Brent Council's Utopian plans for Neasden at Cabinet on Monday

 

Brent Council's Cabinet will decide on Monday to go out to consultation on far-reaching plans for the Neasden Stations Growth Area (NSGA) Draft Masterplan.

The Masterpan envisages the long-term transformation of the often derided (particularly by Private Eye LINK) area with co-location (housing and industrial/commercial) development on 5 sites including that of the College of North West London on Dudden Hill. There will be a total of 2,338 new homes plus commercial and light industrial spaces.

"This Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) seeks to unlock the massive potential that the Neasden Stations Growth Area (NSGA) has to offer, and define a new place for the post-pandemic world that balances local choices within the wider metropolitan context. The delivery of new workspace, improved accessibility to the wider area, an interconnected network of green open spaces, enhanced public realm and a permeable movement network will create an inclusive neighbourhood that can support at least 2,000 new homes, and also serve as a distinctive gateway to Neasden. This Masterplan SPD sets out the overarching vision for NSGA, and the underpinning urban design framework, to help ensure that the transformation of the existing poor quality environment brings forward physical, social and economic regeneration for all the community."

At times the Masterplan is almost Utopian in its vision:

"A diverse Neasden will be a place that is used and enjoyed by all people, irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity, physical ability, sexual orientation or social background. The natural and built environment will be fairer and more inclusive, reflecting best practice through design to ensure the area is welcoming, responsive, intuitive, flexible, varied and convenient.

With around 25% of the local population aged under 18, Neasden will represent the needs of children and young people, and reflect London’s status as an increasingly youthful city. Children and young people will be able to access social and physical infrastructure and move around the area safely, independently, and without adult supervision, benefitting their physical, social and mental development and health.

Development at Neasden will be child-friendly, maximising opportunities for safe play and outdoor activities. Open spaces will support formal and informal play, exercise and rest, and be accessible to all with no segregation. Open spaces will be well-overlooked by homes and other active uses to ensure they are welcoming and benefit from natural surveillance, overcoming crime and the fear of crime.

With around 55% of the local population identifying as belonging to Black, Asian or minority ethnic groups, Neasden will represent both the needs and cultures of all people. Protected groups will be considered from the outset and given a greater participatory role in shaping how the area evolves through meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Development at Neasden will support different modes of living, catering for multi-generational households, young families, and over 60s, alongside a range of different domestic cultures. Buildings and landscapes will be as much for local people as for new residents, allowing the establishment of a mixed and balanced community that reflects the diversity of the area."

 

The summary for the preferred option is rather more down to earth:

Option 3 proposes vertical stacking of residential uses on podium floors with industrial below and some commercial/retail fronting Neasden Lane is proposed on Site 1 (LSIS) and Site 2 (LSIS). On site 3 (CNWL), proposes predominantly residential development with some commercial/ retail/community uses and retention of the existing housing estate adjacent. On Site 4 (LSIS), vertical co-location of residential uses with industrial uses is proposed. On Site 5, predominantly residential use with some light industrial use is proposed. Site 6 is proposed to be retained as existing and is deemed unviable for development.

The Masterplan is long-term. In Option 3 the estate next to the College of North West London (Severn Way and Selbie Avenue) is not down for redevelopment but it is within the development area and could come forward at a later stage. It does look rather vulnerable in the illustration between the two masses of tower blocks. A further possibility is a new station in the area on the potential West London Orbital line.

The existing green space beside the college at the foot of Dudden Hill/Denzil Road appears unlikely to be retained but instead space will be integrated into the new housing.

Details for each site:

 The 5 Sites

 

It is a huge document and the Cabinet is unlikely to discuss it in any great detail. I have uploaded it on One Drive for readers who wish to read further. Click on the bottom right square for full size version.

Barnet Council turn down another planning application for Woodfield Nursery at the Welsh Harp

 

The site (outlined in red) in context

The plans

Street elevation

The latest planning application for the redevelopment of the Woodfield Nursery site in Cool Oak Lane, near the Welsh Harp, fronted by Taylor Wimpey has been turned down by Barnet Council.  LINK There have been other applications for this site which at present is occupied by greenhouses and polytunnels in poor condition and some brickbuilt offices, alongside a landscaping business.  It is close to the Brent border and not far from the huge controversial private development, formerly West Hendon social housing,  on the other bank across Cool Oak Bridge.

