Morland Gardens – now there is a real chance to save the Victorian villa!

 Guest post by local historian Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The Victorian villa, “Altamira” and community garden, at the corner of Hillside and Brentfield Road.

 

My first guest post about the 1870s Italianate-style Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, in February 2020 (!), asked “Housing or Heritage? Or both?” Now BOTH is a real possibility again, following the exhibition and its subsequent consultation on Bridge Park and the Hillside Corridor (see Martin’s recent post for details).

 

If you are interested in the chance to save this beautiful and historically important local landmark, and see it put to good use for future generations of local residents to enjoy, please read on. I will outline the current position, and how you can help, in this latest guest post (there will be “links” to earlier ones, if you would like more information).

 

The Council’s original plans for redeveloping 1 Morland Gardens, which had been the home of Brent’s adult education college since the 1990s, were approved by the Cabinet in January 2020, and then by five (out of eight) members of the Planning Committee later in the year. They included demolishing the locally-listed heritage building (against national and Brent planning policies) and building over the community garden outside the property, which the Council had no legal right to do, and would have breached its air quality and climate change policies.

 

The project failed, after the Council’s planning consent expired at the end of October 2023, without construction work having begun. Since November 2023, Brent Council have been carrying out a review of their future plans for the Morland Gardens site, after the Brent Start college was moved out to a “temporary” home (meant to be for just two years while the redevelopment was carried out). One year on, I would have expected the Council’s ‘outline proposals’ from this review, which were unveiled as part of the Bridge Park and Hillside Corridor exhibition on 28 November, to be more than this:

 

‘This site, formerly Brent Start’s home before they moved to Twybridge Way, is going to be redeveloped. The Council plans to build new council homes and community facilities here. We want to hear what you think is needed.’

           The entire Morland Gardens section from the exhibition.

I had a good conversation at the exhibition with Brent’s Head of Capital Delivery. One thing he made clear was that site for the new proposals, following the consultation, would only be for within the 1 Morland Gardens boundary. They no longer plan to build on the community garden land outside ('we have learned some lessons from last time').

 

The plans for Brent’s new leisure centre building at Bridge Park show that the new Brent Start college, and the affordable workspace, which were going to be at Morland Gardens under the Council’s failed 2020 scheme, will be at Bridge Park instead. This means that they do not have to be part of the future plans for the 1 Morland Gardens site.

 

A section drawing through Brent’s proposed new Bridge Park building, from the exhibition.

 

It is ironic that Brent are now proposing to rehome Brent Start on the Bridge Park site, as that is what I suggested in October 2021, before they moved the college out of Morland Gardens. That suggestion was made in correspondence with Stonebridge Ward councillors, with a copy to the Cabinet members and Council Officers involved. It would have allowed Brent to go ahead with its Stonebridge Phase 2 housing scheme at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent in May 2020.

 

I repeated that suggestion to Brent Council’s Leader in an email of 19 January 2022, sending the text of this comment I had made under Martin’s blog “Muhammed Butt hails High Court's Bridge Park Appeal ruling”, reporting the Court’s decision and Cllr. Butt’s reaction to it:

 

‘This decision means that the development of the long-blighted Unisys building can also go ahead.

 

That would give Brent the opportunity to work with the developer, to include in the redevelopment scheme the modern college facilities that Brent Start Adult College needs, paid for by the £15m of CIL money which the Council has set aside for that.

 

The new college on that site would be ideally placed, next door to 'the fantastic new leisure and employment centre that local people need and deserve' at Bridge Park.

 

Building the new college facility there would mean only one disruptive move for the college, rather than a move into temporary accommodation in the "Stonebridge Annexe" building at Twybridge Way, then back again to Morland Gardens after two or more years.

 

A decision to pursue the "Unisys" option for the college would immediately free-up the Twybridge Way site for Phase 2 of Brent's Stonebridge Housing scheme, including family houses and much-needed New Accommodation for Independent Living flats.

 

It would also mean that the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens would not need to be demolished, but could be sympathetically incorporated into a new housing scheme on that site, once the college had moved to its new facilities.

 

That looks like a win/win/win situation, and should be quickly and seriously considered.’

 

The exchange of emails is recorded in full in the comments under that article (which some might find interesting reading!). The first response to my suggestion was from Cllr. Muhammed Butt: ‘Morland Gardens is not part of the work around Bridge Park and will continue to progress in its current form separately to Bridge Park.’

