At last! The penny drops for Brent Council (at least a little) on Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing

Wembley Matters has criticised Brent Council's definition of Shared Ownership as a form of affordable housing as put forward by officers at Planning Committee and in the Council's publicity. Contributors have quoted the Brent Poverty Commission's statement that the only form of housing affordable for Brent residents is social housing.

Credit must co to Cllr Anton Georgiou for raising the issue of the viability of shared owneship in the Council Chamber LINK.  Rather than listening to the case made, Brent Council Leader made one of his characteristic spluttering attacks on Nimbies.

A report going to Cabinet on Monday LINK contains an account of the difficulties in the shared ownership model and has repercussions for their approach, notably in Watling Gardens, of  changing tenure so that shared ownership cross-subsidises actual affordable housing.

The context is Brent Council's 2020  purchase of 92 homes in Block A and B of the Grand Union development in 2020 along with 23 shared ownership homes in Block D. The Council purchased the 23 homes to get access to the 92.

They now intend to transfer the shared ownership homes to a provider who is not named.

The report states regarding the Council managing such shared ownsership:

..the knowledge, experience and the capacity of the Council to effectively sell and manage processes such as staircasing is minimal.

 

But:

 

The Council did however consider selling homes and retaining them within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). However, 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.

 

Registered Providers who work closely with Brent have shared concerns about a saturation of shared ownership in the market. Many Registered Provider include shared ownership as a form of cross subsidy for social housing for rent, this has been under further pressure following last year’s economic and supply challenges to make schemes viable. The Council also put forward a paper to Cabinet in November 2022 proposing cross-subsidy as a means for reducing the financial viability gap within the New Council Homes programme, though

politically shared ownership was not considered a favourable tenure and was only considered as a potential means of protecting the much needed social housing.

 

They suggest that there is a role for shared ownership:

 

The impact of the mini-budget back in September 2022, rising inflation and growing cost of living crisis has led to uncertainty in the market. From a practical  perspective, shared ownership offers residents who still want to buy and benefit of stability that homeownership provides and a route to do so whilst mortgage rates are high as residents can purchase a smaller percentage to keep costs down.

 

But then admit the drawbacks:

 

 

The affordability of shared ownership has however also come into question within the housing sector. Research into the ongoing cost of living crisis and housing shows shared owners are more likely to be vulnerable to financial hardship that other home owners. This is a result of both mortgage offers and the rent payments on properties being linked to inflation. Shared owners pay a mortgage on the proportion owned, which now can be as little as 10% of a property depending on when the property was build, and then pay rent which is starts at 3% of the value of the property still owned by the Landlord. Generally

25-35% is the standard amount of equity first purchased. Contractually shared ownership rents rise by the Retail Price Index (RPI) plus 0.5% each year which would have seen rises of 15.7% as of December 2022 (it should however be noted Not for Profit Registered Providers capped the rent increase at 7%).

 

Generally mortgage offers for Shared Ownership homes have higher interest rates that regular mortgages too, meaning inflation has an even greater impactwhen mortgage payments and rent is combined. 

 

They go on to give figures on the actual costs of a shared ownershio home with a value of £400,000.  Note the cost of the mortgage would be much more now as interest rates have risen sharply:

 

 

A worked example of a £400K home from Nottinghill Genesis shows a breakdown of costs where a 25% share has been purchased:

•  25% share = £100,000
• Estimated mortgage = £532 (NB this is not based on current mortgage rates) 
• Rent = £688
• Service charge = £200
• Total = £1,420

• Guidance household income required = £51,160

 

It should be noted, the average salary for a working household in Brent for 2021 was £36K

 

Quite a gap, so what to do with those 23 shared ownership homes purchased back in 2020?:

 

 

In December 2022, the Council commissioned marketing company Site Sales to sell the homes as a package on the market to Registered Providers. Registered Providers invited to bid include: Clarion, Guinness, Heylo, HSPG,Keep Homes, Legal and General, MTVH, Network, Newlon, Notting Hill Genesis, OHGO, Octavia, Origin, Peabody, PA Housing, Sage, St Arthur Homes.

 

Most of the providers who responded stated the package of homes was too small to meet their organisations acquisition criteria. Expressions of interest were received from a range of Registered Providers. Offers in full received by the Council are set out in Appendix 1 (classified as exempt).