Some years ago there were applications by the owner of this site and the then Greenhouse Garden Centre in Birchen Grove for housing estates at both locations.  Brent Council turned down the application. LINK  It is now Birchen Grove Garden Centre under new management - I do not have details of the freehold ownership.

Barnet Council found that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on Metropolitan Open Land and rejected the developer's claim that the greenhouses and polytunnels were permanent structures allowing development. The planners ruled that it did not meet the exemptions test for such developments.

In addition officers said that the proposal did not secure the affordable housing, delivery of employment skills and enterprise, or carbon off-setting required. It was a long way from public transport which would increase car ownership.

There were 139 comments on the Barnet planning portal of which 137 were against, one in support and one a general comment. Preservation of the Metropolitan Open Land and the Site of Special Scientific Interest, the importance of a 'green lung' in an over-crowded city, and defence of nature were all prominent. Among the objectors were Hendon Rifle Club, Silver Jubilee Residents Association, the RSPB and Brent Parks Forum. Brent Council also made a submission but it was not available on the portal.

It is unlikely that this is the end of the story!

UPDATE: First phase of Northwick Park development at planning tonight - it may be another marathon

 

Overall view of the context of the site that will be developed (outlined in red)

The site now (slightly right of centre)

Masterplan view of the whole site as it will be - this application in foreground left

UPDATE: APPLICATION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY

 

The first major section of the Northwick Park development comes up at tonight's Planning Committee. If the last meeting was a marathon tonight's may necessitate committee members and officers bringing in their sleeping bags!

The overall Northwick Park master plan is a development shared between partners Brent Council, University of Westminsters, Northwick Park Hospital (NHS) and Network Housing as part of the One Public Estate government sponsored initiative.

This particular site will be familiar with visitors to the hospital who approach from Northwick Park station. They will know the chimney of the energy unit, low buildings, the hospital social club, nursery and some housing on the left side of the ring road as you approach along the footpath.

All will be swept away eventually and replaced with tower blocks ranging from 5-6 storeys to 12-13 storeys, a new nursery building and some small shops. The social club appears unlikely to survive unless space is found on the hospital site and in any case the hospital is said to want to discourage the consumption of alcohol - pity the poor hospital works after an intensive shift!

The Planning Committee will be told that there were just 10 objectors to the scheme and the officers' report dismisses each of them in turn. See LINK.

 

The proposal:

Full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and structures on the site, all site preparation works for a residential led mixed-use developmentcomprising 654 new homes, associated car and cycle spaces, a replacement nursery, retail space, associated highways improvements, open space, hard andsoft landscaping and public realm works.

 With Cllr Maurice on the committee you can bet parking will take up a lot of  the time and here it is not just a matter of parking for the new residents but also parking for hospital workers themselves. The tenure of the housing will also be an issue with another Brent development with a significant amount of shared ownership despite recent publicity over drawbacks to such schemes:

Out of the 654 units, 409 will be private -

Affordable housing: Provision of 245 affordable units comprising: 

a. 70 units for affordable rent at London Affordable Rent levels and 26 units for affordable rentat London Living Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable HousingProgramme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) or the necessaryguidance as it is updated and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominationsagreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75%nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council.

b. 38 units for affordable rent at rent levels not exceeding 80% of current market rents, andsubject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the NHS Trust and the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75% nomination rights onsubsequent lets for the NHS Trust and cascaded rights for the Council. 

c. 111 units for Shared Ownership, (as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing &Regeneration Act 2008, subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider, (and subject to anappropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council that secure sreasonable local priority to the units). The condition in brackets has been removed in a supplementary report. 

Concerns over the environmental impact of the scheme, impingement on Metropolitan Open Space, housing tenure, the proportion of amenity space, over-shadowing, the impact on views (especially from Harrow-on-the-Hill) are all, as usual, judged on balance to be tolerable given the 'benefits of the scheme.'

Officers judged that capacity in local primary and secondary schools is sufficient to cater for the increased population.

The webcast of the meeting starts at 6pm tonight: https://brent.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/531655

Two important St Raphael's Estate zoom meetings this week - infill or redevelopment?

Unfortunately this video has only had 4 views since it was postws on October 27th

 

The final November meetings on the St Raphael Estate 'infill or redevelopment' issue take place  this week on  zoom:

PPCR & St Raphael's Voice:

• Tuesday 24 November 2020, 6-8pm

Click here to join the meeting.

