Dreams and Nightmares on the South Kilburn Estate

Cranes loom as you approach the South Kilburn Estate 

Following the Brent Scrutiny Meeting on regeneration where resident Pete Firmin spoke passionately about the problems with the South Kilburn regeneration I decided it was time for another visit to see for myself.

What follows is a series of photographs that illustrate some of the issues that Pete spoke about and convey what it feels like to live on a building site for many and questions around the quality of the new buildings.

 

A campaign for new bins was successful but emptying only once a week and dumping by outsiders leads to overflow problems

Another dump

The scaffolding around Alpha House where bits flew off during a recent storm. Brent Council said the danger was not their responsibility. It has been up for 6 months but work has taken place only three times 'if that' during that time. Apparently the work is on guttering which is actually accessible via the roof cavity. Only one light is working on landings and some residents are forced to use torches at night.

 

 Despite the housing shortage this flat in Gorefield House has been unoccupied and boarded up for more than 10 years after its use by contractors.

 New builds have problems too. This is emergency heating at the recently completed Countryside Woodrow House.

 

 Work continues on the HS2 vent site (chosen by HS2 after pressure from Brent Council in preference to a site next to Queens Park station).  I am told that the noise is such that residents of the flats overlooking the site sometimes have to be offered temporary hotel accommodation as a respite,

 

 

 Residents of Carlton House and other old buildings  suffer from the noise and dust of demolition of neighbouring buildings such as Winterleys House and will suffer again when building works take place. 

 

 

Remediation works on the decade old  L&Q Swift House. The start on the building was commemorated by a 2012 Muhammed Butt plaque now surrounded by remediation supplies. The scaffolding has been up for more than three years.The cost must be enormous.

 

 L & Q have problems elsewhere.  There have been long term heating issues at Chase House and Hollister House that have resulted in cold homes and no hot water, When I last visited  more than a year ago the green space had been occupied by emergency heating equipment, now post work on the heating the site has been left in a mess. Had the repairs worked? A resident answered, 'A little bit'.

 

 

I am told you can gain entrance by over-riding door security via the fire control

 As the regeneration progresses and blocks have been demolished, residents have been 'decanted' into remaining blocks. The 'Landlord Promise' made by Brent Council was that tenants would eventually be offered new flats on the estate. They are now wondering whether that will really happen as regeneration falls behind schedule and the doubts about the financial viability of the proposed new build social housing. Meanwhile their temporary housing deteriorates and they face multiple problems including incursions and squatting. See LINK for an account. The Blake Court demolition notice had expired but is now extended to 2029.

 Apart from Blake Court there is also Dickens House and Austen House in an area that looks forgotten and neglected, but nature sometimes relieves the gloom.

 Shops are left abandoned.

 

Even the playground equipment is collapsing

 

 What began as a tribute to Jane Austen is now a tribute to decline.

 

 

Apart from the heating issue some of the other new blocks have problems. It appears that faulty downpipes on Cambridge Avenue have caused damp and mould at intervals all along the frontage.

 

 People in the recently completed blocks have found themselves amidst a builders' storage area.

 

 But they are  are warned about disruption.

Despite the evidence to the contrary all around them, Countryside have a dream.

 Revised plans are due for the Hereford andExeter site this summer but there are potential issues regarding viability on the site that is planned to be 44% social rent.

The report to Scrutiny said:

The Hereford and Exeter scheme has been provisionally approved to receive the GLA Affordable Homes Programme Grant. However, even with the average grant rate, and more favourable developer assumptions, the scheme would still have a negative Residual Land Value (RLV). There is a current workstream to test the viability of the scheme to see what level of grant would be necessary, or what reduced level of affordable housing would be required to reach a positive RLV.

A rare example of a well-loved and maintained building is the Albanian Mosque but it is due to be replaced by a 13 storey block, perhaps with mosque facilities at ground floor level.

 

.