 

The last response was from Brent’s then Director of Regeneration on the Leader’s behalf: ‘The proposed developments at Morland Gardens and Bridge Park will continue as planned. There will be no changes to the proposed re-development at Morland Gardens as a result.’ My “final word” to the Director on 31 January 2022 was: ‘If (or when) your proposed [Morland Gardens] redevelopment comes to nothing, the Council won't be able claim that it was not warned of the mistakes it had made, and the risks it had decided to take.’

 

If only they had listened! It would have saved several wasted years and millions of pounds of Brent Council money! But, to quote the words of a song, ‘they would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they’ll listen now.’

 

“The Starry Night” by Vincent van Gogh, which inspired the song, (Image from the internet)

 

I was assured at the exhibition that the Council still has an open mind on whether to retain the Victorian villa as part of the new redevelopment proposals. Officers will await the outcome of the consultation process before drawing up their recommendations for Morland Gardens. I am as sceptical as many of you will be about Brent Council “consultations” (‘they would not listen, they’re not listening still, perhaps they never will’), but I hope, and believe, there is a real chance that a strong show of support for retaining the Victorian villa would swing the decision that way.

 

Brent Council’s stated policy on valuing heritage assets. (From a supporting document to the Local Plan)

 

That is why I am asking for your help, please. If you agree that this important heritage asset should not be ‘lost forever to the community and future generations’, and that it should ‘be used for regeneration and place-making purposes’, please share that view as part of the consultation exercise. Please do that as soon as you can, and definitely before 6 January 2025.

 

There is an online consultation, but that is mainly about Bridge Park, with a few tick box options for possible Morland Gardens facilities at the end of the long survey form. If you are responding to the survey on the Bridge Park proposals, you could give your views on keeping the Victorian villa in the “other” box at the end of this Morland Gardens section:

 

The Morland Gardens section of the online survey form.

 

To be sure that your views reach the decision makers, I’d suggest instead that you send your views, including that the heritage building should be retained, in an email headed “Morland Gardens consultation” to: bridgepark@four.agency , with a copy to: neil.martin@brent.gov.uk  

 

Thank you!

 

Philip Grant

UPDATED: Bridge Park consultation exhibition boards published. Unisys, Bridge Park, Morland Gardens, Twybridge Way, Roy Smith House, Bernard Shaw House are all affected. Second public consultation tomorrow 10am to 2pm

 The Unisys site

 

The boards for the Stonebridge/Bridge Park/Unisys/Morland Gardens development have been published today to coincide with the first public consultation:

Brent Start, Twybridge Way, London NW10 0ST on Thursday 28 November, from 3 to 7pm or Saturday 30 November, from 10am to 2pm (Note Saturday is a Wembley Event Day - England v USA).

 The Unisys site would provide more than 1,000 homes (tenure to be decided), a hotel and commercial premises. It appears that the current twin Unisys buildings on the site will be demolished.

Interesting it is now proposal to move Brent Start to Bridge Park rather than Morland Gardens as first proposed. The plans are for new council homes and community facilities here. It is not clear that this means the Altamira Victorian house will be saved from demolition as previously proposed. 

The online consultation can be found HERE. Please note this is much more than a consultation just about Bridge Park. The Hillside Regenration Corridor includes Unisys, Twybridge Way, Morland Gardens, Roy Smith House and Bernard Shaw House as can be seen below.

 

This is a portion of one board that points to 'High Level Views' - unfortunately the image leaves out 32 storey Stonebridge Place and 24 storey Argenta House next to 'The Wem'. You would have to be pretty high yourself to see past those blocks. In fact the two blocks in the corner of the Unisys Site (North Circular and Harrow Road) are 32 and 34 storeys high. The hotel on Harrow Road itself will be 16 storeys high.

Planned  new developments below with Argenta House in black. Stonebridge Park station is white roof in bottom left corner.

Below are some of the exhibition boards for you to review before responding to the consultation or visiting the exhibitions inperson and discussing with staff there.

Click right bottom X for whole page view. 

Bottom right to download a copy.

 

ONLINE CONSULTATION

UPDATE

I went to the exhibition yesterday and chatted to some of the architects and the developer but most importantly some of the local people who had dropped into the session.

