Regeneration at Scrutiny meeting – The truth about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone land – two follow-up emails

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Cllr. Tatler (front right) on the Cecil Avenue site in March 2023.
(from a Brent Council press release announcing the WHZ development contract with Wates)

 

Following my guest post on 28 April, setting out the truth about the Council’s ownership of the Wembley Housing Zone site at Cecil Avenue, I added a comment below which shared the text of an open email I had sent to Councillor Shama Tatler.

 

Martin asked whether he could publish that email as a separate post, but I said it might be better to wait until I had also sent an email to the members of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, and publish both together. That is what this guest post does.

Open email to Councillor Shama Tatler, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, on 29 May at 8.30am:

 

Subject: Incorrect statement on Wembley Housing Zone land at Scrutiny Committee on 23 April

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Councillor Tatler,

 

You may recall that I have been taking a close interest in the lack of genuinely affordable housing at Brent Council's Cecil Avenue development, which comes under your Wembley Housing Zone regeneration portfolio, since August 2021.

 

I was therefore interested when the subject came up when you were speaking to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting last Tuesday (23 April) when they were considering Regeneration.

 

You stated (and I have transcribed this from the webcast of the meeting): 'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land.'

 

That statement was untrue. 

 

Brent Council did own the freehold of the Cecil Avenue site (which will provide 237 of the 291 WHZ homes). That land, which for a time had passed to Copland Community School when it was a foundation school, had come back to Brent Council ownership, for nil consideration, under a land rationalisation agreed in 2014.

 

The only WHZ land which Brent Council had to purchase was Ujima House (the smaller site, providing only 54 of the 291 WHZ homes), acquired in 2016 for £4.8m, and funded out of the £8m initially provided to Brent by the GLA for the Wembley Housing Zone.

 

I'm sure that you are at least as aware of those facts as I am, and yet you appear to have chosen to mislead the Scrutiny Committee, as part of seeking to justify the impact on viability which has led to the poor number of genuinely affordable homes homes for rent to Council tenants at your Wembley Housing Zone scheme.

 

I am bringing this to your attention, and the fact that the true position is now in the public domain*, so that you can write to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee to correct the error in what you said above (and any other false information included in your statements to them on 23 April) and apologise for misleading them at their meeting.

 

I am copying this email to Councillor Conneely, the Committee Chair, for her information, and as it is an open email I will also include its text as a comment under the online blog post, which you can read via the "link" below. Yours sincerely,

 

Philip Grant.

 

* https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/04/regeneration-at-scrutiny-meeting-truth.html

 

[Thirty-six hours later, I have yet to receive any acknowledgement or response from Cllr. Tatler, and on past experience, I’m not sure that I will.]

 

Wembley Housing Zone location plan, with added description in key.
(Original version taken from a Report to Cabinet in August 2021)

 

As I have little confidence that Cllr. Tatler will take my advice, and bring the error I have pointed out to the attention of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, my second email was addressed to them.

 

Email to Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, on 30 May at 8.27pm:

 

Subject: Correction to information given to you on Wembley Housing Zone land at meeting on 23 April.

 

Dear Chair and members (including substitutes) of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, I was interested in item 6 on your 23 April agenda, Regeneration in Brent, and watched some of the meeting on the webcast.

 

You may remember that, in 2022, I was seeking to get your committee to scrutinise various aspects of the Council's delivery of affordable housing, and in particular the lamentably low proportion of genuinely affordable homes to rent which were proposed for the Cecil Avenue site of the Council's Wembley Housing Zone project. 

 

I was pleased to hear Councillor Conneely express your Committee's support for more genuinely affordable homes on Council schemes. However, I was astounded to hear what Councillor Tatler said about the Wembley Housing Zone scheme, which comes under her Regeneration portfolio. This is what I transcribed her saying, when I went back to check it on the webcast recording (with my bold type for emphasis):

 

'With the Wembley Housing Zone, we didn't own the land. We had to purchase the land. That impacts viability as well.'

 

She was claiming that the Council could not provide more genuinely affordable homes than the 88 at London Affordable Rent (out of a total of 291 homes to be built, with 150 of those for private sale by Wates) because purchasing the land reduced the viability of the project.

 

But Brent Council did not have to purchase the land for the main part of the project, the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue, where 237 of the 291 homes will be built.

