Brent Council’s “infill” housing plans – some clues from Rokesby Place

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

In August last year I wrote about Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects, a list of proposals ‘not yet in the public domain’ for building extra homes on existing Council housing estates. A map presented to a Cabinet meeting in July 2021 included three possible new homes for “Rokesby”, which was then in Sudbury Ward.

 

I was recently asked to have a look at planning application 22/1400, which has now been submitted for building two homes at Rokesby Place. When taking a look through the Design & Access Statement for the application, this page caught my eye:

 

Fifteen sites in Brent where FBM have been appointed ‘to develop proposals’.

 

The Statement in support of application 22/1400 was prepared in March 2022 by Fraser Brown McKenna Architects (“FBM”). As it was written on behalf of Brent Council (client), and submitted to Brent Council (Local Planning Authority), the glowing details about Brent’s New Council Homes Programme seem rather unnecessary, but the final sentence reads: ‘FBM were appointed in April 2021 to develop proposals across 15 sites within the borough.’ The map shows the locations of those fifteen sites, and if there is a blue dot close to where you live, you may wish to ask your local councillors what “infill” schemes the Council is planning near you!

 

There is no doubt that Brent needs to build more Council homes for people on its waiting list and those who are homeless. At first sight, the plans for the two new houses (below) at Rokesby Place look attractive, as they are 4-bedroom / 7-person family homes, for which there is a real shortage of affordable housing in the borough.

 

  

Architect’s drawing of the proposed new houses at Rokesby Place, from planning application.

 

The Council does need to make use of any spare land it owns which is suitable for building homes on (like the vacant Copland School site – so why are all 250 homes there NOT going to be genuinely affordable Council homes?). But it also needs to consider the existing residents of the estate it is considering adding new homes to. That is why in my “secret” Council Housing projects article last year I made the point that early consultation with residents was needed.

 

Cllr. Southwood, then Lead Member for Housing, replied to the points I’d raised, saying:

 

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects, not just on the housing itself but also on the improvements that are made as part of each development we deliver.  We take this responsibility seriously - with workshops, public events, newsletters and questionnaires all used to discuss and get input on our proposals.’

 

However, this is what the Rokesby Place Residents’ Association have said about the consultation they are supposed to have received, in their objection comments on the current planning application:

 

‘Apart from a generic questionnaire which had only one relevant question that was listed last, the whole questionnaire was irrelevant to the proposal. The only information sent with the questionnaire was a publicity leaflet from Cllr Southwood which did not give any detailed information. There has been no consultation with Rokesby Place residents or the neighbouring community. All the information we have found out has been from perusal of the documents on the planning portal.’  

 

Another objection comment, from a leaseholder of one of the Rokesby Place flats, was also very critical of the application’s claims over consultation:

 

Extract from the “View Comments” section for application 22/1400 on Brent’s planning website.

 

Brent certainly needs to improve its consultation with existing residents of estates where it is proposing to add “infill” housing, in order to try to reach agreement on proposals which are acceptable to them, as well as providing at least some of the additional homes which are needed. If they had done that at Rokesby Place, they might have avoided putting forward plans which have produced more than a dozen objections, some of them very detailed.

 

The proposed homes would be built on an existing car park, used by many Rokesby Place residents. One of the main concerns is the effect of the proposals on the availability of parking, with a net loss of nine parking spaces on the estate. The assumption in the application that because the new homes will be “car free” (in that no parking spaces will be provided for them), no one in either of the seven-person households will own a car or van, also seems naïve.

 

The Design & Access Statement admits that the level of "parking stress" would increase from 65% to 107%. Residents have stated that the problems caused by the loss of parking spaces would be worse than that. The consultee comments by Brent's Transportation Officer (included in the “View Documents” section) make clear that insufficient data has been supplied by the applicant to justify the Statement's claim that the loss of parking spaces would be acceptable.

 

Aerial view of Rokesby Place, with sites A&B marked, from the planning application.

 

In order to restrict the level of “parking stress” to what the application claims is an “acceptable” 107%, the existing car park at A on the photo above, where the two houses would be built, would be replaced by a new five-space car park at B. As you can see, it would be built on what is currently an open green. That has led the Residents’ Association to point out, in its objection comments, that this would go against Brent’s policy over the amount of external amenity space needed to satisfy (existing) residents’ needs:

 

‘By taking away the only green space which is relatively level, quiet, private and safe will leave no usable place sit out and enjoy the good weather. Residents have always used this area to have picnics, barbecues and ladies get togethers. During the lockdowns this space was a lifesaver for all residents who used this area.’