 

Each offer was assessed against the two key criteria for the Council when considering affordable housing opportunities, the financial requirements of the Council and meeting housing demand. This includes comparing the offer against the cost incurred to the Council for the initial purchase. Using this criteria it was deemed out of the three offers received only one was considered viable, details are contained in Appendix 1.

 

 

From a housing demand perspective, Offer 3 is most reflective of the current demand, specifically affordability within Brent and offers a unique opportunity to pilot the model in Brent. It also presents the opportunity to influence the shared ownership market at a local level and use this model and an exemplar of best practice. The recommendation of this report is to approve Offer 3, this is due to concerns about the existing shared ownership model and its ability to meet Brent Residents Housing Need.

 

We cannot see the actual costs involved as Appendix 1 is exempted from public view. 

At Full Council meeting on Monday 10th July Cllr Promise Knight answering a question from Cllr Georgiou said, 'We know the the political appetite for shared ownership is waning. We've listend - you brought this up six months ago - and this is a demonstration of us listening.'

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE

Morland Gardens – an alternative solution (open email to Brent Council Leader)

 A guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

1 Morland Gardens and the community garden across the Hillside junction, September 2022.

 

Martin has already highlighted the £18m in cuts/savings which is the main item for next Monday’s Brent Cabinet meeting, but another report, which was added to the agenda on Tuesday afternoon, may be just as important. 

 

The “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” is far more than its bland title suggests. I hope to write a separate post about that, but first I would like to share with you an open email which I sent on Wednesday afternoon to the Council Leader and Lead Member for Housing. It offers an alternative solution to that proposed in the report by Council Officers for the Council’s controversial, hugely delayed and badly flawed Morland Gardens project. I have added some relevant illustrations, to break up the email’s text:-

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Councillor Knight,

 

The report to next Monday’s Cabinet meeting, Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes, shows that there are problems with a number of the Council’s schemes, including Morland Gardens at para. 4.26. The problems with that project are even worse than admitted in the report. I am writing to suggest an alternative solution, which I hope that you, and Council Officers, will seriously consider.

 

The Morland Gardens paragraph from the Update Report to Cabinet.
[ SO = Shared Ownership.  OMS = Open Market Sale.]

 

The report admits that the current scheme is not viable, and offers ‘to value engineer the scheme during the PCSA process’ as a possible solution. What it does not admit is that the scheme is likely to lose the £6.5m GLA funding, which was part of the original basis for Cabinet approving it in January 2020. It will lose that funding because it will not be possible for the project to “start on site” by 31 March 2023. 

 

At the moment, the Council does not have a “site” there. 1 Morland Gardens and its grounds are legally occupied, until at least January 2023, by Live-in Guardians. The Public Realm outside the property, including the Harlesden City Challenge Community Garden, which would form part of the site, has not been appropriated for planning purposes. It cannot be appropriated unless a section of highway crossing it can be stopped-up, and the proposed Order for that is the subject of objections which will not be resolved until after 31 March 2023.

 

Alan Lunt’s email of 2 June 2021.

 

In an email of 2 June 2021, copied to you both, and which is in the public domain, the then Strategic Director for Regeneration, Alan Lunt, wrote: ‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” [the locally listed heritage Victorian villa] will not take place until all of the legal pre-requisites are in place.’ No work can commence before matters such as the stopping-up are resolved, and that will be too late for the GLA funding deadline.

 

Converting some of the proposed 65 homes to shared ownership, or trying to squeeze more homes into the building, instead of affordable workspace, would both need planning consent. This would mean further delay and expense. It would be throwing good money after bad, just as Alan Lunt’s risk of awarding a two-stage Design & Build contract, which Cabinet approved last June, for a project which did not have a legal site was a waste of at least £1.2m (the estimated cost of the PCSA process).

 

This project has been flawed from its early stages. It breached the Council’s adopted heritage assets policy, which was only justified for planning purposes by the “benefit” of 65 affordable homes at London Affordable Rent. If there is any change to that “benefit”, then that justification no longer exists.

 

Councillor Knight will remember that, at the Planning Committee meeting on 12 August 2020, her colleague Cllr. Aden, on behalf of all three Stonebridge councillors, was neutral on the Morland Gardens application. Although he welcomed the prospect of 100% LAR housing, he was against the loss of the important heritage asset, the overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of local residents and the inadequate parking and servicing provision, which would cause traffic congestion at the busy Hillside / Brentfield Road junction.

 

Councillor Aden’s submission, from the Planning Committee minutes, 12 August 2020.