 

I double-checked that I was correct over Brent's ownership of that vacant brownfield site, before sharing the truth about this online. I also wrote to Councillor Tatler yesterday morning (29 April), and am appending the full text of that email below for your information (although I did copy the original to your Chair).

 

I am not confident that Councillor Tatler will write to correct the false statement she made to you on 23 April, so I decided to write to you as well. Please base any follow-up work you do on Regeneration, and any recommendations your Committee may make on the Wembley Housing Zone, on the true position over land ownership at Cecil Avenue. Thank you.

 

As set out in the online article which I provided a "link" to at the end of my email to Councillor Tatler below, effective scrutiny in holding the Cabinet to account relies on Cabinet members, and Council Officers, being honest in the information they provide to you. I hope that you will make that point clearly when dealing with this matter, because the work that you do is very important. 

 

Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

Thames Water under scrutiny on flooding: 'We have learnt lessons, we have applied them but it sounds like we don’t get it right enough'

 

 

 From the 'late' report presented to Scrutiny Commitee - Source: LINK

 

It was good to see some effective scrutiny at Wednesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee when a Thames Water representative appeared to report on surface water flooding in the borough. Criticism does tend to be sharper of bodies outside the council, but an awful lot of frustration was apparent and questioning from councillors was persistent. Chair of Scrutiny, Cllr Rita Conneely drew attention to the difference between a cash-strapped public sector council and a for profit privatised water company.

Cllr Saqib Butt challenged Alex Nickson from Thames Water on why in his  experience of 5 years on Planning Committee, Thames Water had always just said 'No Objection' to every planning objection. Nickson thought that was not the case in every borough and would check.  

Towards the end of the meeting Cllr Conneely directly addressed Nickson and I think is worth quoting in full to give you a flavour of the exchanges:

Thanks for attending and providing a detailed and helpful contribution, but unfortunately it has still left me with serious concerns about Thames Water's understanding of accountability and partnership working.

The flooding that instigated this entire process led to you attending our Scrutiny Committee in 2021. When Thames Water came last year, what was clearly communicated was that Thames understood that there had been a failure of accountability, there had been a failure of effective communication with the public and local authority, and that there needed to be clarity around responsibilities and accountability.

You said at the beginning of tonight's meeting that you were glad to be here and would be happy to come back again regarding future reviews. Unfortunately, the reality is that when we were inviting Thames Water to attend our meetings for the follow-up they had committed to last year, they were incredibly reluctant and tried to avoid attending for as long as possible. We really had to assert that it was part of our agreement last year that you would come back and report on what happened with the internal review and the independent review [into the floods]. 

Additionally, the Committee publicises reports, that is how the structure of the Committee works - it is a local government function, and Thames Water did not provide us with the documentation that was requested and necessary for the Committee. Your verbal responses tonight have been very good but as none of that unfortunately was provided in advance for Committee members to review, that has limited members' ability to properly scrutinise some of the issues that have been raised tonight.

In addition to that the report that was eventually provided late (LINK), about 2 days ago, couldn't be properly reviewed by the public either and was Brent specific in only one way  so we still have no understanding of what infrastructure upgrades we are going to see in Brent and what funding will be provided. Very few Brent residents at the end of this meeting are going to understand what these commitments mean to Brent - that is something we must see.  I really hope you get back to use regarding the information you have promised tonight very rapidly.

I would like to know that there is an Action Plan for the recommendations that are detailed in the Independent Review. How are we as residents and councillors to know when the recommendations will be delivered? Where are the lessons learnt?  Where will the promised further reports go, and what is the review process?

Alex Nickson replied:

It is entirely my fault that my report was late, I apologise for that, it should have been with you earlier. I didn't realise it was 'required' - I thought it was 'advised'. I apologise to the Committee and residents.

Regarding the Independent Review and tracking, my report says there are 28 recommendations, 3 of which are specifically for Thames to address. 25 of them are more strategic and relate to multi-agency collaboration. These should be reviewed as part of developing the London level strategy and will be determined by the London Level Surface Water Strategic Group as to whether they are appropriate. These actions may, or may o, be taken forward as determined by the Strategic Group. We need collaborative working to manage the risk and not all the actions are entirely down to Thames Water to deliver. There is a tracking process for them and that will be reported on.