Use the meeting ID 854 657 8943 and password Straphs22

 

 

Brent Council & St Raphael's Voice:

• Thursday 26 November 2020, 11am - 1pm

Click here to join the meeting.

Use the meeting ID 819 6597 5967 and password 1j8EVi

Useful documents:

• Masterplan Proposals & Design Code Summary (.pdf, 8.14MB)
• Timeline (.pdf, 734.0kB)

 

 

St Raphael's Estate Ballot delayed until next year

The news of the ballot delay was announced in a Brent Council press release yesterday.  I would be interested in further details of the first phase which the release says will be on open space and can proceed without a ballot.

PRESS RELEASE

Work is well underway to develop the two options for the future of St Raph’s estate. Despite the huge challenges of Covid-19, residents have been working, virtually, on what infill and redevelopment options might look like ahead of the proposed ballot next year.

 

Given the uncertainties and possible changes to local Covid restrictions, the Residents Board has agreed that the ballot should take place next year, instead of this Autumn as originally planned. We’re hopeful that this will enable face-to-face conversations to resume, ensuring each household has the chance to fully understand what both options would mean for them.  

  

In the meantime, the design team will begin work with the community to create detailed designs for the first phase of development. The designs will follow the Community Design Code and will show what new homes could look like, although it won’t be finalised until after the ballot.

 

The location of the first phase is open space to the south of the estate. It does not involve demolishing any homes and can proceed whatever the outcome of next year’s ballot.

  

The costs for delivering both infill and redevelopment were also recently carefully reviewed by Brent Council. Both remain affordable but will continue to be monitored, in light of the pandemic.

 

Cllr Eleanor Southwood, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Housing and Welfare Reform, said:

 

We’re absolutely committed to delivering what residents want for the future of St Raph’s. Coronavirus has shone a light on the number of households in the borough living in overcrowded homes or temporary accommodation, without access to their own private outdoor space or good quality parks. To make matters worse, many private renters face crippling rents combined with the risk of eviction. It’s vital that we work together with the community to create these much needed new, affordable homes for local people sooner rather than later.

 

An upcoming virtual exhibition will give residents an opportunity to see each masterplan option for the first time, and to give their feedback. The exhibition will be online for four weeks, from Friday 23 October 2020 until Saturday 28 November 2020.

 

The council is sending an update to all households on the estate this week. Residents can also get answers to any questions by emailing straphs@brent.gov.uk

 

Residents are also invited to join weekly virtual drop ins, hosted by Brent Council, independent advisor PPCR and resident board St Raphael’s Voice. Find out the dates, times and joining instructions

1 Morland Gardens should be considered 'an important local heritage asset of high significance' - Brent Heritage Officer

The proposals for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens on a prominent corner site in Harlesden/Stonebridge have attracted much controversy over the loss of a well-loved landmark in the Italianate style villa presently occupying the site. LINK  There has been an argument about its relative heritage merit and whether alternative proposals should be considered which would preserve the villa. LINK

Brent Council have kindly supplied me with the advice of the Council's Principal Heritage Officer which I hope will be given due weight.

Application Number 20/0345

Consultee Details 

Name: Mr Mark Price Principal Heritage Officer
Email: mark.price@brent.gov.uk
On Behalf Of: Principal Heritage Conservation Officer 

Comments 

SIGNIFICANCE: 1 Morland Gardens is a Locally Listed Building [a non-designated heritage asset] but not in a conservation area nor a statutory listed building. The local list description (attached) confirms and sets out its significance. It has a significance score of 8 out of 12 and therefore it should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance. 

ADVICE:
The Heritage Statement submitted with the planning application [at 8.8] confirms the authenticity and the intactness of the building and therefore its relative significance and states that Externally, the Victorian house remains mostly intact and The houses south-facing façade still makes an impression on those passing along Hillside. However, although the report considers the history and use of the building, it does not put it into the immediate local context of Stonebridge nor as a building type within the Borough of Brent. It is therefore difficult to come to any judgement about its potential loss. Furthermore, it does not make a case for its demolition or give any comment on the merits of the replacement building. 

The NPPF at paragraph 8 states that an Analysis of relevant information can generate a clear understanding of the affected asset, the heritage interests represented in it, and their relative importance. It goes on to point out at paragraph 9 that Applicants are expected to describe in their application the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting (National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 189). In doing so, applicants should include analysis of the significance of the asset and its setting, and, where relevant, how this has informed the development of the proposals. 

Unfortunately, such information has not been provided. 

