vacant site to build them on was already owned by Brent, they could have gone ahead with the development themselves as soon as they received full planning consent in February 2021, and interest rates were very low (and did not shoot up until autumn 2022).   

 

 Philip Grant.

Post-Grenfell crucial information for Brent Council tenants in buildings higher than 18 metres

In my capacity as a Brent resident I asked Brent Council a written question for Monday's meeting on the actions they have taken to comply with the Building Safety Act. This followed concerns expressed by tenants who suggested that Brent was lagging behind other London boroughs. It would be interesting to hear from tenants whether the answers allay their fears.

The questions and responses are below.

 

Question from Martin Francis to Councillor Promise Knight (Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security)

 

The following list of questions pertain to the Building Safety Act that received Royal Assent in April 2022 and the requirements for landlords, including local councils, therein. ‘Buildings in Scope’ refers to those buildings under the Building Safety Act, that are high-rise residential buildings that are 18 metres tall or higher, or at least seven storeys, with two or more residential units that are defined as ‘higher-risk’.

 

Across England there are approximately 12,500 of these buildings and the new regulator required all of them to be registered from April 2023, with a named person responsible for maintaining their safety. The registration process is a crucial stage in setting up the new building safety regime.  Registering buildings in scope will be a legal requirement and owners and managers who fail to comply by October 2023 will be investigated and may face prosecution.

 

On this basis, could the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security address the following questions in relation to the Council responsibilities:

 

1.     Does the council know the details of the residents who cannot evacuate without help, or those whose first language is not English as part of any emergency arrangements in each of the 40 buildings in scope?

The council has previously undertaken work to proactively identify tenants living in our high-rise blocks who cannot evacuate without assistance in event of an emergency. The information the council received as part of this work is currently being reviewed. When tenants whose first language is not English are identified, the council records this and will make reasonable adjustments.

 

 

2.     Can you describe the details of the construction methods in each of the buildings in scope?

The construction method for each of the High Rise blocks is in the Fire Risks Assessment (FRA) for the property and is included in the Building Registration information provided to London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the Building Regulators. Furthermore, this information is contained in our asset database.

 

3.     Can you provide the access and means of escape, including travel distances, in all the buildings in scope?

The access points and means of escape are clearly set out in all of the buildings. Travel distances in the buildings complied with the Building Regulations current at the time the building was constructed. We also have wayfinding information conspicuously displayed in all our blocks that provide access and means of escape information as well as direction/fire escape routes out of the property.

 

4.     Can you identify all the Building Safety risks in each of the buildings in scope?

The Fire Risk Assessments for each building identifies all safety risks which are being actioned in the required timescales.

 

5.     Can you provide the maintenance and inspection schedules for every building in scope using The Golden Thread of information? LINK

All maintenance and inspection schedules/records are on our New Compliance asset compliance management database. All new build blocks in scope are following the Gateway process.

 

6.     Can you set out the emergency plan for each building in scope, including their evacuation strategy?

 All information in regard to emergency plan and strategy are provided as part of the building registration with LFB and the fire strategy for each block is displayed in the lobby area in each block.

 

 

7.     Please set out your complaints system and that how you will operate an effective mandatory occurrence reporting system?

The Council’s principal accountable person for our occupied higher-risk buildings is working on establishing and operating a suitable system for the investigation of relevant complaints. Mandatory occurrence reporting is designed to help report structural flaws and fire risks that might arise at any point throughout the life cycle of a building and can cause catastrophes.

 

We are working to develop a suitable system(s) that will cover the following requirements:

·             Introducing a more reliable reporting system that complements RIDDOR and voluntary occurrence reporting regimes.

·             Strengthening the golden thread (or the digitally stored collection of information about a building and its safety).

·             Boosting residents’ engagement to improve the accuracy and frequency of fire and structural risks.

 

 

 

8.     Are you now able to publish a risk assessment for each of the buildings in scope?

All our Fire Risks Assessments are available for each resident upon request

 

9.     Do all fire doors in every building in scope meet the full standard of fire prevention?

 We carry out quarterly inspections of all the communal doors as well as service cupboard doors in each block, and a yearly inspection of the flat entrance doors to ensure all doors meet the full standard of fire prevention. 

 

10.   Do you know if any of the buildings in scope have any structural issues and can you provide full details of the utilities they use and if any of them impact on common parts of the building, or evacuation plans? Does fire stopping meets the appropriate standard so that compartmentation is not compromised?

We have carried out FRA4 inspections on all of our buildings in scope and we have identified any structural defect or issue in our buildings and we are confident that the fire stoppings in all our High-Rise properties meet appropriate standards of compartmentation.