You said you wanted us to give you an expectation of what upgrades will be coming to Brent and the level of investment. That will be set out in our next Business Plan 2025-2030, and it will be published for consultation this summer. I have committed to come back to the Committee to tale about out London Level Strategy and our draft plan. That will set out the high-level investment we plan to make. What I would stress is that surface water management is the responsibility of the lead local flood authority [Brent] and therefore it is for us to work with you and support you in the development of detailed plans for Brent - not for us to say what needs to happen: where and when, but a collaborative approach. I believe we have a good working relationship with the borough officers and look forward to doing this in the future.

Cllr Conneely responded.

That is a helpful reassurance but to reiterate, you say that of the 28 recommendations only 3 of them are the responsibility of Thames Water. We need a clear action plan of how Thames are following through those recommendations and effectively lobbying for them. Unfortunately, the concern of the Committee is that similarly to the assurances you gave to Cllr Saqib Butt about planning, which sounds nice on paper, but nothing happens in practice. I represent Kilburn where 17 families in my ward lost their homes in 2021. I'm not interested in words - the commitment we want to see from Thames Water is that there is going to be difference in practice.

My final feedback is on another key issue that was highlighted following the incident in 2021, and highlighted again tonight by Cllr Georgiou, about subsequent incidents involving Thames Water, that of poor communication, particularly around your Control Centre. In 2021 residents were calling up in desperate need of help and the Control Centre was totally unequipped to deal with it and couldn’t signpost residents to what they should be doing. They were simply told to call the fire brigade. As Cllr Georgiou has highlighted there was similar lack of communication last year.  I have at least 3 examples of residents in my ward contacting Thames Water about issues that were definitely their responsibility of residents being told, 'No, that's your local authority'. In one scenario for 3 weeks Thames told my residents that it was a local authority issue until I basically went and stood there for 2 or 3 days until a Thames Operative came out and said it was a sewage issue and your responsibility to resolve but for 3 weeks you told residents. ‘No – call your local authority’.

So, despite the reassurances we were given in 2022 that there had been a massive overhaul and there was going to be a massive training of your Control Centre staff, we have clear evidence in Brent that it continues to be not good enough.

Alex Nickson responded.

If there are particular instances  you’d like us to take up I’d be happy to take that away. Where we’re wrong, I can only apologise. We have increased the capacity of our Call Centre but on the evenings of the 12^th and 27^th of July we were absolutely swamped. We had 4,000 calls an hour coming in and we simply couldn’t manage. We have apologised. We have increased the capacity, we’ve done training, we’ve restructured the way the calls come in and we’ve fundamentally changed the way we prepare head of a storm.  We’ve made sure we have those resources even if the Met Weather Forecast suggests it is unlikely to cause significant flooding.

So, we have learnt lessons, we have applied them but it sounds like we don’t get it right enough.

I will publish the full recommendations made by Scrutiny when they are reported on the Council website.

Brent Council's Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme: Scrutiny - What Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The purpose of the committee, from Brent Council’s website.

 

In a guest post last May, I set out the efforts I’d made to get a proper explanation from the Council about why 152 of the 250 homes at the Council’s housing development on the former Copland School site in Wembley would be built for a “developer partner” to sell at a profit. And why only 37 of the remaining 98 homes (less than 15% of the site total) would be for “genuinely affordable” rent to Council tenants (with the other 61 being for shared ownership). 

 

I asked ‘Where is the Scrutiny?’ Proper scrutiny was needed, because all that Cabinet members and Officers would tell me was that it would not be viable to offer more affordable homes at Cecil Avenue. That answer did not appear to make sense! 

 

Illustration from Brent’s April 2021 Wembley Housing Zone “Soft Market Testing” exercise.

 

The Council already owned the site (so none of the high land costs they use to justify the “infill” schemes on existing Council estates). They already had millions in funding from the GLA for their “Wembley Housing Zone”, as well as £5.5m extra for this scheme. And they could borrow money for the construction from the Public Works Loans Board at historically low interest rates.

 

Of course, the Council would not let me (or any other citizen of the borough) see their “Viability” report, not even under the Freedom of Information Act, because it was “confidential”. But councillors on a Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to see it, and question the relevant Cabinet members and Council Officers about the figures; and about why Brent could not offer more affordable homes on this development for the families in housing need that they claim to be so keen to build “New Council Homes” for!

 

My old parody Brent publicity photo for its Cecil Avenue Council Housing scheme.