 

It is time to rethink this project, as I suggested even before the planning decision in 2020, in detail to Stonebridge Ward councillors in June 2021 (with copy to the Leader and then Lead Member), and again to you as Council Leader and Alan Lunt in January 2022.

 

Extract from my email to Stonebridge Ward councillors on 19 June 2021 (which Cllr. Knight replied to).

 

The main reason for the 1 Morland Gardens scheme was to provide the Brent Start college with more modern facilities than those provided in the 1990s in the sympathetically restored heritage building. That modern college facility does not have to be on the Morland Gardens site. £15m of CIL money was been set aside for it in 2020, with a further unspecified amount agreed at last month’s Cabinet meeting. 

 

By working with the developer, using Section 106 if necessary, that new college could be provided as part of the Unisys House redevelopment, still in Stonebridge and alongside the new Bridge Park community facilities. That would leave the question of what to do with Brent Start until the new college was available.

 

The college is currently in a temporary home in the Stonebridge Primary School annexe. It could stay there, but the better solution would be to move it back to the existing facilities at 1 Morland Gardens. Once the new college was ready, the Morland Gardens site could be developed for housing and/or community facilities, retaining the beautiful heritage building as part of the scheme (details of which could be worked out and agreed ahead of the college’s permanent move).

 

Moving Brent Start out of the Stonebridge Primary School annexe would allow the much-delayed Twybridge Way housing scheme to go ahead. That project, which is being blocked by the Council’s mistakes over Morland Gardens, will provide 14 family-sized houses, 13 smaller flats for rent and 40 new supported 1-bedroom homes for independent living. Sensible allocation of those “NAIL” homes could allow forty existing family-sized homes in the Stonebridge area to become available for families on Brent’s waiting list.

 

Brent’s current plans for 1 Morland Gardens have been ill-conceived since the time of poor advice from Council Officers in late 2018 / early 2019. Rather than trying to press on with a project which is badly flawed, please take this opportunity to make a sensible choice, and accept the alternative solution I have put forward. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant

Clement Close residents set out the reasons they oppose Brent Council's in-fill proposal

 

 Cllr Promise Knight sets out the Council's case for in-fill

 

View of the estate currently

 

In-fill highlighted

Residents of the Clement Close estate in Brondesbury Park have set up this petition opposing the Council's development proposals put forward as as part of their estate in-fill programme. 

The consultation is due to close tomorrow, July 13th, 2022.

 

Re: New Council Homes Programme – Clement Close, Brondesbury Park (NW6 7AL)

 

Dear Cllr Promise Knight,

On Friday 24 June 2022, leaflets were distributed across Clement Close and neighbouring properties to inform residents of the proposed redevelopment of Clement Close. 

Although we understand the need for more affordable housing and agree with Brent’s Council aspiration to make the most of its under-used land and property assets, we argue that Clement Close is NOT under-used, nor is it suitable for the outlined development, and we strongly oppose this proposal. 

After careful review of your proposal, we the residents of Clement Close have put together the following summary of our concerns. The proposed development would result in:

1.    Substantial loss of privacy for many residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties: The windows of the new buildings would be overlooking the windows and/or gardens of existing properties.

2.   Substantial overshadowing of adjoining buildings: The importance of natural light on physical and mental health has been well-established. Cramming 22 new family homes in “gaps” would have a severe impact on the wellbeing of all Clement Close residents.

3.   Loss of trees: Clement Close boasts many beautiful mature trees, which would need to be removed if the proposal goes ahead. The role of trees in a city cannot be underestimated. Not only do they absorb excess CO2 and slow down the rate of global warming, but they release oxygen, reduce wind speeds, cool the air, prevent flooding and boost wildlife. Removing these trees from the estate while increasing human occupancy by 25% would go against Brent Climate & Ecological Emergency Strategy and Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement, which specifically state Brent’s commitment to “enhancing the ecological value of land for which the Council is responsible”, and “integrating environmental and sustainability considerations into all decision making considered to have significant environmental implications”.

4.   Adequacy of parking/loading/turning and concerns around access for emergency vehicles: With the proposal to narrow the road to a single lane to make space for a row of new houses on the eastern side of Clement Close, parking, turning and road access would be severely impacted. Access to the far end of the site by wide vehicles, such as emergency vehicles or refuse collection trucks would be seriously compromised. The Cabinet for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security is probably aware that #1 Clement Close is a recently redeveloped, council-owned facility for adults with special needs, and that ambulances have been called to the site regularly. In addition, refuse collection trucks are already struggling with access.