One of the issues that South Kilburn residents are concerned about is the lack of delivery of a new Health Centre that was promised as part of the infrastructure improvement. The old Centre is abandoned and there is a temporary Centre in an old Housing Office. Cllr Tatler blamed the NHS for delays at the Scrutiny Committee meeting

 

There were battles over the Carlton and Granville Centres and the adjacent nursery school but now work is well underway. It is good to see some of the trees have survived so far.

Opposite is the South Kilburn Open Space, a precious green resource but also a potential vital resource for flood management, particuarly now so much of the area will be built up. Carlton Vale Infant School and Kilburn Park Junion School are due to be merged and accommodated in a new building on part of the space. Residents are keen that on demolition the present sites should become part of the open space to compensate. As much green space as possible is needed in view of the huge increase in population of the development area envisaged. Much of the amenity space in the new development is private. 

 

I will finish with an attractive walkway that is public, at present anyway. It is important that public space like this is maintained. There are problems at present with buck-passing because so many different developers and owners are involved in the patchwork that was once one council estate. There needs to be a clear map showing responsibilites across the estate.

 

Cllr Shama Tatler promised to visit the estate to talk to residents at the Scrutiny Committee and Cllr Promise Knight is due to tour to see progress/problems although I am not sure whether residents are involved.  I really do hope that they will be in listening mode as dreams often turn into nightmares.

Brent Tories: Disrespectful to site children's home in a conservation area - call-in meeting tonight

A special Scrutiny Committee tonight will discuss the call-in by Brent Conservatives of the Cabinet decision to site a children's home in the Barn Hill Conservation area. In their call-in the group say:

This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

Alternative course of action recommended.. To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area

The call-in is unfortunately timed when the Liberal Democrat group are opposing, with a petition, a potential proposal to double the number of councillors needed to request a call in from 5 to 10. At present there are 5 Tories and 3 Liberal Democrats. A requirement for 10 signatures means that neither Tories on their own nor the combined opposition could request a call-in without support from at least two Labour councillors.

Cllr Butt's argument would probably be that the increase would save money on meetings as   politically motivated call-ins would no longer take place.

Certainly Brent Labour moved speedily on social media to denounce the call-in.

 The call-in will be heard at 6pm tonight. Livestream HERE

Brent Tories do not exist on social media so I cannot post a response.

THE CABINET DECISON CALLED-IN

 

Cabinet (15 January 2024) received a report from the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources and Corporate Director of Children and Young People which, in line with the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case that had been approved by Cabinet in May 2023, sought approval for the acquisition of a property for renovation to deliver a four bedded children’s care home for young people by March 2025 which would provide four placements, three permanent and one emergency for the Council to deliver and operate a children’s residential home.

 

Having considered the report, Cabinet agreed to approve the acquisition with the minute recording the decision as follows:

 

Councillor Grahl (Cabinet Member for Children, Young People and Schools) introduced the report, which set out the Council’s plans to acquire a property as part of the Children’s Residential Home Project.

 

In considering the report Cabinet noted the way in which the proposed acquisition aligned with the objectives within the Brent Children’s Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023. This included not only supporting the Council in seeking to address the increasing cost of child residential placements for looked after children, with the scheme projected to save the Council approx. £290,000 on an annual basis once operational, but also in delivering the benefits associated with the additional capacity to reduce the need for out of borough placements and enabling more children and young people to receive care closer to home with access to local services and support.

 

Members welcomed the way in which the insourcing of this scheme would enhance service delivery and in recognising the benefits that the proposal would bring to both young people and the Council, Cabinet RESOLVED:

 

(1) To approve the acquisition of the property (address detailed in the exempt appendix of the report) in Wembley HA9 with vacant possession to meet the needs of young people as outlined in the Brent Residential Home Business Case approved by Cabinet in May 2023.

 

(2) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Finance and Resources, in consultation with the Corporate Director of Children and Young People, to agree the terms of the purchase and acquire the property subject to financial and legal due diligence, vacant possession and contract.

 

(3) To note that the completion of the property needs to take place by the end of January 2024 in order to allow sufficient time to renovate the property within the timescales permitted in the grant agreement with the Department for Education (DfE).