Brents DMP 7 [b] is quite clear that applicants should provide a detailed analysis and justification of the potential impact (including incremental and cumulative) of the development on the heritage asset and its context as well as any public benefit and [at c] argues to retain buildings where their loss would cause harm. With this in mind, the applicants should seek further advice from a heritage specialist to gather further evidence in support of this application. The specialist might offer different conclusions or mitigation measures for the Council to consider. 

I am aware that the D&A Statement at section 5.1, Heritage, alludes to the fact that the Design Team have carefully considered a wide range of development options for the application site, including options that retain the historic core of the building. Also that the proposed building is not without considerable design merit. However, the development options need to be carefully set out and argued as part of the planning application and form part of the heritage statement along with the architectural merits of the new design as well as the other public benefits [as defined by the NPPF] to countenance demolition. 

In my view, therefore, this additional information needs to be obtained before a proper assessment of the proposals can be determined.

'Old St Raphs' to be excluded from redevelopment/refurbishment plans going to Brent Cabinet

Brent Council Press Release (unedited)

Recommendations for which parts of St Raphael’s should be included in proposals to improve the area, and create more much-needed affordable council housing, will be put to cabinet by Brent Council on Monday 9 December.

The council is considering two approaches, infill development and redevelopment, for the future of the estate, which straddles Neasden and Stonebridge.

Since November 2018, the council has been working with residents to create community-led masterplans for each approach while undertaking a detailed study of the design and financial considerations around the proposals.  

Following this work, the council is recommending that only the area known locally as ‘St Raphael’s Estate’ be included within the future masterplans, and that the area known locally as the ‘Old Estate’ is removed from the masterplanning exercise.

The council is also recommending that a local lettings plan be established once infill or redevelopment has taken place, to help the council tenants most in need living across St Raphael’s to benefit from the opportunities created.

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council’s Chief Executive said: 

"We’re committed to making sure, alongside residents, we develop the best possible options for the future St Raph’s. Our recommendations to cabinet are the result of detailed work from industry experts and nearly a year of feedback from residents, and conversations with more than 50% of households on the estate. We look forward to continuing to work together with residents, local businesses and community groups to develop the masterplans for both infill and redevelopment.” 

The council has written to all households on the estate to share its recommendations, and to answer frequently asked questions.

A series of drop in sessions for residents on the estate will also be held over the next two weeks at Henderson House, Henderson Close:

• Tuesday 3 December – Friday 6 December (9.30am – 12.30pm and 2 - 5pm)
• Monday 9 December  - Thursday 12 December (9.30am – 12.30pm and 2 - 5pm)

Comments from residents on this news welcome.

Preston Community Library issues statement on redevelopment of the site

The proposed new building

As of this morning there are 70 comments on the Brent Council Planning Portal for this development all of which object to the proposed new building which contains a community library space as well as 12 'affordable' flats in a 2 to 4 storey building.

A wider question is whether the community library can survive if the plans do not go through. Brent Council has a policy of realising the value of its property through development but in this case has not chosen to build flats at market prices but instead to address the need for more local housing at affordable levels.

Comments objecting or supporting the application can be made HERE

New consultation on Copland/Ujima House redevelopment February 13th & 16th

There will be another consultation about the plans for the former Copland School and Ujima House sites on Wembley High Road.  The site of the former Copland School is very extensive and it will be a significant development not far from the 'Twin Towers' currently being built on the Chesterfield House site on the corner of Park Lane and next to the Brent House development.

Our report on the October 2018 consultation is HERE

The consultation by the PR agency 'Your Shout' who consulted on the South Kilburn development LINK will be on Wednesday 13th February 4pm-8pm and Saturday 16th February 10am-2pm at the SEIDs Hub-Community Centre, Empire Way, Wembley HA9 ORJ. LINK

Your Shout: Freephone 0800 955 1042
Email: WembleyHighRoad@yourshout.org

Proposed 15 storey block for Cricklewood opposed by many local residents

The relationship of the block to surrounding buildings

As the block will appear from Cricklewood Lane

Proposals for a  6-15 storey block on the corner of Cricklewood Broadway and Cricklewood Lane  (1-13 Cricklewood Lane) is being opposed by many Barnet and Brent residents who live close to the proposed development.

These two statements extracted from comments on the Barnet Council planning portal sum up the reasons for opposition:

COMMENT 1

The proposal is based on misleading claims and specious arguments which are factually incorrect. A 15 storey high-rise extreme-density tower would dominate everything around it and be totally out of keeping with the rest of Cricklewood.