 

The loss of parking spaces and the loss of green open spaces and trees (the loss of three mature trees, and severe cutting back of others, is another point raised by objectors) are likely to be key issues in many of the proposed Brent Council “infill” schemes. It will be very interesting to see how these matters are dealt with in the Report by Planning Officers on the Rokesby Place application. 

 

And what will the response of Planning Committee be, if it comes before them for a decision (as it will have to, in view of the number of objections, unless the Council withdraws its application in the face of strong opposition)? 

 

I understand that one of the objectors is a Labour councillor for Wembley Central Ward (in which Rokesby Place now sits, following the boundary changes ahead of the 5 May local elections). Will other Labour councillors have the courage to stand up for their residents, in the face of Brent’s New Council Homes “infill” proposals? And if so, will it make any difference?

 

Philip Grant

 

London Renters Union to put their demands to Cllr Butt and Cllr Southwood later this afternoon

 

Following Saturday's very successful and often moving Community Assembly  organised by English for Action, Brent members of the London Renters Union are meeting with Cllr Butt and Cllr Southwood this afternoon to discuss their key demands. Wembley Matters has documented a number of cases locally and here as background are some cases from the LRU:

A recently joined LRU member, a single parent with 6 children, 2 with disabilities, and with English as a second language, had been placed 2 years ago by the council directly into a flat with a rat infestation, thus discharging the duty. When the boiler broke down she tried to complain to the council, but was only told that she could make another homeless application, and not passed on to the enforcement team.

A property guardian facing a 75% rent increase from DotDotDot (partially as his partner moved in, and also a large rent increase on top of that). DotDotDot are a property guardianship company with a contract from Brent council to fill flats in the South kilburn estate - Labour has committe to lobbying to bring the rents down, so why are they letting DDD get away with this? The renters a proposal to run the flats as a short-life housing coop if DotDotDot say it isn't financially viable for them... - https://twitter.com/ldnrentersunion/status/1504518653290725381?s=21

This issue is really draining me mentally, I can’t focus at work, I can’t sleep well nowadays, I can’t eat well and it’s affecting my health. I am scared of being homeless.

 These are LRU's demands as determined by members real life experiences:

1.    Hold Landlords Accountable. Don't give licences to landlords until they prove the accommodation is the right standard. Use your powers to make the landlords fix our problems - and to make them pay when they don’t. Employ more workers to do this with the money from landlords. 

2.   Work with renters. Meet with Brent LRU regularly, and come to a public meeting after the election to show that you are keeping your promises. Tell local people that they can join London Renters Union for solidarity.

3.   The right to stay in our communities. Don't force people to move out of Brent when they come to the council for housing help. Never say that people are "intentionally homeless". Brent’s temporary accommodation is not good enough - tell us your plans to change this.

4.   Reduce Rents. Tell the government to Control Rents to stop landlords increasing the rent when they want.

5.    Support and solidarity. Give us the right to have appointments to see a real person. This is very important for some disabled people, and if English or reading is difficult. No long, difficult online forms. 

6.   Homes for us. Build housing for the working-class. Don't allow new buildings to be only for the rich. Learn how to negotiate with the big companies so we don't always lose and they always profit. 

You can support these deamnds by taking  E-Action to write to your local councillors HERE

 

1.Hold Landlords Accountable

LRU sees licensing as a key tool against the exploitation of renters, and wants to see a strong consultation for borough-wide licensing. However, an effective enforcement strategy is necessary for licensing to be worth it for renters as well as councils, and also for the majority of properties which are unlicensed. 

·       Expand licensing borough-wide, and expand the enforcement team in order to meet the needs of renters.

·       Ensure that all homes meet the minimum energy efficiency standards, fine landlords that are illegally renting F and G rated properties, and create a local economic recovery scheme using GLA funds and local businesses and apprenticeships to get PRS properties up to B rating as per the Climate and Ecological Strategy.

·       Use the new capacity to ensure that landlords meet the terms of the licence before the licence is issued, and through regular inspections until it expires.

·       Use the rent repayment order scheme against landlords who continue to flout the licensing laws.

2.Work With Renters

The council should meet regularly with Brent LRU, and let renters know about the union.

