Brent’s New Affordable Council Homes promises shredded!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

When I shared my open email to the Council Leader on Morland Gardens in a guest post earlier this week, I drew attention to the “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” report, which is going to next Monday’s Cabinet meeting. Now I will highlight some points from that.

 

It’s only a month since I wrote about Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality, but that reality has got a whole lot worse. Then I was writing about Social Rent, London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) and Shared Ownership (“SO”), which is neither ownership nor “affordable” housing. Now Council Officers want to include some new terms, Open Market Rent (“OMR”) and Open Market Sale (“OMS”) into Brent’s New Council Homes programme.

 

Extract from the “Update” Report for the 14 November Cabinet meeting.

 

They are saying that some (in fact, quite a lot!) of the new homes the Council builds can no longer be for social housing, which is what Council homes are meant to provide. They will have to be for rents that are not genuinely affordable, such as OMR (or Local Housing Allowance level, as it is sometimes referred to), or they will have to be for shared ownership or sold off privately, the same as any other developer would do. 

 

‘What is the point of the Council building new Council homes which are not new homes for rent to Council tenants?’ you might ask. The answer from the Corporate Director, Resident Services, is that you have to “convert” some of those homes to unaffordable homes, or homes for sale, in order to be able to afford to build other homes which are for affordable rent. But the Council, as a social housing provider, can’t offer unaffordable homes to Council tenants, so it has to pass on the OMR and SO homes it is “converting” to someone else.

 

The start of a long list of recommendations for Cabinet to agree on 14 November.

 

The Report recommends that the “conversion” will be done by ‘Officers’. Which Officers? – it doesn’t say (why is that?), but many of the other recommendations delegate the power to make decisions to the Corporate Director, Resident Services (the Officer who signed off the Report, Peter Gadsdon). 

 

As will be seen from my first extract from the Report above, the “conversion” will be ‘via the Council’s wholly owned subsidiary company i4B.’ Because i4B is a separate “legal person”, it can charge higher rents than the Council itself would be allowed to charge. The Council would build the homes to be “converted”, then sell them to i4B (who would pay for them with a loan from the London Borough of Brent), for rent to Brent residents (possibly homeless families). 

 

But as well as making these recommendations, Peter Gadsdon is also a director of i4B, which would benefit from the extra properties in its portfolio. Isn’t that a conflict of interests? And another director of i4B is Cllr. Saqib Butt, the brother of the Council Leader who will chair the Cabinet meeting considering the recommendations. I have raised these potential conflicts of interest with Brent’s Monitoring Officer, and await her response.

 

How many of the New Affordable Homes are likely to be “converted” to unaffordable ones? It could be as many as 50% of them, on the basis of this recommendation from the Report:

 

And it is not just ‘new planning permission applications’ that that are at risk of losing up to 50% of their affordable homes. Windmill Court, which has an “affordable housing” condition in its planning consent specifying that the tenure of the homes must be for no more than LAR, is one of the schemes proposed for “conversion”. The planning consent gave the reason for the LAR condition as: 'In the interests of proper planning.'

 

Extract from the Update Report, including proposals for Kilburn Square and Windmill Court.

 

Also on this particular list (there are others) for “conversion” is Rokesby Place. Regular readers may remember that I have been challenging the action by Brent’s Planning Officers in secretly changing the tenure for those two new 4-bedroom Council houses from Social Rent to the more expensive LAR. Now the Report to Cabinet wants to change things again, and either sell off one of the houses, or transfer it to i4B, to be let out at OMR! 

 

The Rokesby Place  planning application was pushed through, against the wishes of existing residents, on the grounds that the Council had to use any “spare” land on its estates to build genuinely affordable homes for local people in housing need. Now one of the two houses won’t be, despite the Report’s empty words: ‘Large family sized homes at low rent remain a priority for the Council.’

 

 
The Update Report’s section on the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone.