The architects were proud of the work that had gone into the planning of the greens spaces and gardens that address flooding  and run off potential on the site. The site historically included an oxbow, a loop, in the River Brent to the south of what is now the North Circular over which was a stone bridge. The river was rerouted so it flows alongside the North Circular and is joined by the Wembley Brook at Argenta House. Place names on the south side give a clue to water courses in the area: Brentfield, Conduit Way, Miitchell Brook, Sladebrook and the canal feeder.

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is currently in the centre of the site but will be tucked into the southern corner under the current plans.  Residents were concerned that there was no car parking allocated or space for a coach to park to let off  parties of school children using the planned swimming pool.

The Morland Gardens site is earmarked for a community space and homes but there was no detail except that the Memorial Garden will no longer be built on and Brent Start adult education will not be housed there. The future of the Altamira Victorian villa appears to be subject to further discussion.

The plans showed Brent Start on 3 floors beneath a residential tower adjoined to the Leisure Centre and concerns were voiced that this would be insufficient for its needs.

 

There was inevitable scepticism about the proposals given the history and this was particularly true of the 1,000 new homes promised for the Unisys site. There were no details regarding tenure and one local insisted (without much hope) that they should be council or social rent homes.

The Unisys site is to be developed by Stonebridge Real Estate Development Ltd, owned by General Mediterraean Holdings. GMH were there (though their badges said GHM) and were a rather isolated group.  I was interested in the financial viability of the development with an eye on the inevitable viability assessment that would reduce the amount of affordable housing on site. They did not want to discuss the financial position of Stonebridge Real Estate but assured me that GMH had plenty of money if there were any problems.

GMH is registered in Luxembourg and has an interesting history. See LINK

 

UPDATE: Bridge Park Consultation Newsletter - what sites are involved?

 Bridge Park Consultation Newsletter

The Newsletter gives the impression that the consultation is just about Bridge Park and Unisys but as Philip Grant says in a comment below it is about more sites that this. 

The map below indicates the other sites involved in what Brent Council is calling the 'Hillside Corridor'. Residents of Roy Smith House and Bernard Shaw House should make a special effort to find out what plans are in the pipeline for their homes.

Conduit Way is not included in the map but Brent Council in the past suggested tall building there. LINK

For Stonebridge Park an additional area adjacent to the site allocation BSSA7 Bridge Park and Unisys Building has been identified. This incorporates the Conduit Way estate. This extension is justified on the basis that the existing estate is of low density, lower quality homes which has the potential to be intensified to a higher density reflective of its higher public transport accessibility. This is particularly so along and in the areas adjacent to the Brentfield frontage. This will complement the taller buildings proposed on the Unisys and Bridge Park site and reinforce the gateway role from the North Circular of those entering the borough from further afield. 

 

Morland Gardens – Brent Council ‘unable to make any commitments'

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Earlier this month I wrote “Morland Gardens – Report recommends Council does not proceed, but …”. The ‘but’ was because, although Brent cannot go ahead with its proposed redevelopment (as its planning consent has expired), it still has an outstanding “first stage” contract with Hill Group which includes the demolition of the Victorian villa “Altamira” (above).

 

At the end of my previous guest post I included the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, and other senior figures at the Civic Centre, seeking an assurance that this locally listed heritage asset would not be demolished, unless or until there was a legal requirement allowing for its demolition (which does not currently exist).

 

There was no mention of this at the Cabinet meeting on 11 December, when the Affordable Housing Supply update report (which recommended a review to come up with ‘an alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens) was dealt with. Last Friday afternoon I received this written response to my open email:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Morland Gardens and the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) Update Report  

 

Thank you for your open email dated 4th December 2023 addressed to Cllr Knight, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Council’s Corporate Director for Resident Services. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond on their behalf.

 

The Council is unable to make any commitments or assurances either verbally or in writing on whether there will be demolition of the Altamira building or not, until such time the Council has considered its options for the site. As provided in previous correspondence, the Council will be reviewing the site options including the Altamira building, and will present these to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

 

Further information about the Councils procedures can be found on the Council's website: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council

 

Kind regards

 

Head of Capital Programmes’

 

My concern, and that of other “Friends of Altamira”, is that someone at the Civic Centre will instruct Hill Group to carry out the demolition of the buildings on the site, under their existing contract, while the Council is still considering ‘its options for the site’. That is a risk, which could occur either by mistake, or deliberately out of vindictiveness (against the campaign which took advantage of the Council’s mistakes, in its fight to save this important heritage building).