·       Create a liaison point who will promptly respond to any issues involving LRU members

·       The Cabinet Lead for Housing and the Leader should attend a public meeting of renters within the first 6 months of the administration to update on progress on the housing commitments.

 

3.The Right to stay in our communities

Everyone has the right to stay in their community and with their families and support networks. 

·       Brent Council should end the practice of forcing working class people to choose between leaving London or being declared ‘intentionally homeless’ and become at risk of street homelessness - support people to stay in Brent.

·       Brent Council is building temporary accommodation in order to reduce the reliance on private landlords, which we applaud. However, many renters will not be able to access this block - the council should set out minimum safety and quality standards for ‘temporary’ accommodation and take enforcement action against landlords that refuse to meet them. 

·       Councils should ensure they are giving appropriate weight to invisible disabilities such as chronic mental health issues when making housing offers.

 

4. Bring the rents down

Our demand

·       Council leaders should add their voice to the housing movement’s call for rent controls so that no one is forced to pay more than a third of their income on rent.

·       Brent Council should pass a motion calling on the Government to introduce affordable and effective rent controls, and should put pressure on the opposition to back them. Brent Council should collect and publish data on rent levels.

5.   More accessible housing and support

Disabled people, those with English as a second language and with other support needs should be able to get the advice and support they need to exercise their housing rights in a way that works for them. Councils should ensure that both housing itself and advice and support services are as accessible as possible to tenants. Councils should:

·       Ensure that council advice and support is clear, rights-based and easy to access by the individual themselves without needing to rely on another person. Support should be able to be accessed through multiple channels (such as email, telephone, face-to-face), and long and complex online forms should be eliminated.

·       Set out a multi-pronged strategy for informing tenants about their rights, recourse when they are not met, and entitlements to grants such as Disabled Facilities Grant.

·       Set out a clear expectation for landlords and letting agents within the borough to ensure that there are multiple channels of communication through which tenants can approach them.

 

6.  Development

Social housing must be prioritised in all developments. To ensure just and responsible development in Brent, the council must:

·       Prioritise housing the huge numbers of people on the waiting list in new developments. 

·       Build more, larger 4 and 5 bed houses (both council and private developer) to deal with chronic overcrowding in the borough. The waiting list for a three- or four-bedroom council house in Brent is 17 years.

·       Brent Council didn’t respond to journalists about whether it has a strategy for keeping developers to their s106 agreements - how is this happening currently?

 

 

 

 

South Kilburn residents object to high rise redevelopment proposal on the Crone, Craik and Zangwill site

 

 

Block A maximum 10 storeys c65metres,  Block B maximum 16 storeys c86metres, Block C maximum 12storeys c72metres.

The proposal:

Phased redevelopment of the site comprising: Demolition of all existing buildings, structures and site clearance, construction of three buildings ranging from 6 to 16 storeys comprising 252 residential units (Use Class C3), and provision of 325 sqm of commercial, business and service floorspace (Use Class E). Hard and soft landscaping works, access and highway alterations, car and cycle parking provision, and associated ancillary works. | 1-75 Crone Court, 1-85 Craik Court and 1-10 Zangwill House, London, NW6 

 

A group of Craik Court residents have objected  to the above demolition and redevelopment on the South Kilburn Estate on the following grounds:

We object to this application because

 

1.   Residents were involved in the three consultations during the spring and summer of 2018. The plans in this application do not resemble what was proposed in the final consultation event in September 2018. In these consultations residents said strongly that they did not want buildings over 10 stories high.  We were given the impression in these meetings that what we were shown in September 2018 would resemble what was built. This is not the case.

 

2.   We do not want high rises in South Kilburn. The application says buildings up to 16 stories will be built. This goes against Brent's Local Plan for the area Craik (p.201) Crone p.202 only mentions up to 14 stories.  Why does this application add 2 extra stories? In the exhibition we were shown the buildings are 8 and 9 stories high. But in this application 16 stories are proposed.   In the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for South Kilburn on p48 it says  that the regeneration  plans " will not propose radical divergence from the mansion block typology" 16 Stories is a radical divergence from this . It has a knock-on effect of causing the area to be too densely populated and the loss of light to other blocks in the area.  