 

Another housing “battle” I’ve been having with Brent, for the past 15 months, is to try to get more genuinely affordable Council homes at their Cecil Avenue development. It’s a vacant, Council-owned site which has had full planning permission for 250 new homes since February 2021. The Report says that since Cabinet approved the project in August 2021, ‘officers have advanced competitive procurement of a delivery partner.’ When there are 250 homes which could be for Brent residents in urgent housing need, that’s very slow progress!

 

The delay has been even longer, because Officers carried out a “soft market testing” exercise in April 2021 (which was so soft that it guaranteed the result they wanted, to justify their recommendations to Cabinet). They could have started the project last year, when the cost of borrowing to build the homes (152 for the “developer partner” to sell for profit, 61 as intermediate housing - SO or OMR – and only 37 for LAR!) would have been much lower. What further cuts to the affordable housing in the Wembley Housing Zone are hidden in ‘(Exempt) Appendix 3’, which the public will never be allowed to see?

 

 Now, quickly, here are two more recommendations to Monday’s meeting from the Report: 

 

 

What are Modern Methods of Construction (“MMC”)? I would suggest you read a blog article on “Airspace” which Martin published in October last year. ‘A minimum of 25% of all homes’ out of the 700 the latest round of GLA funding will almost certainly include Gauntlett Court in Sudbury, and probably Campbell Court and Elvin Court in Kingsbury. Has there been any genuine consultation with residents of those Council estates yet?

 

 

 

 

The Report is recommending “conversion” of LAR homes the Council proposes to build to SO, when it has no evidence that there is any demand for them! There are already a large number of shared ownership homes built by, or in the pipeline from, private developers on big schemes in Wembley and elsewhere. Those developers are forced to provide a proportion of affordable homes as part of their plans, and they make as much of it as possible shared ownership, because that is recognised for planning purposes as “affordable housing”, even though it is unaffordable to most people in housing need in Brent.

 

There was an interesting Q&A on Council housing, and shared ownership, as part of consideration of Brent’s Draft Borough Plan 2023-2027, at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on Tuesday, 8 November. I’ll end this post with a transcript (from the webcast recording - at around 2hrs 5mins in!) of that exchange. 

 

Cllr. Anton Georgiou (“AG”): Just for complete clarity for the committee, what does Brent Council define as a Council home? Most people define a Council home as being a property owned by the Council that is let at Social Rent.

 

Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive (“CD”): That is what we do as well.

 

AG: From documents that I’ve read, it seems that Brent have extended this to include Shared Ownership, London Affordable Rent, temporary accommodation and assisted living.  

 

CD: Absolutely not. When we talk about one thousand general new Council homes they are Council homes. It is Council housing.

 

 

AG: This isn’t Shared Ownership?

 

CD: We have not ever built a single Shared Ownership. Developers might, we the Council haven’t.

 

Shout from an unidentified person: Not genuinely affordable!

 

Cllr.Muhammed Butt, Council Leader:  Apologies. What you just said there, right, comes under the broad banner of affordable homes, right, but we do actually build Council homes.

 

Cllr. Rita Conneely, Chair: So, I’m going to draw this item to a close.

 

You can make up your own mind, from what was said at that meeting and from the Report, how committed Brent Council are to their promise of ‘genuinely affordable housing for families in Brent’. 

 

My own “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes”? Far fewer than were promised ahead of last May’s local elections!

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

This image is a screenshot from a video featuring Cllr. Promise Knight, Brent’s Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters’ Security, which was produced by a PR company to promote the Council’s “infill” housing scheme for Clement Close. The video was shared in Martin’s blog about residents’ opposition to Brent’s plans, in July 2022.

 

My use of images from that video in this guest post is not intended as a personal attack on Cllr. Knight. Her words in the video are official Brent Council housing policy, which she may have been reading from an autocue, and I don’t doubt that she believes them to be true.