FUL-PLANNING_STATEMENT-4245340
2.12 The Site is within the wider Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) Framework.
It is not.
5.9 The Site is designated, by the LBB and the GLA: Cricklewood/Brent Cross Opportunity Area:
It is not.
6.28 .......the Brent Cross Regeneration Area is situated in close proximity to the Site, which provides precedent for tall buildings.
It is not "in close proximity to the Site"; There is no precedent for tall buildings
6.28 "Cricklewood is not identified by LBB as one of the areas suitable for tall buildings".

There is no Affordable Housing
7.2-Affordable housing provision will only be "discussed further with the Council".

The scheme will be detrimental to the area:
6.24 The tower "will be situated to the rear of the Site to minimise townscape views and amenity"
6.50 The scheme proposes a residential density that "exceeds the current London Plan density matrix"
6.61 "....the scheme proposal will result in several breaches of BRE daylight guidance", due to the design

Public Consultation
4.6. "an extensive process of consultation was undertaken ..... between the Applicant and the local community". This is an exaggerated and misleading claim.
4.8 reveals that only 43 people attended the exhibition, and that only 15 feedback forms were returned. Most local residents were not told

7.0 SECTION 106: the developer is making no contribution at all other than a Carbon offset payment - this is unacceptable.

If planning applications are to be decided on the basis of this kind of falsehood, that is a subversion and debasement of due democratic process, This proposal by an off-shore speculator to exploit residents' environment for commercial gain constitutes town cramming. It should be refused

COMMENT 2

Let's not pretend that anything about this development is intended to benefit the local area. It's about developers making money. The development is not in keeping with the local area, it's far too big. The development is not about providing housing to local people, there is no social housing, despite the desperate need. There is no guaranteed affordable housing.

I was born and brought up in Cricklewood and at the age of 33 I have had to move back in with my parents to be able to stay in the area that is my home. This housing is not even within my reach and in many ways I'm luckier than many other local people I am proud to call my neighbours.

Cricklewood infrastructure is already under enormous strain. I have given up trying to drive down the Broadway, the traffic barely moves. The new housing development towards staples corner, plus the planned distribution site are already going to add to an already overburdened road network. A development of that many flats would be awful, not to mention the health effects from the added pollution. The train networks are overloaded, it's nearly impossible to get on a train at Cricklewood Station as it is.

Why are we intent on letting outside financial interests come in and create so much damage to the place we live. Let's redevelop Cricklewood, some areas desperately need it but let's do it in a way that works for local people, before we realise we've ruined our home for a quick buck.

If you wish to comment on the proposal or read more about it follow this LINK

Some issues for the St Raphael's consultation meeting on December 8th

Brent Council will be consulting with residents on the St Raphael's Estate next Friday on their plans to redevelop the estate. St Raphael's will be the first estate where residents will be balloted on the changes.

Concerns have been expressed on social media over possibilities of gentrification and social cleansing with private housing being built on the estate to help pay for the redevelopment. There are also worries over the potential for the loss of green space, not just in the area surrounding the estate which stretches to the River Brent, but within the estate itself.  People are aware of what happened in West Hendon with private developments next to the Welsh Harp reservoir and social housing close to the poor air quality main road. St Raphael's borders on the heavily polluted North Circular.

Another issue is the need to ensure the future of the premises of various community groups, nurseries, children's centre and the Sufra Foodbank and Edible Garden if new blocks are to be built requiring additional land.

St Raphael's Estate is on a flood plain for the River Brent. There are artificial hillocks between the river and the estate which protects it to some extent but locals speak of underground springs in the area. They suggest that this could limit any high rise developments. There was flooding in the area in the 1970s.

With climate change underway the flood risk is clearly something to be considered. This is the longer term risk from the Environment Agency:

Big changes for St Raphael's Estate on Brent Cabinet agenda

The Brent Council Cabinet is poised to approve a consultation on the redevelopment of St Raphael's Estate at its meeting on Monday November 12th (4pm, Brent Civic Centre). LINK

The estate borders the North Circular Road and the River Brent and consists of around 1174 properties of which Brent Council manages 807. Network Housing also manages some and others are private following Right to Buy. The estate was constructed between 1967 and 1982 with little intervention since.