 

I’d been trying since a guest blog in January 2022 (“It looks bad. It looks wrong!”) to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to take a close look at the Cecil Avenue project. And I did manage to include this as part of in a deputation to the 9 March meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee about the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

It took two months for the Council to provide a written (partial) reply to my deputation, by which time there had been local elections, and a new committee with a new Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely. I wrote to her on 12 June, recommending that she include “Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme” on her committee’s agenda for 19 July. I explained why, and said: 

 

‘Senior Council Officers and the Lead Member(s) involved do need to be put on the spot, to explain how they arrived at this apparent "giveaway" of much needed genuinely affordable Council homes, and if they can't give a satisfactory explanation, to come up with something better.’

 

Extract from minutes of the 9 March 2022 meeting of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

 

I received no reply, but after the minutes of the 9 March meeting had been published with the agenda for the committee’s 19 July meeting, I wrote to Cllr. Conneely again. I pointed out that the written response to my deputation totally ignored my points on Cecil Avenue. The claims made at the 9 March meeting about moving forward on the Poverty Commission recommendations, and ‘all homes being ring-fenced as being at affordable levels of rent’ were also false. The 2020 Poverty Commission had recommended Social Rent level, and no New Council Homes were yet being built for Social Rent!

 

The Social Rent recommendation from the Brent Poverty Commission Report.

 

On 18 July, Rita Conneely replied to me, saying: ‘Many thanks for your follow up on this. I am looking into this & seeking relevant additional information for the committee & its members.’ She referred to this, under “Matters Arising”, when those minutes were considered at the 19 July meeting, and indicated that this would be dealt with when the committee met in September. 

 

I was looking out for the agenda for the 6 September meeting, and when it was published there was no mention of the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme on it. Worse than that, this is what the minutes of the 19 July meeting showed:

 

Extract from the minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 19 July.

 

“None”! I wrote to Cllr. Conneely on 30 August, including a transcript of what she had said at the 19 July meeting (from the webcast, beginning at 3.35 minutes into the recording):

 

‘And then we’re going to do “Matters Arising”. After our paper (?), so we have received …. Prior to this meeting we received a deputation from one of our residents, Mr Philip Grant, in regards to a presentation which was made to this committee in our previous municipal year, on the Poverty Commission. We’ve received some further information from our, from the Housing Department, in regards to that which the committee will be looking at in future, and we’ll be commenting on any of our further recommendations at our September meeting.’

 

In my email I asked that the minutes should be corrected, and also wrote:

 

‘An opportunity to put the decision makers "on the spot" at the 19 July meeting was missed, but I was led to believe that this would be done at your September meeting. Please let me know how, and where on the agenda, you will be doing that, so that I can request to speak on that item, if appropriate.’

 

I heard nothing back from the Chair of the committee, but did receive a promise from its Governance Officer (who my email had been copied to) that the minutes would be corrected. The day before the 6 September meeting, the agenda was republished. There was still no mention on it of the Cecil Avenue housing scheme, but revised minutes showed:

 

Extract from the revised minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s 19 July meeting.

 

So what did happen on 6 September about the outstanding matters from my 9 March deputation, and especially the answers to the points I’d raised about the lack of genuinely affordable housing proposed for the Council’s Cecil Avenue development? There was no consideration by the committee, and no recommendations. This is a transcript (from the webcast, beginning at 1hour 8minutes and 25seconds into the recording) of the monologue from the Chair:

 

‘Next on my list – Minutes of the previous meeting. Does anybody have any challenges to the minutes of the previous meeting? [Pause – nothing heard] Lovely.

 

Matters Arising. I need to confirm that following a deputation that was received by this committee, historically, in the last municipal year as well actually. The deputation came from one of our residents, Mr Grant, and it was primarily regarding issues of affordability.

 

And I just want to flag in regard to that, as the Chair has received information which, er I’m sorry I’ve lost my …, I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

However, I do want to flag, a bit like my comment about acronyms earlier, affordability has a lot of different phrases now, and I think clarity in our meetings is important, both from us as councillors when we’re asking, that we’re clear what we are asking about, and that we try as best as possible to use the up-to-date and accurate terms when that information is being shared from officers.

 

So, we’d really, really appreciate an effort from all of us to keep meetings as clear and transparent as possible, so residents continue to be really as confident as possible in the information that is being shared. 

 

And again, just to reiterate that the issues of affordability in our housing stock is of serious concern to this committee, and the Community and Wellbeing Committee, and I know a lot of our residents as well. And I know the Cabinet of this Council as well. So, thank you all.’