 

I’m writing this blog as a follow-up to one last month, “Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?”, after my expectation that concerns over Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme (raised in a deputation on 9 March 2022) would be considered at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 6 September were dashed in a single sentence from the Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely:

 

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

 

The only information I was aware of which had been presented to the Committee was a written response, sent from a Council Officer two months after my deputation, which made no reference to the Cecil Avenue housing scheme part of it. Cllr. Conneely’s sentence referred to two lots of ‘information’, so I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for both of those, and have now received two documents in response to it.

 

I will ask Martin to attach these. The first includes the “Housing” section of the original “Poverty Commission Update” report, my deputation and the Council’s response to it, and then refers to information about the Cecil Avenue scheme which the Council had sent to me, and had not previously provided to the Committee. There is no indication of when this was supplied to them, and whether this was to all members, or just to the Chair.

 

  

Information reassuring the Committee that Brent had provide information to me!

 

After that brief “note”, it sets out the text of an email which Cllr. Promise Knight sent to me on 13 July 2022. I must apologise to Cllr. Knight, and to “Wembley Matters” readers, as I’d said I would share her reply with you. I thought I had done, but I’ve now found my “possible guest blog” document, unfinished and never submitted to Martin! Here is what she wrote:

 

‘Thank you for your email regarding the proposed development of the Cecil Avenue site. It is my understanding that you asked similar questions at Full Council of November 2021 and received a written response.

 

In summary, the Cabinet report of August 2021 that considered proposed developments in Wembley Housing Zone set out the position. 

 

Brent Council signed funding agreements with the GLA in 2016 and 2018, securing £8m grant to deliver 215 affordable homes across six sites within the WHZ by 2025, through a rolling programme of acquisition and development, and used £4.8m grant to acquire Ujima House. 

 

Heads of terms were subsequently agreed with the GLA to amend the existing WHZ funding agreement to refocus the £8m grant to deliver 152 affordable homes solely on the two council-owned Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites. 50% affordable housing is proposed across the two sites, with London Affordable Rent homes, increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing above minimum levels secured at planning. The development will also include workspace to support job creation and economic growth, community space, highway and public realm improvements and new publicly accessible open space. Reviewing the WHZ financial viability, the GLA also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme.

 

The council can also use its own capital, secured via ‘prudential borrowing’ in order to deliver additional affordable housing. Each opportunity to deliver housing is considered on its individual merits via development appraisals that assess a number of variables per site that ultimately evaluate viability. The intention of the council is to maximise the availability of affordable housing across the borough while ensuring that the proposals represent good value for the council and that borrowing is sustainable. The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant available hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

 

Although Cllr. Knight’s email gave more financial details than had previously been supplied to me, it does contain errors. The 50% affordable housing (which is what private developers are meant to provide) is not proposed to be all at London Affordable Rent. Sixty-one of the 98 “affordable” homes the Council intends to retain at Cecil Avenue (after transferring 152 other homes to a developer, for private sale) are to be for shared ownership or “Intermediate Rent”.

 

And my 9 March deputation to R&PR Scrutiny Committee (and follow-up emails to the Chair) urged the Committee to challenge the viability (they could get the details of this, while I’m not allowed to see them because of “confidentiality”), and to question Cabinet Members and Senior Officers as to why they cannot provide more genuinely affordable homes on the former Copland School site.

 

 

I’ll go back to what Cllr. Knight said in her Clement Close video, using images from it (with several lines of text edited into a single picture, for ease of reading). One of the main arguments used by the Council for why it needs to build so many new homes is:-

 

 

They make much of their “Brent Labour” promise of 1,000 new Council homes by 2024 (although a September 2021 “Life in Kilburn” blog showed that many of these would not be for households in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list):-

 

 

And now the key point, used to justify the many “infill” schemes on existing Council estates:-

 

 

The former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue is a large piece of vacant Brent Council-owned, brownfield land in Wembley. The Council has had planning permission to build 250 homes there since February 2021. What an opportunity to make the most of that, and deliver a quarter of the entire 1,000 new Council homes target, in just one project! 