 

3.   Loss of parking. At the moment Craik has 22 parking spaces, Crone has 28 parking spaces . These spaces are very much in demand, There seems to be no new spaces in these plans but many more dwellings.  In fact there is a heavy loss of spaces. While we agree that with climate change we should discourage car use, many people living in the area need cars for work or because they are not able to get around without them. Where will they park?

 

The parking on the new plans is only on the road. These roads are now filled with the numbers of people living there. If these buildings are built there will be many more households needing  parking all looking on the same roads for very limited parking.

 

4.   Loss of light - The height and density of these blocks, if allowed  to go ahead, will cast shadows on the homes and open spaces behind them. This is unacceptable.

 

5.   Density -  if the number of new homes asked for in this application  is allowed it will put an enormous strain on the already strained infrastructure in the area.  Services such as doctors are over stretched.  There are no doctors at Kilburn Park Surgery and the other local surgery, Lonsdale Practice is full to the brim.

 

6.   Loss of green spaces. If this plan is accepted there will be a huge loss of green spaces. The area between the two new proposed sites, Canterbury Road, is dark and has 2 huge buildings looming over it in this proposal.

 

7.   Loss of play space.  The application has a huge loss of playspace which is not made up for with the new  park. The new park was built to replace other play spaces that have already been lost. There is a space in the middle of the building on Canterbury Road but that is only for residents of that block. It cannot make up for open accessible play spaces lost.

 

FULL DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL HERE

Redevelopment no longer an option for St Raphel's Estate Brent Council announces

 Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, yesterday informed residents of St Raphael's Estate that redevelopment of the estate was no long an option. This had appeared to be inevitable once funding  no longer seemed likely due to changed criteria, although the Council continued talks to try and achieve funding.

The change means that there will no longer be private housing built on the estate and there will be no demolitions. Instead there will be infill new housing on parts of the estate and the council promises to 'invest in existing council homes' and carry out improvements on the estate.

The two options for the estate: infill and redevelopment, both had the support of sections of the community. LINK  A ballot would have been held which would have established the true extent of support for either. Now the council has announced the infill decision no ballot will be held.

Controversy is likely to continue, as it has on other estates, on exacly what infill will take place and where, and the impact on residents' amenity.

This is the letter sent to residents.

The Council has also issued a Newsletter outlining potential estate improvements that could be possible over the next 5 years.

 

Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?

 

 

On Twitter @LifeInKilburn  suggested this was not the whole story:

St Raphael's redevelopment delayed. What the Leader doesn't tell you is that the GLA have changed their funding criteria and that they will not fund housing that replaces current housing, making the full redevelopment option not financially possible.

This was a point also made by St Raph's Community group LINK 

Inside Housing LINK covered the GLAs change of policy in December 2020 and quoted Helen Evans of the G15 group of housing associations:

The new programme will mean that grant funding will only be available for additional homes in estate regeneration.

This is a big change from previous programmes, the extent to which it makes a difference will depend on how much the estate is being densified.

I believe estate regeneration, which already involves additional costs of demolition and loss of rental income, will become more expensive and unviable in some instances.

There may be some wriggle room for Brent Council and it could be that the delay is caused by protracted talks with the GLA. The GLA’s guidance states it will “consider funding these replacement homes in exceptional circumstances”, such as if homes have become “obsolete”. Does this apply to housing on St Raph's?

 Inside Housing continued:

Guy Slocombe, chief investment officer at Hyde, said he hopes the regeneration rules are “a broad generalisation” and that “some of the homes that are being regenerated are being regenerated because they are no longer fit for purpose”.

He continued: “Hyde has experience of large-scale regeneration which involves replacing homes that would not meet the decent homes standards. I believe that grant should be provided to replace these homes and I hope that... regeneration projects will be considered on their own merit.

Alternative funding may also be being explored. This is what the GLA document, Homes for London - Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026, LINK  says:

Estate regeneration

 

The Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026 provides funding for estate regeneration projects where the grant is used for additional homes. Funding will not be available for units that replace homes that have been, or will be, demolished.

 

Where homes have become obsolete the GLA will consider funding these replacement homes in exceptional circumstances, and only as part of a scheme that will increase the number of homes overall. 

 

Where councils are unable to fund replacement homes within their own resources, the GLA will look to provide alternative funding. Investment partners seeking to undertake estate regeneration are encouraged to submit bids under this programme for units that will increase overall supply and to discuss additional requirements with GLA officers where further funding is required to support the replacement of homes that have been demolished.