 

11.   Have you identified the 'responsible person' for each block? 

All our FRAs has the detail of the responsible person for each block.

 

 

 

Brent lead members to supply written answers on key questions on council homes and flood risk

Parody Brent publicity photograph for the Council's Wembley Housing Zone development at Cecil Avenue.

Cllr Shama Tatler, lead member for Regeneration, Property and Planning was unable to attend last night's Council Meeting as she had been close to Brent Council Leader, Muhammed Butt, who had to self-isolate after a positive LFT Covid test.

This meant that she was unable to answer Philip Grant's Supplementary Question on the planned hosuing on the former Copland Hugh School site LINK.

For the record this is the question that should now be answered in written form:

Brent urgently needs more affordable Council homes, and it could be building 250 of these at Cecil Avenue now.

But only 37 of the 250 in your plans will be for affordable rent, while 152 will be for private sale by a developer.

Some of the £111million GLA grant could be used to provide social rent housing there. 

Instead, you plan to use it for infill schemes on existing Council estates, which may be years away.

What justification will you give for these plans, when asked by families who’ll have to wait much longer for a decent home, and existing residents who’ll lose the green spaces on their estates?

 

Cllr Krupa Sheth, lead member for Environment, was present but was unable to answer my supplementary question on the spot and will supply a written answer in due course:

My question on a review has not been directly answered, fortunately a council officer told Scrutiny on November 10^th said that a review of the 2015 Flood Risk Management Strategy is required and context should include real focus around climate change (for example the forecast 59% increase in winter rainfall) as well as the necessary local mitigation.

 

1.    Can you give us the timetable for the review and the partnership members who will be involved?

 

 

2.   Will, as the West London Flood Risk Management Strategic Partnership has recommended, the accumulative impact of developments on flooding and drainage infrastructure systems, be assessed?

Before you vote this evening in #Alperton #Barnhill #WembleyCentral Brent by-elections READ THIS!

Leopold Primary School

I will not be reporting on this issue because I have an interest in the matter. I am Chair of Governors at Chalkhill Primary School and in that role have approved the appointment of our headteacher as Executive Headteacher of Chalkhill and Leopold starting after the Easter Holiday for one year in the first instance.

For the same reason I will not be publishing any comments on this issue.

Martin Francis

Brent’s Coat of Arms – some thoughts on history, and on justice

Guest bog by Philip Grant

The Coat of Arms which used to grace the front of Brent Town Hall in Forty Lane has been preserved, and will shortly be on display in the Civic Centre. A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Brent’s Regeneration Department, and asked if I would ‘review for accuracy’ the proposed text of the sign which would be displayed alongside it. As a keen local historian, I was happy to assist them, and was able to correct several minor errors and suggest some improvements. The resulting text and artwork for the sign can be seen below.

This coat of arms used to appear on Brent Council’s letterhead, and on various Council publications, but in recent years has been replaced by a modern branding logo. Looking at the coat of arms again, and the civic messages it conveys, has given me some thoughts which I will share with you here. Please feel free to add your own thoughts as “comments” below.

The designers could not use all of the information which I supplied. One of the details left out, about the banner held by the lion (taken from Wembley’s coat of arms), was that it shows the scales of justice, and commemorates the Saxon moot court held at a site near the present-day Kingsbury Circle. There was a form of local government here a thousand years ago, when Wembley was part of an area of Middlesex known as the Hundred of Gore. The name had nothing to do with blood, but with the triangular spear-head shape of the small field where the Hundred’s inhabitants used to meet.

The Moot (or meeting) for each Hundred was held in the open air on a regular basis, to discuss any problems, disputes or petty crimes which had arisen in the Hundred since the last meeting. The parties to an issue raised would put their case, anyone else who had a point to make could do so, and the matter would then be decided by a vote. The majority view decided the issue, and everyone was expected to accept it.

Illustration of a Saxon Moot, from “Wembley through the Ages” by the Rev. H.W.R. Elsley

I do not know how well this early system of local government worked in practice, but both Wembley (in the 1930’s) and Brent (when it was formed in 1965) were keen to use the symbol of the scales of justice, to show their commitment to fairness for all, which is what the Moot was meant to deliver. 