 

Work could already be underway (they currently don’t expect to “start on site” until next year) to deliver those homes, yet the Cabinet and Council Officers seem fixated on pushing through lots of smaller “infill” projects, against the wishes of many existing residents.

 

The second document which the Chair of R&PR Scrutiny Committee had received, headed ‘Mr Grant Clarification’, is unsigned and undated. It sets out ‘the current position’, and there has been a significant change from the written response sent to me last May. My deputation pointed out that the Report on progress in meeting the Poverty Commission recommendations (which Cabinet had accepted in September 2020) made no mention of social rented homes.

 

The Brent Poverty Commission recommendation for ‘more social rented homes’.

 

In May I was told:

 

‘In 2021, following discussions with the GLA the council received £111m of GLA grant, this falls within the 2021 – 2028 programme and will allow the council to build 701 Social rented homes, which are currently in development and feasibility stages. Delivering social rented homes remains a major priority of the council.’

 

This is in line with what both Brent and the GLA were saying last year:

 

 

The “Clarification” document now says:

 

‘The Poverty Commission report stated that the council is on track to deliver more than 1000 council homes by 2024 and a further 701 council homes by 2028. These are intended to be provided at London Affordable Rent levels.’

 

Although both Social Rent and London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) are classed as “genuinely affordable”, they are different, as I pointed out in a guest post in July. Even if Brent Council were to charge the maximum “rent capped” amount for Social Rent (which it does not have to), this is still cheaper than LAR. My ongoing dispute with the Council over the rents for two new Council homes at Rokesby Place, which were wrongly changed from Social Rent to LAR (by Planning Officers!), showed that the tenant of each four-bedroom home would have to pay £772.20 a year more (on 2022/23 figures) if the tenure was LAR.

 

The second document also suggests that Brent is likely to include more ‘intermediate housing (for example shared ownership)’ as part of the so-called “affordable” housing that it builds. It is already going down that road, both at Watling Gardens, where Cabinet approved a change of 24 homes from LAR to shared ownership in June, and in its Cecil Avenue proposals.

 

A placard from a demonstration against Shared Ownership.

 

But the Advertising Standards Authority has recently ruled that shared ownership cannot be described as “part rent, part buy”. Legally it is just an “assured tenancy”, which has been dressed-up as home ownership for political purposes. The rent rises each year are not “capped” (as Social Rent and LAR levels are). If the “owner” of a “share” defaults on their rent (or service charges) their home could be repossessed, and they would lose all the money they have paid for their “share” of the property.

 

And, shared ownership is NOT affordable to most Brent households living in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list!

 

The direction that Brent Council is travelling over its provision of New Council Homes is moving away from what the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report showed was needed. It found:

 

‘More than 90% of couples or lone parents with two children cannot afford LB Brent social rents, and no family with two children (whether couple or lone parent) can afford any rent that is more expensive than LB Brent social rents.’

 

If that is true, then why is Brent not building affordable homes for Social Rent?

 

Philip Grant.

 

Rokesby Place – Brent tries to justify its planning malpractice

 Guest blog by Philip Grant, in a personal capacity.

 

Architect’s drawing of the two infill houses for the Rokesby Place car park.

 

I will try not to make this guest post too long, as I will ask Martin to attach two long letters at the end of it. But I hope that as many “Wembley Matters” readers as possible will take the trouble to read this, and the letters. This is a follow-up to my article earlier this month, which included my letter of complaint to Brent’s Chief Executive over alleged planning malpractice.

 

The letters are about the level of rent which the future tenants of two “affordable” New Council Homes on an infill scheme at Rokesby Place will have to pay. More importantly, though, they deal with the way in which Brent’s Planning Officers went against the rules meant to ensure that the Council’s own planning applications are dealt with impartially and transparently – and how they have tried to justify the actions they took.

 

Extract from the Rokesby Place planning application, 22/1400.