5.    Increased road traffic: The increased vehicle traffic resulting from 25% more occupancy of Clement Close would result in increased congestion, noise, air pollution, directly contradicting Brent Healthy Neighbourhood scheme. It would also pose a threat to the numerous children, elderly and disabled currently living in Clement Close.

6.   Substantial impact on visual amenity resulting from the layout and density of building: the addition of new buildings, combined with the loss of green spaces, would turn Clement Close into a concrete jungle. The overcrowding would also result in higher levels of noises and disturbances, which would be detrimental to the wellbeing of all residents – current and new. This would again go against Brent’s commitment to “improving the quality of life”, as highlighted in Brent Corporate Environmental Policy Statement.

7.    Loss of existing services: the current plans appear to threaten existing amenities relied upon by many residents including: ground-floor storage cupboards for upper-floor flats, bicycle storage (some of which has only just been installed), recycling facilities. There is no clear plan for where these existing services would be rebuilt/moved to on the current plans. Most importantly for our youngest residents the plans seem to involve building over the existing climbing frame/slide and a bench which form a central part of community life for Clement Close children.

We also condemn the way Brent Council delivered this information to Clement Close residents:

• The leaflets were unenveloped and not specifically addressed to the residents who will be severely impacted by the proposal. They were delivered by hand, through the letterbox, like advertising leaflets and flyers.
• The leaflet looks innocuous enough to be ignored. The front page gives a high-level description of Brent’s programme and makes no mention of Clement Close.
• The summary of proposed development, starting with “Landscape improvement for all residents”, is deceptive.
• The leaflet does not clearly describe where the newbuilds will be located. It only makes mention of one bungalow to be demolished (#54 Clement Close). The only way of understanding the proposal is by carefully examining a map with no caption.
• The residents of #54 Clement Close were unaware of the proposal to have their home demolished and heard about it from their neighbours. It is completely unacceptable for the family whose lives would be turned upside-down by eviction and demolition of their family home to have not been properly consulted and reassured of their security.
• The time frame of under 3 weeks until the closing of the consultation phase is inadequate for the magnitude of the changes proposed.
• The feedback form provided with the leaflet is not specific to Clement Close.
• The QR code and URL provided on the leaflet link to Brent’s Community Engagement Hub, and not to the consultation page. It is not straightforward to find the consultation page from the hub.
• The questionnaire is inappropriately structured and includes leading questions such as “do you agree with …?”, which could influence respondents’ views and comments on the proposal. Such bias goes against the standards of ethical conduct and reporting of survey research.
• There is no confirmation email or acknowledgement that the completed consultation form was received by Brent after submission.

We, the residents of Clement Close and neighbouring properties, are hereby firmly opposing the current development proposal.

 

LINK TO THE PETITION

LINK TO BRENT COUNCIL'S CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSALS

In the wake of the IOPC report on Fryent murders Brent Council urges women not to be discouraged from reporting sexual crimes and unsafe places

 Brent Council Press Release

Statement from Cllr Promise Knight, Lead Member for Community Safety & Engagement at Brent Council

We offer our condolences to Mina Smallman and her family following the findings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s report. An apology from the Police is due, but it is no substitute for action.

As a Council, we are committed to highlighting the experience of women and girls in conversations with partners, and to do our part to make addressing the underlying problems in the system a priority.

One issue we want to highlight, in the wake of this news, is reporting. Clearly, recent events are unlikely to inspire confidence in the women and girls of this borough who may be considering coming forward, and especially Black and Asian women. But I urge you not to be discouraged.

We know that sexual crimes, from cat-calling and unwanted touching, to rape, are vastly under-reported. And yet it is so important if we are to build a clearer picture of perpetrators. Those reports also help us make the argument for investing in the public services needed to address these issues in a meaningful way. In an emergency, always dial 999, or you can get in touch with the Police’s non-emergency service by calling 101 or reporting online.

For our part, we would like to develop better ways for the community to anonymously report places where they feel unsafe in the borough to the council. We are currently consulting with partners about the best way of doing this, so that we can understand and address high risk areas.   

We are also planning a community forum to coincide with the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Based Violence in November, giving local women and girls a chance to share their views and experiences. There will be other activities during the 16 Days and more information will be published on our website shortly.

You can view our latest Community Safety Strategy, which has more detail on how we are working to address Violence Against Women and Girls in Brent, here: www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/about-brent-council/council-structure-and-how-we-work/strategies-and-plans/community-safety-strategy