South Kilburn Masterplan review ordered as project falls 12 months behind schedule and viability questioned

"The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them."

The above statement was included in the papers for the Full Council meeting last month and was a surprise for South Kilburn residents causing cconsiderable disquiet. 

As a result an information request was made to Brent Council to try and find out exactly what was going on. I would welcome comments from SK residents  on whether they feel any the wiser as a consequence of Richard Barrett's response. It would be interesting to know the additional costs that will be incurred by the review.

I am writing on behalf of the Kilburn branch of the Labour Party to request information relating to the regeneration programme in South Kilburn. Last year, I put in an FoI request about other aspects of the programme, and you kindly provided me with useful responses. I hope you will be able to do so on this occasion too.

The basis for my questions is a point in the budget report that was discussed at the full Council meeting on Monday. This is covered in section 14.5 (first bullet) of the report, as follows:

“The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them.”

I have searched through the Brent website, and have not found the information that I am seeking. I should therefore appreciate responses to the following:

·         What are the terms of reference of the masterplan review referred to in the above extract?

The intention is to appoint a Design Team to assist the Council review the adopted Master-plan and the current proposals for the remainder of the programme. It will seek to understand whether the principles established in the original Master-plan need to be altered or not given the passage of time and taking into account the schemes already delivered. The review will also look at the scope of the Master-plan and factoring in any relevant new legislation and guidance ensure the programme remains viable; as such it will also look at all sites within the South Kilburn area to consider inclusion or exclusion within the overall Master-Plan. The brief is currently being worked up by officers but when it is ready to go out to market it will be made available to the public via the London Tender Portal 

·         What is the timescale of the review?

It is hoped to go out to market to seek expressions of interest from Architectural Practices in March, appoint, subject to Cabinet approval, by May with a likely consultation process and report back to Cabinet toward the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the latest. This indicative timescale is subject to Cabinet Timetable availability and it is also likely that the Master-Plan will be placed before Planning Committee alongside a proposed SPD for the area.

·         Will there be a consultation of local residents and other interested parties as part of the review? If so, what form will this take?

Absolutely. It is intended there will be a series of consultation events/workshops with local residents, tenants and stakeholders. The most likely format will be drop-in meetings but may also include questionnaires. The final form of consultations will be agreed with the appointed Practice but it will be a specific requirement of any bid to conduct consultation.

·         How far behind schedule has the regeneration programme slipped? What are the implications for the remaining phases of the programme?

The programme has slipped due to external factors such as the safeguarding of Salusbury Road site by HS2 since 2012 and other factors, such as specific project delays on site. This, in turn, has pushed the programme out of kilter by having a knock-on effect on future phases. Some individual projects remain on target but overall the programme has extended by at least twelve months. The intention is that the Master-plan Review will seek to see whether there is any ability to recover this time by reconfiguring the remaining programme. The Master-Plan review will also incorporate a refresh of the financial viability of the scheme. No implications have been identified apart from the obvious prolongation of the programme and the resultant delay in tenants moving into new accommodation.

·         What criteria and methodology will the review use to decide whether to retain the South Kilburn Housing assets?

I note the extract provided by this FoI from the Budget Report but would advise that the Master-Plan Review will not be the vehicle for determining whether the Council disposes or retains assets as they are developed. I am sure the Review will be used to assist in the consideration of this query but it is more likely something that will be considered by the Council’s Investment Board and reported back to Cabinet for decision as appropriate.

·         Whether and how does the review relate to the information that the Council will provide following the Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of its report on South Kilburn regeneration, at its meeting of 2 December 2015 (see LINK)  

The Master-Plan review and the questions arising from the Scrutiny Committee consideration are separate matters. The points made by the Scrutiny Committee will and has assisted in the development of the Brief..
 

Brent residents win £303k compensation over Preston Manor Covenants debacle

A  Settlement Agreement was reached just before Christmas on a long running battle between Preston Manor Academy Trust and Brent Council and a group of local residents led by Mr Len Gordon.

Residents had objected to the Trust and Council's application to the  Upper Chamber of the Lands Tribunal for the lifting of  Covenants that restricted the building of primary school classrooms on the Preston Manor site.

Residents were opposed to further expansion of the site on grounds of noise and light nuisance as well as increased traffic but the school and Brent Council went ahead even after the Covenants has been drawn to their attention.