 

The planning application for Brent’s Rokesby Place “infill” housing scheme was made in April 2022, and was quite clear that the two houses would be for Social Rent. But when the Officer Report was prepared on the application, for the Planning Committee meeting in August, no mention was made of Social Rent, and the “affordable housing” condition in the draft consent letter said that the homes must ‘be delivered as London Affordable Rent units’. 

 

There was nothing in the published documents to show how or why Social Rent had been changed to the more expensive London Affordable Rent (“LAR”). I had to issue an FoI request to uncover that information. This led to the first part of my 5 September complaint, that there was no reason for, and no justification for, any change from Social Rent to LAR, and Planning Officers had been wrong to change it.

 

I received the reply to my complaint letter from Carolyn Downs on 16 September, but I believe it was probably drafted for her by the top officer(s) in Brent’s Planning Department. This was the reason given for why they recommended LAR, rather than the Social Rent level shown by the application they were asking Planning Committee to approve:

 

Extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

I have set out my response to that in my letter of 22 September below. Briefly, Planning Officers should not be changing what an application says just because they think it should be different, to do so for one of Brent’s own applications (although why, when it’s a Council application, was the Project Manager ‘the applicant’?) was not being impartial, and no ‘clarification’ was needed, because the application was clearly for Social Rent!

 

The action which Planning Officers took raises serious concerns for other Council housing schemes, especially a number of forthcoming “infill” schemes (Newland Court, Kilburn Square, Clement Close, to name just a few): 

 

·      Will they treat other applications for Social Rent housing (as recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission Report, and as supposed to be provided under the GLA’s 2021-26 affordable housing programme) as if they should be for LAR? 

 

·      Will they interfere with other details which have been published in the application documents, and recommend different conditions to Planning Committee, without disclosing that they’ve done so?

 

Even though they had failed the “transparency” requirement in the Local Government Association’s “Probity in Planning” guidance, by not telling Planning Committee that the application was for Social Rent, the Council’s view was that members, when making their decision, ‘were aware that the application was originally for the provision of Social Rented homes.’ I could hardly believe the reason they offered to justify this:

 

Second extract from the letter of 16 September from Brent’s Chief Executive.

 

This was the conclusion which Brent’s Chief Executive came to (on the advice of Senior Planning Officers) in response to my complaint(s):

 

The conclusion from the letter of 16 September.

 

I have not accepted that conclusion, for reasons set out in detail in my letter of 22 September. In case you don’t feel like reading it in full, here are some paragraphs from near the end of it which sum-up my position:

 

‘Planning Officers seem to take the view that as Social Rent and LAR are, on the present figures, ‘very, very similar’, then it does not matter whether the affordable housing provided is one or the other. That would not matter for compliance with policy BH5, but as I pointed out in my letter of 5 September, it would matter for the tenants of the two new homes at Rokesby Place. 

 

As you quoted, from the Brent Local Plan Glossary, these affordable homes will be ‘for those whose needs are not met by the market.’ They will be Brent families in housing need, quite probably on limited incomes. By charging them LAR rent levels, rather than Social Rent, even on present figures, they will have to pay £772.20 a year more. As the annual rent increases for these two types of affordable housing are linked to CPI, by the time the houses are built each tenant will have to find nearer £1,000 a year more if LAR is charged, rather than Social Rent.

 

If a planning application states that the affordable housing tenure will be Social Rent, that complies with policy BH5, and should not be changed without good reason. And if there are reasons for changing from Social Rent to LAR, they need to be set out transparently, both for the Planning Committee and the public. That was not done on this application, so even if Brent Council believes it achieved the “right” answer, the way it was achieved was wrong. So wrong that it needs to be put right.

 

I hope you can now agree that the new Brent Council affordable housing at Rokesby Place must be for Social Rent, as applied for on the Council’s behalf under application 22/1400.’

 

I’m putting this correspondence “in the public domain”, so that anyone interested can read it and make up their own minds. If you agree that something has gone wrong here, please feel free to write to your local councillors about it, with a copy to carolyn.downs@brent.gov.uk .

 

Philip Grant.

 The letters - click bottom right corner for full page version.