 

 

There should not be any reason why Brent can’t give the assurance I’d requested. A similar one was given in June 2021, when the then Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment wrote to me (in response to me pointing out that Brent did not have the Stopping-up Order required before its proposed Morland Gardens development could take place): 

 

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

 

The Strategic Director had been made aware that there would be objections to any proposed Order, and the reasons for it. Yet it was not until 28 April 2022 that valid notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was given. That was just before Brent was finally ready to award a contract for the development. 

 

Given the uncertainty over whether the Council would obtain the legal right to build over the land outside 1 Morland Gardens, a group of Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors called-in his Key Decision to award the two-stage “Design and Build” contract. The minutes of the 9 June 2022 call-in meeting set out how he answered the reasons given by Cllr. Lorber and two members of the public about why the contract should not be awarded:

 

 

Mr Lunt’s argument was that “only” £1.1m was at risk (the estimated cost of stage one) if the contract was awarded, whereas the Council stood to lose £6.5m in GLA funding if the project did not go ahead. He gave the impression that the Stopping-up Order process would be over by the end of 2022. The minutes record his answer to a question from a Committee member:

 

‘It was confirmed that any objections to the stopping up order which were not withdrawn would be considered by the Mayor of London. Mr Lunt noted that in his experience, all stopping up orders had been confirmed.’

 

In fact, it was February 2023 before Brent supplied the GLA with all the information needed for the Mayor of London’s decision. When that decision came on 20 March, it did not confirm the Stopping-up Order. Instead, it said that the objections would need to be considered by a Public Inquiry, and Brent Council had still not arranged for that Inquiry to be held when its planning consent for the Morland Gardens development expired at the end of October!

 

The June 2022 call-in meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did agree that the contract should be awarded (although Mr Lunt had failed to tell them that he could not award it, as the “Contractor Framework” under which it was offered had expired at the end of May 2022!). A contract was actually awarded a couple of months later, under a different Framework, after a rushed decision by Brent’s Cabinet.

It is that contract which still poses a risk to the survival of the 150-year old beautiful and historic landmark building at 1 Morland Gardens. The Council has only to look at its own published words to know that it should not allow the unnecessary demolition of this heritage asset: 

 

From Brent’s May 2019 “Historic Environment Place-making Strategy”

 

I believe that Brent can and should make a commitment over “Altamira”, so I sent the following open email in reply to the response I’d received on 15 December:

 

‘Dear Mr Martin and Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email this afternoon, in response to my open email of 4 December. I have to say that I am disappointed by it.

 

I realise that the Council is carrying out a review to consider its options for the site at 1 Morland Gardens, and that recommendations will then be made to Brent's Cabinet. 

 

The assurance I requested does not need to wait for the outcome of those considerations, as it does not seek any commitment that there are no circumstances in which Brent Council would demolish the heritage building.

 

The assurance I am seeking is not an unreasonable one (given the Council's heritage assets policies and the fact that the flawed original consent, allowing the demolition of Altamira, has now expired). I will set out its terms again:

 

that there will be no demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, unless or until there are new plans in place for the site which would require the demolition of this heritage asset, and those plans have been properly consulted on, considered and given planning consent, and there are no outstanding legal requirements which need to be met before those new proposed development plans can go ahead.

 

I hope that, having reconsidered my request on a fair reading of the assurance I am seeking, Ms Wright can now give that assurance on behalf of Brent Council. Thank you. Best wishes, 

 

Philip Grant.’

Morland Gardens – Report recommends Council does not proceed, but …

 

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

When I wrote last month about the review which Brent Council was undertaking into its plans for 1 Morland Gardens, and shared a copy of the document I’d submitted on “getting it right this time”, one anonymous comment asked ‘will Brent Council ever admit to getting it wrong?’

 

The “Affordable Housing Supply (2023) – Update” report to next week’s Cabinet meeting shows the answer to that question is “No”. It says their original project has faced “challenges”, and Officers recommend it should be abandoned, but there is no reference to any of the many mistakes the Council made, and some attempts to shift the blame. 

 

The first of these comes in the Cabinet Member Foreword to the report: 

 

‘Several schemes in this report have faced significant challenges, examples include delays, objections, and new requirements like a second staircase. These factors are in some cases the reason why a scheme is unable to progress.’ 