Richard Barrett, Operational Director for Brent's Regeneration and Growth Department explained in his witness statement that, after a risk assessment, the Council decided to go ahead with the building work because they might otherwise have had £7m of government funding clawed back. They thought that it was unlikely that the Covenants would be upheld by the Upper Tribunal and were conscious of the need to provide more primary places.

However in his statement Barrett also stated:

I have to accept that the late discovery of these Covenants indicates that officers within the Children and Families Directorate did not undertake due diligence by carrying out title checks. In simple terms, it seems to me that they failed to appreciate that the land was not owned by the Council, but (because the school had Foundation status) was in fact owned freehold by the school. A full title search was undertaken by the Council's Regeneration and Major Projects (Property Unit) (who had by them taken over the project), in December 2010/January 2011 and this led us to discover the restrictions in the titles which permitted development but not of accommodation for a school.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the Objectors withdrawing their objections to the Applicaton by the Trust and Council for modified wording to the Covenants.

The Objectors will share a payment of £303,000 made to Brent Council by the Trusti n a full and final settlement of their entitlement and claims for compensation and any 'loss and damage howsoever arising out of the construcxtion of the primary schools and the temporary classrooms and their subsequent uses, and the other uses of the Land made by the Governing Body and the Trust...'

The Settlement Agreement includes publication of the schools' letting policy on its website alongside emergency contact numbers, highlighted conditions for people hiring the facilities to have regard to households neighbouring the school, the school's attendandance at local safer neighbourhood meetings, and facilities for the public to attend Governing Body meetings.

The Trust will update its Travel Plan and submit it to the Council's travel plan officer. The Transportation Unit will review traffic and parking problems in the area and meet with local residents on ameliorative measures.

The Covenants will be amended to allow current existing permitted educational uses with an entitilement to make 'minor changes and ancillary changes to the existing buioldings and grounds.' The Objectors waive all claims arisng out of the existing temporary classrooms on the site 'up to the end of January 2015'.

This has clearly been an expensive and time consuming process. On December 13th (before the Settlement Agreement was made) I put the following FoI request to Brent Council:

Dear Brent Borough Council,

Please supply the following information:

1. The total amount invoiced to Brent Council to date by Druces LLP for the restrictive covenant action taken on behalf of the governing body of Preston Manor School at the Land Tribunal.
2. The amount of Brent Council officer time (hours and/or cost) spent on the Land Tribunal case.
3. The expected compensation costs to be paid by Brent Council in settling the case with the appellants.
4. Any other costs to be paid by Brent Council in addition to the above.

Procurement errors lead to school expansion delays

Modular building from Elliott's website

As Brent Council Executive is set to discuss further school expansions this evening, it has become clear that current expansions at Mitchell Brook, Fryent and Barham primary schools will not be completed by the forecast date.

The delay appears to have been caused by problems in the preparation of the original bid documents according to the report by Richard Barrett, Assistant Director of  Regeneration and Major Projects, that recommends Andy Donald, awards the contract.  Normally contracts of this value require approval by the Executive but they delegated this authority to Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects at their April 2012 meeting.

On receipt of bids and initial evaluation, it was determined that there were some areas of ambiguity in the Council’s bid documents which had led the different bidders to interpret the Council’s requirements in different ways. As a result, the decision was taken to retender the pricing element only to ensure that all the prices were submitted for exactly the same requirements. Unfortunately when these further tenders were received and clarified, all of the bids were unsuitable, either because of being too high or because or qualifications to the requirement to accept the Council’s contractual terms. This led to a further process of further process of clarifying contractual terms around design risk and giving the opportunity to reprice.

The contract will be awarded to Elliott Group Ltd  with a value of £3.1m for Barham Primary, £4.4m for Fryent Primary and £2.7m for Mitchell Brook Primary. All with a start date of August 22nd.  Because of the time constraints it was decided to use a modular steel framed building system for all three schools which themselves vary greatly in their architecture. 

Barrett argues that despite the delay the timings will still allow for pupils to start in September 2013. However this assumes that all goes according to plan, which has not always been the case with the expansion programme.  Even a July 2013 completion date is challenging for schools in terms of setting up new classrooms with the potential for that work having to be carried out during the summer holiday.