'Limited' shops

Open views on to green space

Space for small gardens and lawned common areas

Green space between the estate and the River Brent

The officers' report states:

St Raphael’s estate was built when land was in abundance and therefore the build density is low. This presents an opportunity, for the Council to consider what options are available to maximise housing supply on the estate. By doing so, the Council can start to address the housing needs on the estate, as demonstrated above. Initial indications are that, with careful planning and support of residents on the estate, redevelopment options could produce significantly more homes, of the right size and which are genuinely affordable, than the current residents of the estate require. 

Options: 


1. Refurbishment with Limited New Build– This option would retain but increase the height of the existing blocks but could also possibly add new blocks on available land as in-fill to the existing estate. This option would not likely to be able to deliver the best outcomes for St Raphael’s that a re- development could as it would eat into and not re-provide greenspace. It would not facilitate the reprovision of better community facilities. 


.         

2. Re-development - This option would be the most radical and would likely involve the re-modelling of the estate and also increase the overall numbers of homes located on the Estate and at the same time, address the socio- economic issues affecting residents on the estate through improvements to the infrastructure on the estate. This would require a ballot. 


If Option 2 is not to eat into the green space on the estate and between the estate and the river, it appears likely that there will be high rise development.

In the past the estate had a difficult relationship with the residents of the private houses just over the River Brent in Monks Park. At one stage Monks Park residents asked that the bridge linking the two should be removed so that St Raphael's residents couldn't access their streets. Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt declares two residences on Monks Park in the Register of Interests and Dawn Butler has a house there.

Brent Council recognises the socio-economic challenges the estate faces:

The Council is committed to improving the housing, environmental and economic outcomes for those who live on the St Raphael’s Estate. The Council is aware from both the feedback and from its own knowledge of the Estate that there are environmental, safety and socio-economic issues for St Raphael’s. For example, the Community Profile for St Raphael’s identifies some specific challenges for its residents:

·      38% of children are living in poverty in St Raphael’s compared with 19% across England 


·      25% of people have no qualifications in St Raphael’s compared with 22% across England, 18% in London and 19% in Brent 


·      27% are in full time employment compared with 39% across England, 40% in London and 36% in Brent 


The Council also knows that there are other issues.

·      St Raphael’s is identified as having a low PTAL (public transport accessibility level), and only 56% of households have a car (compared to 74% nationally). 


·      The nature of the roads and river surrounding St Raphael’s can make it feel isolated even although it is relatively close to Wembley, which is exacerbated by the limited retail offer on the Estate. 


·      There are also issues in regards to the air quality and noise from the North Circular. The parts of the estate immediately beside the North Circular have high poorer air quality (65-90 NO2 (ug/m3) – reducing down to 75 dB) - reducing down to 0-55 dB further into the Estate. 


The Council is also aware that personal robbery is a prevalent crime on St Raphael’s estate, which increased by 107% from last year, compared to an increase of 52% in the rest of the borough. Also increasing, but to a lesser extent, are assault of wounding/Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). There is also recorded gang activity on the estate. The Council’s Community Safety and Housing Management teams are working very closely with the Metropolitan Police to try and tackle these issues. However, the design and nature of the estate is likely to be a contributing factor in these crimes. 

The redevelopment option would introduce private housing into the St Raphael's mix in order to finance the redevelopment and provision of additional affordable housing and the South Kilburn regeneration is cited as an exemplar. However there are differences in terms of involvement with private developers:

Whilst the South Kilburn model has worked through the Council engaging with delivery partners to deliver and manage new private and affordable housing, on St Raphael’s the Council will seek to explore with its partners and Council wholly owned companies such as I4B and First Wave Housing, to be able to deliver/manage private sale or market rent housing products, as well as retention of social housing by the Council alongside Network Homes and Peabody Trust.

Unlike the South Kilburn development any redevelopment of St Raphael's will have to go to a tenants' ballot following GLA rules. 

Here are extracts from a residents' survey about the estate (click on images to enlarge):

Given the report's mention of gang activity it is noteworthy that 'facilities for youth' is top of the residents' agenda for improvement but that of course is not just a matter of providing a building but also the provision of ongoing funding. The Roundwood Centre is a great building, the last one left in Brent, but the latest Brent Council budget proposes no longer funding its youth service activities.

The high priority given to parks and green spaces by residents is also significant and it is likely that any proposals that eat into that space will be opposed.

Overall of course concerns that the redevelopment is a cover for gentrification will have to be addressed by councillors and council officers.