 

It should come as no surprise to the Council, and other prospective developers, when residents object to schemes that breach Brent’s planning policies, and would adversely affect their lives! And there is no acknowledgement that many of the delays over the Morland Gardens project were the Council’s own fault:

 

The notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was issued in April 2022, when the Council could have done that eighteen months earlier. They delayed submitting some of the information to the GLA which was needed before the Mayor of London’s decision could be given on 20 March 2023, after which it was Brent’s responsibility to arrange for a public inquiry, which they failed to do. My Brent’s Halloween Nightmare article includes details of their dithering.

 

 

Para. 5.10 from the Morland Gardens section of the report (shown above) refers to the position over Brent Start. But it makes no mention of the loss of housing provision at Twybridge Way, caused by moving the college to a ‘temporary location’ there (at a cost of £1.6m). I had warned Brent Council in 2021 what would happen if they went ahead with decanting Brent Start there, and you can read the details in “1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged”, which Martin published in October 2021. 

 

And as for the “excuse” about needing approval from the Secretary of State for Education, Brent was aware of that before they applied for planning permission for a 67 home housing scheme at Twybridge Way, that they got consent for in May 2020, and which has now expired!

 

 

The report talks of an ‘alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens, but there is no mention of the locally listed Victorian villa (above). The Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), which Brent entered into with Hill Group in July 2022, appears to have included ‘demolition’ as one of the “Services”. There is some concern among the “Friends of Altamira” (a diverse group that has been active since 2020 in trying to save this heritage building) that certain people at the Council, out of vindictiveness, might still try to have it demolished, even while the review into the future of 1 Morland Gardens is being carried out. 

 

In order to try and rule out that possibility, I sent an open email to Brent’s Chief Executive and others at the Civic Centre on 4 December, and I will end this update post with the text of that email:

 

‘Dear Ms Wright, Mr Gadsdon and Councillor Knight,

 

I have read the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) - Update Report for the 11 December 2023 Cabinet Meeting, which was published with the agenda on the Council's website last Friday, and I have shared the relevant sections of it in respect of Morland Gardens with the "Friends of Altamira".

 

We welcome the Report's recommendation, at 2.2, 'for officers to develop an alternative site strategy' for Morland Gardens, but there is one doubt which we would like you to clear up, please.

 

The Report talks about 'the future of the site', but makes no reference to the future of the locally listed Victorian villa. Para. 5.3 refers to the contract of July 2022 and the PCSA (Pre-Construction Services Agreement), which it describes as 'specifically an agreed technical design, enabling works and demolition.'

 

Please let me have Brent Council's assurance that there will be no demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, unless or until there are new plans in place for the site which would require the demolition of this heritage asset, and those plans have been properly consulted on, considered and given planning consent, and there are no outstanding legal requirements which need to be met before those new proposed development plans can go ahead.

 

As I, and others, have made clear to you, we sincerely hope that the new proposals for 1 Morland Gardens, emerging from the current review, will not involve the demolition of the Victorian villa on that site. 

 

Any such demolition, of the restored Victorian facade and belvedere tower, would be an act of vandalism which goes against Brent Council's clearly stated promises on valuing heritage assets:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes. The effective preservation of historic buildings, places and landscapes and their stewardship is therefore fundamental to the Council's role.'

 

I look forward to receiving that assurance in writing from you, as Brent's Chief Executive, and to hearing either Mr Gadsdon (or whichever Officer is presenting the Report to Cabinet) or Councillor Knight make clear at the meeting on 11 December that Brent Council will not allow the demolition of the heritage Victorian villa to take place while the future of the Morland Gardens site is not legally settled. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

 

Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone – 'Some' Good News! (But what is Brent Council's policy now on unaffordable Shared Ownership?)

Guest Post in a personal capacity by Philip Grant 

 

Architect’s view of Brent’s 250 home Cecil Avenue development.

 

On 14 March this year, Martin’s post “Wembley Housing Zone: Never mind the gloss – what are the details?” shared with us a Brent Council press release, about its deal with Wates to finally build the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue, which it had received full planning consent for in February 2021. The blog included “links” to several of the guest posts I’d written since August 2021, urging the Council to include more genuinely affordable homes for rent in the project, especially homes at Social Rent level which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission said should be the priority.

 

My “parody” Brent Council Homes publicity photograph (from November 2021).

 

Since 2021, Brent’s plans had been to allow its “developer partner” to sell 152 of the homes on the former Copland School site privately, with only 37 of the 250 for London Affordable Rent, and the other 61 as “intermediate” Council housing (either shared ownership or Intermediate Rent level). 