 

THE CONSERVATIVE GROUP CALL-IN

 

a) We are very concerned at the price being paid for this property which is over £1M. We feel that this is not the best use of the limited Council funds.

 

(b) This area is in the Barn Hill Conservation area. It should be treated with respect.

 

(c) There has been no consultation with the residents living in and around the site of the property or the Residents Association. This is preventing residents from voicing their opinions and objections. There has been absolutely no democracy or transparency in the matter, residents feel they have been railroaded into accepting any decision the Council makes.

 

(d) Neither of the two local ward councillors (Cllr Robert Johnson & Cllr Kathleen Fraser) received any notification of this until immediately prior to the Cabinet meeting on 15th January.

 

(e) It appears that no Planning Permission was applied for or granted. If this is the case, then what is the rationale taken as to why Planning Permission was not applied for? No statement appears to have been given.

 

(f) The Council is not acting in the interests of the residents in this matter. A similar care home was opened in Barn Hill which caused untold problems for those living in the area. It was only shut down when the local MP (Barry Gardiner) intervened. The residents do not want to have to deal with a similar occurrence.

 

Action Requested:

 

To refer the decision back to Cabinet for reconsideration in order to find a cheaper alternative property in a different area.

Is Muhammed Butt's attempt at increasing the number of councillors required to call decisions in for scrutiny an abuse of democracy?

  

Brent Council Leader Muhammed Butt: Limitting 'the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him'

 

Cllr Anton Georgiou has sent the following message to Debra Norman, Corporate Director of Governace at Brent Council, after changes proposed by Brent Council's Labour leader in the number of councillor's required to sign a call-in request. The number proposed by Cllr Butt would require some Labour councillors to join the Liberal Democract and Conservative opposition to achieve the revised required number.

 

As Labour councillors are tightly whipped this would be extremely unlikely and if they did their card is likely to be marked so that they are barred from committee places and standing again.

 

To Debra Norman,

 

At the meeting the Leader of the Council asked for you to look at increasing the number of required signatures (by Councillors) for a call-in to take place from 5 to somewhere around 10. 

 

 Cllr Butt is perfectly aware that if this change were to occur, call-in’s would no longer take place in Brent as the combined Opposition (the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Group) totals 8 elected members. Labour members under the current regime, wouldn’t dare to sign a call-in scrutinising decisions by the Cabinet, for fear of retribution by their Whip. You only have to look at what happened to the Labour members who signed a call-in last term (2018-2022), related to poorly implemented LTN’s. Not one is currently an elected Councillor in Brent.

 

  If the changes suggested by Cllr Butt are agreed to, it would be a total affront to democracy in our borough. Democratic scrutiny is the pillar of healthy and functioning governance. Seeking to stifle it in this way (which is how I view Cllr Butt’s request) sets a very dangerous precedent. It would also once again expose Brent as a place where scrutiny and inclusion of Opposition voice is not welcomed, rather it is frowned upon and limited. As you are aware, following the May 2022 local elections, Cllr Butt took it upon himself to banish Opposition Councillors from Vice-Chairing the two Scrutiny Committees in the borough. The move was seen by others in local government circles as a power grab. Frankly, it looked rather petty and insecure. It also took Officers by surprise, as the move had not been cleared with anyone (not even you?) beforehand.     

                         

 Cllr Butt’s latest attempt to stifle democratic scrutiny by limiting the ability for call-ins to take place is wrong and not in the interest of our residents, who want to see Council decisions challenged forcefully when required. After all, scrutiny leads to better outcomes. Residents are clearly very engaged in local democracy, take just the recent example of a petition on the Council website regarding the blue bag recycling system, which generated close to 3,500 signatures, a record for an e-Petition of this kind in Brent  - https://democracy.brent.gov.uk/mgEPetitionDisplay.aspx?ID=267&RPID=0&HPID=0/. If Cllr Butt gets his way, decisions like this, which are clearly very unpopular with Council taxpayers, will likely be left unchallenged.

 

I want to make clear that if Officers agree to take Cllr Butt’s suggestion forward, the Liberal Democrat Group will robustly oppose the changes and will ensure residents are fully aware of the petty dictatorship that he leads.