 

Tucked away in that statement is the key sentence, which slammed the door shut on any consideration of the outstanding Cecil Avenue points (although that scheme is not mentioned by name):

 

‘I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.’

 

What information was received? And what ‘information that was presented’ did it reassure “us” about? Did other committee members even see any of that information, or is “us” just the committee Chair? I think it’s fair to point out a lack of transparency here! 

 

And did you notice the hesitation before that sentence was read out? It certainly sounded as if Cllr. Conneely had to find the piece of paper that sentence was written down on – a carefully constructed form of words that prohibited any further discussion of this “matter arising” by committee members, without giving away any details of why that was the case. Did the Chair write those words herself (and if so who advised her on the best words to use), or was she just given the piece of paper by someone else, and told what she must say?

 

In my blog about this back in May, I said: ‘Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised.’ Well, they’ve got what they wanted, and Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee have allowed them to get away with it.

 

It’s not just on this issue that Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Officers seem to control what the committee scrutinises. A report to the Full Council meeting on 11 July, headed “Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee Chair’s Report”, but actually written by Council Officers and signed off by the then Assistant Chief Executive, included this section on the committee’s work plan for the year ahead:

 

Extract from item 11 on the Full Council meeting agenda, 11 July 2022.’

 

‘Scrutiny is the mechanism by which the Cabinet is held publicly to account.’ But if Brent’s Cabinet is telling the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee what subjects it can look at, those words are meaningless. 

 

Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?

 

Philip Grant.

UPDATED A new face selected for Kilburn ward and the possible return of an old one in Willesden Green - Margaret McLennan rejected

Faduma Hassan

The first results are coming in for the selection of Labour candidates for the 2018 Brent Council Elections.  In Kilburn ward Rita Conneely and newcomers Abdirazak Abdi  and Corbyn supporter Faduma Hassan have been selected.

This leaves John Duffy, who has been extremely active in holding the Brent Cabinet to account, unselected in his current ward. I understand there are still some wards where short-listing is still open.

Elsewhere,  I understand that the architect of the 'Library Transformation Project, which saw 6  of Brent's 12 libraries closed, James Powney, has been short-listed for Willesden Green.  Powney has continued to hail the 'success' of that project on his blog but  has also used it to critique some Brent Council decisions as well as the leadership of Councillor Butt. LINK

Following rejection by Stonebridge ward last night local party members are asking if Deputy Leader Margaret McLennan will go back to seek selection in Northwick Park.  I understand Abdi Aden (currently Sudbury)and newcomer Promise Knight have been selected for Stonebridge. Ernest Ezeajughi has been reselected. Promise describes herself as a mentor and educator and previously worked as as campaign assistant to Dawn Butler and was one of David Miliband's communication team.

A reader has also been in touch to say that he understands all three sitting Queensbury councillors have been short-listed..

Serious scrutiny requires review of how Brent works with residents on regeneration

This is the full version of Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight. Not all of it was delivered due to the time limit on presentations.

I’m the chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury tenants and Residents Association on the South Kilburn Estate behind Kilburn Park tube station.

We welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns about many aspects of the South Kilburn regeneration. While we thought it rather late in the day, we were pleased when the previous chair of Scrutiny, Dan Filson said there would be a task force set up to look at the issues involved and that residents would have substantial input into that.

He contacted us mentioning many issues which should be looked at, including:

how the decanting process has gone so far, and 

what lessons can Brent (and maybe other authorities too) learn from the project and apply in future schemes. 

whether the properties should have had greater internal usable space  

the disruption during building works  

the amount and nature of external social amenities like play space, open space, doctor surgeries, primary school facilities, community hall facilities or general circulation  

In addition, one of our Kilburn Councillors, Rita Conneelly, suggested to himand us additional issues:

What was delivered and was it the best we could have ?

Whether choosing Catalyst and Willmott Dixon was best for this phase of the development and whether Scrutiny feels Catalyst and Willmott Dixon have breached significantly enough of their contract for Scrutiny to recommend they not be used in future commissions (remembering that Willmott Dixon failed to remain enrolled in the Considerate Constructers scheme, failed to manage their site and minimise impact on residents and failed to deliver the project any where near on time; for example).