 

With over 300,000 inhabitants, it is not possible for the people of our borough to meet together in a field for an open discussion of issues which are then decided by a majority vote. Once every four years, we elect 63 councillors to represent us, in the expectation that they will hear the facts and evidence on matters of local concern, debate them and reach decisions democratically. Like the Saxon villagers of old, we have the right to attend Council meetings, and for several years we have been able to watch and listen to Full Council meetings online. In June 2014, we were given the hope that we could participate in our modern version of the Moot, when “Deputations” were introduced. The Council Leader explained the purpose of these in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” (12 June 2014) as follows:

‘Cllr Butt said, “New proposals allow the public to speak in council meetings for the first time ever is aimed at bettering how the community engages with the council and allows residents to hold us to account.” ‘

So far, in my experience, this measure to bring more openness into Brent’s local democracy has not lived up to its original promise.

Martin Francis made the first request to present a Deputation in September 2014, on the (overdue) appointment of a permanent Chief Executive. He was denied the chance to speak, on the grounds that he had not given sufficient notice (even though he did so within the time set out in a “tweeted” invitation issued by Brent Council itself) LINK 

I have given valid notice to make Deputations a number of times, but have never been allowed to present them. I asked Scrutiny Committee, in November 2014, to allow me to make a Deputation seeking scrutiny of Brent’s decision to appeal against the Employment Tribunal judgement in the Rosemarie Clarke case. They were persuaded not to hear me, by misleading advice from Brent’s then Legal Director (who had a clear conflict of interests in the matter). LINK 

At the end of April 2015, I gave notice to make a Deputation about the Equalities and HR Policies and Practices Review, which was on the Scrutiny Committee agenda. I was told that I could do so, but only if I did not refer to the Rosemarie Clarke Employment Tribunal case, which the review had been set up to learn the lessons from. Although I explained why it would be both relevant and reasonable to refer to that case, the committee accepted the advice of Council lawyers that I should not be allowed to speak on those terms. LINK
 

A year after Martin’s first attempt, I asked to present a Deputation to Full Council, to welcome the new Chief Executive, and to emphasise the importance of high standards of conduct in carrying out Council business. On this occasion, I was prevented from speaking only by the personal discretion of the Chief Legal Officer, who wrongly claimed that my proposed subject was ‘inappropriate’, and ‘in reality, a complaint about how the Council has handled your request for greater transparency.’ LINK
 

Does Brent Council still uphold the spirit of fairness that its use of the scales of justice in its Coat of Arms was meant to show? You can add your answers, whether “yes” or “no”, as comments below. Personally, I hope that the presence of the Coat of Arms, on display in the Civic Centre, will be a reminder to councillors and Council Officers of the standards that, historically, Brent should be aspiring to.

Philip Grant

  Text and artwork for the proposed sign at Brent Civic Centre

 

Brent Equalities Committee: Michael Pavey responds to Philip Grant's Open Letter

Last week, Martin published as a “guest blog” an open letter which I had sent to the members of Brent Council’s new Equalities Committee, ahead of their meeting on 13 July. LINK  

The day after their meeting, the chair of that committee, Cllr. Michael Pavey, wrote to me in reply to my open letter. With his permission, I am setting out the main text of his reply, so that “Wembley Matters” readers can consider the points he has made, as part of a balanced discussion:-

‘The Committee met for the first time last night and as part of our discussions on the implementation of my Review, we decided to remove the "success criteria" relating to successfully defended ETs. We opted to remove the clause entirely, rather than to replace it. This was a unanimous decision. 

Your suggestion that the Council withdraw from the Race for Opportunity awards was not raised. 

My understanding is that this particular award relates to the collection of equalities data. Whatever your view of the Council's current performance, the Committee will only be able to drive up standards by referring to reliable and challenging data. 

The Council Equalities Team have put a tremendous amount of work into improving internal data collection and analysis. I have no problem with this work being recognised through nomination for an award. 

I don't feel that objecting to Council Officers receiving legitimate praise for their hard work is the right way to address ongoing grievances about an Employment Tribunal. The Officers who put in the hard work to collect this data had nothing at all to do with that Tribunal. 

I think it would be far more constructive for us to acknowledge the good work of those particular Officers and focus on using this data to improve the Council's performance on Equalities issues, as per my Review. The new Committee has an important role to play in this and we made an encouraging start last night, challenging Officers in a constructive but robust way.’ 

I believe I am on record as saying this before, but it is worth repeating, that I welcome Michael Pavey’s openness in actually replying to serious points put to him (unlike his colleague, the Leader of the Council). We do not agree on everything, but I have confirmed to Cllr. Pavey that I know there are many officers at the Council who do an excellent job (even though they have been let down by some very senior ones!). My open letter was not all criticism, but in reply to Cllr. Pavey’s response above, I have reminded him that its key message was that the Equalites Committee (and Brent Council generally) needs to acknowledge and deal with the “negatives”, as well as celebrating the “positives”.

Philip Grant