 

I urge you to reject Cllr Butt’s suggestion and ensure that call-ins, an important form of scrutiny, in a borough with limited scrutiny already, can continue to take place, when they are required and legitimate.

 

I will be making this email public so a debate can begin about the Leader’s latest insecure attempt to limit the voices of those who do not blindly agree with him.

 

EDITOR: Brent Council Call-in Protocol LINK  (Irritatingly Council documents are often undated but I think this is the latest).

Barham Park Trustees approve original accounts in 7-1/2 minute meeting after refusing representations

 

The Barham Park Trust Committee, made up solely of members of the Brent Cabinet and chaired by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt, took just 7 and a half minutes to deal with the CEO's 'High Level' review  report into the accounts and the Scrutiny Committee's Report made as a result of the Call-in of the Barham Trust accounts by backbench councillors.

That evening the CEO of Brent attending Scrutiny Commitete seemed reluctanmt (after a slight panic) to reflect on the content of the report when requested by Cllr Anton Georgiou.

 

 Councillor Butt was not paying much attention while the CEO was speaking!

Cllr Butt refused Cllr Georgiou's colleague, Cllr Paul Lorber's request to address the Trustee's at the Barham Park Trust Committee.

This triumph of open government and transparency resulted in the accounts as originally submitted being approved. There was a short reference to the need to collect rents - an issue that Cllr Lorber had first raised as the amounts shown in the accounts was much lesss than the rents due from the occupants of the Barham Park buildings.

The correspondence below speaks for itself - it all took place on January 23rd :

Philip Grant correspondence

This is the text of an email that I sent to Cllr. Muhammed Butt just before 5pm today. It was copied to the other four members of the Barham Park Trust Committee, to Brent's Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Governance, and to Cllr. Lorber:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

I have read online that you have refused a request from Councillor Paul Lorber to speak in respect of items 5 and 6 on the agenda for tomorrow morning's meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee. Is this true?

If it is true, I am writing to ask, as a citizen of Brent interested in the workings of democracy, that you change your mind on this, and let Cllr. Lorber know, without delay, that he will be permitted to speak to the committee.

What your Committee has to decide is whether to reconsider its acceptance of the Barham Park Trust Annual Report and Accounts, as it has been requested to do by the Council's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

Surely it is right that the Trust Committee hears all sides of this matter, before it makes its decision? That is the essence of openness and transparency in decision making which underpins our democracy.

Not to allow Cllr. Lorber to speak, as long as he does so respectfully, as required by the Members' Code of Conduct, would reflect very badly on Brent Council, and on yourself.

 

Within 15 minutes of sending the email in "FOR INFORMATION" above, I received the following reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt:

'Dear Mr Grant

Thank you for the email and for trying to make the case.

I respectfully have to say the answer is no and will remain a firm no.

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.'

 

I did not find that a satisfactory response to the points I had made, so I sent the following reply (copied to the same people as my first email) just after 6pm this evening:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your prompt reply to my email.

As you acknowledge, I made a case for Cllr. Lorber to be allowed to speak at tomorrow's Trust Committee meeting.

You have said that 'the answer is no and will remain a firm no', but you have not explained your reasons for that.

I'm aware from watching previous Council meetings that there is "no love lost" between yourself and the former Lib Dem Leader of Brent Council. However, personal animosity should not influence your actions as Chair of the Trust Committee (if that is a factor in this case).

Have you taken advice from the Corporate Director for Governance over whether to block Cllr. Lorber's request to speak? Although you may have the power, as Chair, to refuse his request, it could be seen as an abuse of power.

Any councillor, and especially a Leader, is expected to demonstrate leadership by example. I have to say that this appears to me, as an independent observer, to set a poor example.

 

Yours,

Philip Grant.

 

Further to my two "FOR INFORMATION" comments above, I received the following email from Cllr. Butt at 7pm this evening:

'Thank you, Mr Grant.

I wouldn't describe the sharing of these exchanges to the Green Party blog to be either "independent" nor the definition of the public arena either - but what you do them with is your prerogative.