What concerns were raised by residents when the regeneration plans were first publicised- and how have these borne out- and most importantly, still not been resolved in cases (e.g. pressures on parking and community cohesion)

Who has been chosen for future phases and how have we insured we will not have the above problems with them?

whether perfectly good blocks which could have provided good homes into the future with a good refurbishment program were sacrificed so that developers could build private flats on prime land? Whilst the blocks in most disrepair have been left until later phases of the programme leaving many families and children in substandard housing for years unnecessarily. 

The report in front of you says under 6.0:

However it is also considered timely to refresh the Master-plan. Therefore, inconjunction with Planning colleagues it is proposed to consult local residentsand tenants on a revised and refreshed master-plan and accompanying SPD.

Brent will appoint master-plan architects, Cost Consultants and also engagewith the local community in regard to proposals. These proposals will considermatters such as, infrastructure, density, mix and range of accommodation, phasing and also the possibility of incorporating additional sites into the Master plan area.

But it is not just a matter of appointing expensive consultants anddrawing up new plans. They should not be drawn up without critical appraisal with real input from residents. That’s why we hope you will press ahead urgently with the task force which Dan Filson proposed.

Missing from the report in front of you is virtually any mention of problems with the regeneration of South Kilburn. There is just  a passing mention to `slippage’ under 5.0 `Current position’.

Of particular concern for us is that there is no mention of the Kilburn Park Catalyst/Wilmott Dixon development. Yet this is not complete even though it is already over a year late. And there are still several important aspects to deal with, such as the recent discovery that not enough refuse storage was planned to cope with both the new and existing residents. While Brent and Catalyst are arguing over whose fault this is, we are the ones suffering with frequently overfull storage bins.

This is just the latest of the relentless problems we have had with a building site next to us. I’ve given you each a copy of the summary we drew up on April so you can see the scale of the problem at least.

While the last 2 paragraphs in the report highlight contractors working with local residents, our experience on the ground has been the opposite.

For instance, under `Green Space’  (page 3) the report says “there is also a communal garden space, provided as part of the CatalystDevelopment, which will also be available to local residents.” Has it been forgotten that this space is only communal because we had a very long and sometimes bitter row with catalyst who were insistent that it would be only for the residents of the new blocks?

We have wider concerns than just the way in which developers impact on those neighbouring their sites, and have attempted to raise them.

The other document I’ve passed you is a resolution passed by our Tenants and Residents association annual general meeting in July of last year. The issues there fall into 3 categories – the attitude of Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst towards us, but also issues around planning – such as the closeness of new blocks to existing ones, which we raised at the planning stage, and have become more obviously dreadful with construction, and our concerns about what regeneration has meant for South Kilburn in general. We have attempted to get these at least addressed by the lead member for regeneration, but despite frequent requests (and promises by her) she has not engaged with us in the 15 months since it was sent to her.

One small example of the issues which have not been addressed – regeneration has significantly increased the population of South Kilburn. The proposed new  `health centre’ has been given much publicity by the Council, yet this is the bringing together 3 existing GP practices. It is not an increased in GP facilities for an increased population.

The section of the report under 5.0 headed “Salusbury Road Car Park Site” reads as if the siting of the vent shaft is settled (in favour of Canterbury Works). It isn’t and won’t be at least until after Parliament has heard the several petitions residents have submitted against the shaft being sited next to a primary school and in the middle of a residential area. Quite honestly. people in the area are shocked that neither HS2 or Brent even attempted to engage with us while arguing for the site to be changed, even though the opposition of school parents, governors and local residents was known to Council officers.B

Which brings me to my final point - the Council has not ensured that developers listen to and respect residents . Indeed Brent Council itself has declined to enforce its own standards with developers and has failed to seriously consult and involve residents in decision-making. For instance, the report says under `Sports provision’ (4.3) that Land was provided for the construction of a new sports hall facility. Built by Westminster City Council, primarily for the, expanded, St. Augustine’s Secondary School. The Council secured reduced rates for South Kilburn residents as part of the deal”. I checked with other members of our TRA before coming here and no-one can recall having seen this advertised anywhere. At the same ti8nme, we have been arguing for years that residents should have use of the Multi Use games Area attached to St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, which was partly funded by the Council and we are still unable to achieve this. Similarly the Council has said residents were consulted about what should go in the new urban park on Albert Road( where HS2’s lorries will incidentally be passing for years). None of us can remember seeing a consultation.

If you want serious scrutiny and a serious appraisal of how regeneration has gone so far, you could start by arguing for serious change in how Brent works with, involves and respects local residents. A proper task force which looks at the problems and pitfalls would be a useful start to that.