 

You would have thought that when they arranged additional funding from the GLA, to allow for more affordable homes to be delivered as part of this Wembley Housing Zone project, Brent would have celebrated with another press release, telling us about this “good news” story. Instead, I only discovered it when I spotted an item on the Forward Plan page of the Council’s website, as I was checking whether another item had been included there. It was about a Key Decision made by the Corporate Director, Communities and Regeneration, in April 2023:-

 

There was a “Officer Key Decision Report” on the website, but (true to form) the appendices to it were both “exempt”, so that the press and public were not allowed to find out ‘information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)’. The Report did, however, give an outline of what the amended agreement with the GLA involved:-

 

 

My various attempts, since August 2021, to get Brent to include more genuinely affordable homes at Cecil Avenue, using additional GLA funding where possible, have been ignored, dodged or blocked. I was told that anything other than what the Council already planned would be impossible, because the scheme would not be viable. Now they had an extra c.£10.5m, how many extra affordable homes would they be able to provide? 

 

I had to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to find out, but “Wembley Matters” can (at last) share the Good News!

·      Instead of only 37 of the Cecil Avenue homes for London Affordable Rent, there will now be 59. 35 of these will be family-sized (3 or 4-bed) homes.

·      36 of the Cecil Avenue Council homes will be for Shared Ownership (of which 9 will be family-sized).

·      3 of the Cecil Avenue Council homes will be “Other” affordable homes. (Does that mean at Intermediate Rent?)

·      As before, 152 of the homes being built by Brent Council at Cecil Avenue will be for private sale by Wates (including 20 family-sized).

My title does say ‘Some Good News’. The other part of the Wembley Housing Zone project, across the road at Ujima House, was meant to have ALL of its 54 flats for London Affordable Rent to Council tenants. The revised figures for this block are now:

·      32 for London Affordable Rent (including all 8 family-sized flats).

·      22 for Shared Ownership.

So, the original proposed number of Wembley Housing Zone London Affordable Rent homes was 91 (37 + 54), and the revised number is 91 (59 + 32). Perhaps that is why Brent did not want to draw attention to the extra funding they’d negotiated from the GLA!

The only improvement from the extra GLA funding, and that is genuinely to be welcomed, is that more of them will be family-sized homes for affordable rent, and more will be delivered earlier (Ujima House still only has the outline planning permission approved in February 2021).

Of the original proposed 61 “intermediate affordable homes”, 58 have now been positively identified as being for shared ownership. But didn’t Brent’s Cabinet, just last week, decide to sell off the 23 shared ownership homes it had acquired at the Grand Union development,  because the Council does not have 'the knowledge, experience and the capacity to effectively sell and manage' shared ownership homes?

 

Placard from a demonstration against Shared Ownership.

 

The Report to the 17 July Cabinet meeting clearly showed that shared ownership is well above the affordability level of most families in Brent, and admitted:

 

‘… the market and demand for Shared Ownership, particularly in the latter quarter of 2022 was and has remained turbulent. This is both in terms of too many shared ownership homes available in the market and appetite and demand for these homes reducing.’

 

In a November 2022 guest post, I set out the reality of Brent’s Affordable Council Housing programme, and why they should not include any shared ownership homes. But the decision makers at the Civic Centre are still pressing on with their flawed policies!

 

Cllr. Shama Tatler fronting a publicity photo at the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.

 

Brent’s March 2023 press release about its Wembley Housing Zone deal with Wates began by claiming: ‘More much-needed housing will soon be a reality following an agreement to build 304 new homes in Wembley.’ From the hard hats and “high-vis” jackets in the photograph that came with it, you might believe that heavy machinery was already at work on the Council-owned Cecil Avenue site, which has been vacant for at least three years.

 

 

The Cecil Avenue site from the top deck of a bus, 26 June 2023.

 

In the extract from the April 2023 Key Decision Report above, it says that ‘start on site [was] recorded on 27 March 2023’. When I went past on the last Monday in June, there was no machinery, no workers and no progress on the Cecil Avenue site, just two portacabins. My recent guest post, 1 Morland Gardens – an Open Letter to the Mayor of London, explains what is required for a “start on site” for GLA funding, and it appears this has not yet happened.

 

It appears that the ‘will soon be a reality’ actually means ‘by 31 December 2026’. Some eventual good news, but I still believe that Brent could have done so much better than 59 “genuinely affordable” homes for rent to Council tenants as part of its 250 home Cecil Avenue development.

 

Philip Grant.