Cllr Lorber and I perfectly understand one and other, we have been colleagues on different sides of the council chamber for two decades and I am grateful as ever for his continued opinions on the matter, as is his right. It is also perfectly within mine to disagree.

I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute.

Given this is a reference back of a decision called in by Cllr Lorber the meeting will continue as planned.

Best wishes and thank you for your continued interest, please feel free to tune into the next meeting of the next Barham Park Trust meeting.

I wish you all the best and thank you for your continued interest.'


I sent the following reply to the Council Leader at 7.15pm:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email, and fuller response.

The point I am trying to make is that, although the matter of the accounts has been looked at in various ways, the meeting of the Barham Park Trust Committee tomorrow is meant to be reconsidering its original approval of the 2022/23 Annual Report and Accounts, on a referral back from a Scrutiny Committee.

If the Committee is not allowed to hear both sides of the case before making its decision (even though your own mind may already be made up?), that does not reflect well on Brent Council's democratic process. Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.'

 

This is the final exchange of emails between Cllr. Butt and myself this evening.

His email highlighted some of its text, and I will put that section in inverted commas:

'Dear Mr Grant

I think you have missed the point that I made to yourself, so I have highlighted it for you for clarity.

"I am clear there has been ample democratic opportunity and copious officer time and resource afforded to the matter. This item has been discussed at both the initial Barham Park meeting and at a subsequent scrutiny call-in meeting where there was repeat opportunity for all members and members of the public to contribute."

I wish you a good evening.'

This was my reply, shortly afterwards:

'Dear Councillor Butt,

Thank you for your email.

I had noted the point you have highlighted, but feel that you are also missing the point.

However, as our exchanges are, unfortunately, getting nowhere, I will also wish you a good evening. Yours,

Philip Grant.'

23 January 2024 at 19:46

 

Paul Lorber correspondence

 

In my discussions with the Brent Chief Executive and the Brent Director of Finance I made it clear that one of the beneficiaries of the mistakes made by the Trustees and Council Officers was a charity - Friends of Barham Library - of which I was a Trustee. I was urging them to correct their errors in the full knowledge that it will cost Friends of Barham Library money.

One of the material errors made by Council Officers, which the Trustees, including Cllr Butt, failed to spot was the failure to implement Rental reviews as set out om the various Leases between The Barham Park Trust and a number of the organisation (including friends of Barham Library) who rent premises in Barham Park.

What is wrong with the Barham park Trust 2022/23 Account No.5 deals with this point.

While throughout this process Cllr Butt and his fellow Trustees refused to accept that there was anything wrong at precisely 20.11p.m. (some Council Officers do work late) an officer from the Council's Property Department sent me an email to advise me that Friends of Barham Library will be subject to a rent review under the terms of our Lease backdated to October 2021.

I received this email just 36 hours before the Barham Park Trust Meeting due to start at 9:30am on Wednesday 24 January and after Cllr Butt refused my request to speak so that I could explain why the Accounts are wrong and what action was required to correct them.

Brent Council Officers have been charging the wrong rent to one of the tenants in Barham Park since 2019. Friends of Barham Library rent has been wrong since 2021. I have been pointing this out to the Trustees and to Council Officers for a very long time.

Assuming that the other tenant was sent a similar email and demand for back dated rent the Barham Park Trust will be better off by over £18,000.

To date neither Councillor Butt or the Council Officers have had the decency to admit that I was right or to acknowledge that as a result of my actions the Barham Park Trust is at last trying to retrieve some of the losses suffered as a result of their basic mistakes.

In contrast to the Accounts prepared by Council Officers for the Barham Park Trust which are wrong - the Accounts for Friends of Barham Library are correct. We knew what our correct rent should have been since 2021 and provided (accrued) for the extra rent due in our accounts for the last 2 years.

Councillor Butt may ignore the sensible contribution from Philip grant or silence me and others. He cannot hide the fact that he is WRONG and we are RIGHT.

Perseverance pays off (as the belated Council action about the rent reviews highlights) and the fight goes on.

 

 

Cllr Lorber presses case on Barham Park Trust accounts despite CEO's 'high level' review

 Both the Barham Park Trust Committee and the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meet on Wednesday January 24th.  The former includes the 'High Level Review' of the Barham Park accounts promised by Kim Wright, Brent's new CEO at the special call-in Scrutiny Commitee held on October 26th  to consider issues around the accounts (Minutes of the meeting).

 

Extract from CEO's Report LINK:

 

I am satisfied that the objectives and scope which I set for the review have been met. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the review did not identify any material issues relating to the accuracy of the accounts. However, there have been areas identified where the accounts could be presented in a more clear and transparent way moving forward. This is particularly in the way rental income is presented and how the netting off of income and expenditure is shown.

 

3.9 There were also some helpful observations made regarding operational practices concerning the running of the Trust which could impair, or be perceived to impair, the Council’s arm’s length relationship with the Trust. In particular:

1. The trust not having its own bank account (up until recently);

2. The award and management of NCIL funds for park improvements being managed by the Council;

3. A lack of rent reviews undertaken by the Trust owing to the ongoing feasibility study commissioned by the Council;

4. Cash advances being paid to the Trust for rents overdue.

 

3.10 I have discussed these actions and observations with the appropriate officers, and all have agreed to implement the actions. In addition, whilst the rationale for the practices set out at 3.9 is clear existing practices are neither improper nor have any impact on the accuracy of the accounts, I have asked officers to review its management of the Trust to ensure that appropriate segregation and separation is in place where appropriate to clearly distinguish between activities of the Council and activities of the Trust,

 

Cllr Paul Lorber, one of the councillors instigating the Call-in is not satisfied and requested to speak at the Barham Park Trust meeting. The chair of the Trust, and leader of the Council, Muhammed Butt refused his request.

 

Cllr Lorber then wrote to all Brent councillors making his case:

 

Dear Colleagues

 

If you see mistakes and wrong doing you should never be afraid to speak up. You should also not allow yourself to be fobbed off.

 

At successive meetings of the Barham Park Trust I highlighted the errors in the presented 2022/23 Accounts. The 1st version of the accounts went to a meeting on 5 September and had to be withdrawn at the last minute. The revised accounts presented to a reconvened meeting on 26 September did not make much sense either.

 

At a subsequent meeting of the Scrutiny Meeting I made the point that those misleading and inaccurate accounts hide the truth of how the Barham Park Trust Charity financial affairs have been mismanaged - making the point that the mismanagement has cost the Charity around £100,000 - with on going losses going forward.

 

You will see from the Agenda of a reconvened Barham Park Trust Meeting that the Chief Executive commissioned a “high-level consultancy based review” relating to the concerns and issues raised.

 

The Chief Executive then explains that the review was NOT intended to do - it “was only ever limited to a narrow scope…”

 

The aim of “high level reviews” “of limited scope” should be obvious - not to uncover anything embarrassing and to protect senior Councillors and officers of the Council at all costs.

 

The Barham Park Trust Charity exists because 87 years ago a resident of Sudbury donated his home and gardens for the enjoyment of local people in our area.

 

He entrusted the management of his gift to the local Council - first Wembley BC and later it’s successor - Brent.

 

We all - Councillors and Officers - have a joint duty to look after and protect the bequest from Titus Barham.

 

I take my duty seriously and have tried to engage both with the Trust Committee and Council Officers to help to highlight the mistakes they made so that correct Accounts are prepared and ongoing losses being sustained by the Charity are stopped.

 

I requested the right to speak at the meeting on 24 January. The Chair has refused my request to speak.

 

Prior to that refusal I prepared a written submission to assist the Committee in their deliberations on the 24th and ask some searching questions of the officers.

 

Mistakes can happen. I will not criticise Councillors or Officers for making mistakes as long as they correct them when they are pointed out to them.

 

I will not however accept or tolerate mistakes which those in power and authority then try to cover up.

 

Cllr Lorber sent two documents with his email that are embedded below: