UPDATED with proposal for better Governance that Cllr Butt refused to be heard by Trustees. 'Barham Park? Nothing to see here. Carry on.' - Scrutiny Committee verdict

 Funfair owner and developer George Irvin was the elephant in the room that popped up now and again at yesterday's Scrutiny Committee. He first emerged  when Cllr Paul Lorber mentioned him as a lobbyist in his declaration of interests when setting out the reasons for the Call-in of the Strategic and Operational aspects of the Barham Park Trustees performance.

Irvin came up again in ex-Labour councillor Gaynor Lloyd'a presentation when she focused on Trustees' plans to remove 'restrictive aspects' of the covenant on commercial development of the Barham Park park and buildings.

Removal would enable George Irvin to go ahead with the development of the two park workers' houses in the park that he purchased some time ago LINK as well as enable the Trustees to convert some of the park buildings for commercial use.

Gaynor Lloyd said:

Barham Park, its buildings, and these valuable covenants are all ASSETS of  a charity. Charity Commission consent is needed for any change in the restrictive covenants. There is a process to get that consent but Trustees must comply with  requirements of charity law  to get to a decision. To quote  from the  Charity commission website,  Trustees must be able to show they have based their decisions on enough relevant information; they are expected to think about the impact and risks of the decision, including on  their charity’s property or reputation, the costs  involved, whether the decision may be controversial. Trustees must  get professional advice and consult beneficiaries : in this case, the residents of Wembley.

 See Gaynor Lloyd's guest blog post on this issue in 2021 LINK.

George Irvin had written to a local residents' association saying that he had bought the houses to protect the park from overdevelopment that  would affect his two annual funfairs.

 

All a little strange with the developer and Trustees both having an interest in doing away with the covenant for different reasons, but both with a commercial interest.

 

Gaynor Lloyd pointed out that the Trustee beneficiaries, the people of Wembley, had not been consulted but were clearly opposed to development along with four councillors and the local MP.  

 

 Paul Lorber reiterated his case about mismanagement of the Trust by Trustees and misleading or wrong advice from officers who now have delegated responsibility for the relevant matters. See Call-in notice HERE

There were presentations from current voluntary groups making use of the Barham Park buildings who face increases in rents and imposition of service charges that had not been collected previously. The Memory Lounge, Gurkha's  Group and Veterans' Club all gave moving accounts of their work and the impact on users if the property could no longer be afforded.

When Trust Chair and Council Leader Muhammed Butt said how good it was to get the views of users, Cllr Geogiou made a fierce intervention pointing out that Cllr Butt had not allowed representations from users, particularly Barham Library, at the two recent Trustees meetings.

Butt said that they would be consulted once the basic proposal outline had been approved and management of the various projects would be at liberty to meet with their members ahead of any meetings with officers. There was a determination to talk with each group separately 'as their needs were different' (thus opening the way to divide and rule?).  Cllr Geogiou asked again why they had not been allowed to address the Trustees' meeting. When Cllr Butt started repeating his earlier statement about future consultation Georgiou said it was not worth him going on as he was not answering the question.

Cllr Janice Long (extract on video above)  suggested that the Barham Park buildings were a millstone around the Council's neck. Cllr Butt expressed some sympathy with her views.

Cllr Mary Mitchell disagreed strongly  and underlined the importance of social value of such facilities during a funding crisis. She then asked some  pertinent questions about the financial risk involved in the move to remove the covenant, the £20,000 spent on the architects' report in 2023 for a project that not would happen until 2031 (the £20k was first going to be paid by the Council but would now be paid for by the Trustees), and no business case had been developed. She remarked that under Climate Change implications the report said 'Nil' and wondered if that was true.

An officer in response to a question about the claw-back of Sure Start funds for the Children's Centre that was no longer operating in one of the buildings, said that Brent Council would have to meet the cost which was currently £93,000 but would reduce over time.

Another empty building on the site' known as Unit 7, that had been earmarked for a Dementia Advice Unit after Friends of Barham Library had secured funding, had been delayed for 6 years officers said while a strategic plan was formulated to 'better understand' how it would fit in with the estate.

Officers and Cllr Butt pointed out that the Gold and Silver options would have meant more commercialisation and would have undermined the aims of the Trust. They claimed the Bronze option balanced the need to generate income with the maintenance of the Trust's responsibilities to fulfil its aims.

Cllr Mitchell asked about Governance and why the Trust had delegated powers to officers rather than recruiting new Trustees. Debra Norman, Head of Governance, said Governance reviews had taken  place regularly. Cllr Butt said that this came up every year and he had looked around for alternatives but he had struggled to find anything better.

The Scrutiny Committee voted against sending the items back for further consideration. Cllr Georgiou voted for, stating that issues had not be sufficiently addressed (rent arrears, failure to collect service charges, unit 7 six lost years etc). He did not have confidence  in  the Trustees or in the officers' advice.

Cllr Mary Mitchell and Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam abstained.

UPDATE

Philip Grant has commented below regarding a proposal he put to the Barham Park Trust (or wanted brought to their attention) in early 2023. He writes:

 Early in 2023, I had suggested what I believe would be a better and workable alternative governance arrangement for the Barham Park Trust. This was not mentioned in the governance report that went to the September 2023 Trust Committee meeting, so I wanted to bring it to their attention.

I was not able to attend that meeting, but I had requested that I could "speak" for two minutes through a short statement read out on my behalf. the Chair of the Committee, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, refused to agree, so my suggestion was not voiced at the meeting, and not reflected in any official record of it.

This is the proposal:

Despite a difficult first year Brent Council concludes that Continental Landscapes are up to the job. Will Scrutiny Commitee agree?

My article on Monday LINK asked if Continental Landscapes were up to the job of looking after Brent's parks, open spaces, estates and grass verges. The officers' report to be discussed at the Scrutiny Meeting on September 4th concludes that despite a difficult first year that they are up to the job:

The challenges of the first year have been recognised and acknowledged by the Council and the contractor. These were mainly related to the adverse weather, challenges with electric equipment and the usual (and expected) challenges in implementing a new contract and a new contractor. Nevertheless, Continental have been quick to work with us and resolve issues and to identify positive solutions. The work that is being undertaken by the teams is of high quality and a good standard and is meeting the requirements of the contract.

 

There is a very strong partnership ethos between the Council and Continental and when issues have been experienced, both have worked together to develop a practical, deliverable solution. The Parks Service and Housing Service have developed a much closer working relationship throughout this first year and the shared experiences with all parties this year have made that relationship stronger and better able to deliver a comprehensive, quality service for the next seven years.

 

Many of the difficulties are attributed to bad weather and the failure of electrical tools to cope adequately with the resulting heavy work and IT issues affecting completion of the work schedule. There is only a brief reference to staffing difficulties  that Scrutiny members are expected to investigate further. The monitoring of the contract is seen as a success.

These are some of the key points in the report and I embed the full report at the end of this article:

Whilst the contract mobilised in August (and there were a few weeks of grass cutting across parks and housing sites by the start of October) the weather worsened and by November there was frequent heavy rain. The contractor was able to cut and collect all wildflower meadows, verges and roundabouts and continue to work on general maintenance. But by January, there were three consecutive high-pressure storms, which led to the water table being so high that the ground was completely saturated and many areas were flooded. Verge cutting was attempted in line with the intended schedule in March, but the heavy machinery was causing more damage to the verges and it was not physically possible to mow the grass. A delayed start to verge cutting was agreed with officers. As the weather got warmer and the rain continued, grass grew at a rapid speed and grass cutting across all aspects of the contract were adversely impacted by the weather and some issues with electric machinery.

 

The ‘perfect storm’ of conditions ensued from early 2024, which impacted service delivery in the first year. When grass cutting on verges and housing estates commenced, the electric machinery struggled to cope with longer wet grass. The actual battery run times were proving to be shorter than expected, as the much longer grass, which was also still wet, put additional strain on batteries which would last 1.5 hours compared to 4 or 5 hours. This led to less grass being cut in a day than expected. Whilst additional batteries were provided, the duration was still far short of the expected run time. This meant that verges and estates would be half completed, and the team would move onto the next location trying not to fall behind the schedule. The visual aspect of this led to complaints and teams having to return to cut areas, again delaying the cuts for other sites, which led to additional complaints. There were also some staffing issues which further compounded the issue although Continental worked quickly to seek additional staff.

 

Continental Landscapes advised that they were in discussion with the manufacturers of the electric equipment, to work with them to find a long-term solution to avoid a repeat of the issues in future years. They also arranged for the delivery of replacement mowers and handheld tools that would run on an environmentally friendly fuel (Aspen) which produces 99% less emissions than fossil fuels. This machinery was implemented mid-July and allowed for a faster catch up on the backlog of work.

 

On occasion, some litter was missed and a small number of enquiries were received about shredded litter on verges after a cut. When these reports were received, such as in Harrowdene Road, officers raised it with the contractor and an inspection carried out. The issue was not highlighted again in any successive verge cut, showing that concerns were taken seriously by the contractor and raised with the team on the ground

 

Parks did not fare as badly during this time as the grass in these sites can be cut by tractors; however, there were still times during June where tractors were getting stuck because the ground had not dried out sufficiently in certain locations within parks such as Roe Green and One Tree Hill.

 

LETTER: Cllr Tatler's comments on South Kilburn regeneration progress 'not quite accurate'

Dear Editor 

While reading the minutes of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting held on the 23rd April 2024 LINK, I noticed that some of Cllr. Tatler's responses were not quite accurate.

She reported that the South Kilburn Medical Centre has already opened but it is still being fitted out.  She also responded that the South Kilburn Boulevard had been completed but the scheme is yet to start.

The councillor reported that 60% of the South Kilburn Regeneration programme has been completed without giving any details about how many developments are still waiting to be demolished before any construction work can begin on them.

However it is difficult to judge whether 60% of sites have been completed, as there are still seven schemes, consisting of 13 buildings, plus the new primary school and the Roman Catholic Church (Marian Centre) all waiting to be developed.

Regards,

 

A South Kilburn resident

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.

 

South Kilburn Regeneration viability troubles should be on the Scrutiny Committee agenda tonight

 A number of factors have combined to threaten the financial viability of regeneration schemes across Brent and London including the requirements of the Building Safety Act (second staircases post-Grenfell), inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain issues and labour shortages.

In South Kilburn the Deloittes Viability Assessment provides a case study for the Hereford House and Exeter Court site.

Overall more housing is proposed but a lower proportion is social housing

 

51% affordable by habitable room

Build costs

GDV = Gross Development Vale

RLV = Residual Land Value 

Deloitte conclude:

Viability in planning is a fundamental principle of development, ensuring that the site is only pursued if it can an appropriate land value and adequate developer’s profit. The Residual Land Value (RLV) must be compared against a Benchmark Land Value (BLV) to determine whether there is enough surplus within the scheme to accommodate affordable housing, and / or other S106 obligations.

Viability in planning is achieved when the Residual Land Value (RLV) surpasses the Benchmark Land Value (BLV), indicating that the site can generate sufficient profit for the developer and meet the landowner's value expectations, thereby enabling the release of the land for development. The BLV represents the minimum price that a landowner would anticipate for their land.

In this instance, even if the Council (as applicant) was prepared to accept a BLV of zero (on the grounds that the Site is helping to facilitate a wider regeneration programme), the RLV still presents significant deficit.

Notwithstanding this outcome, the applicant, as a majority landowner remains committed to delivering a successful scheme, with 51% affordable housing (by habitable room number) to be offered at social rent.

Considering this and its role in facilitating regeneration, the applicant is proposing an affordable housing offer which is greater than the amount the scheme can afford. 

 So Brent Council is faced with the problem of finding a way of delivering the scheme as set out in the tables above when the viability assessment suggests that no developer will take it on. Scrutiny councillors will doubtless be concerned about a possible reduction in the social rent offer.

Viability assessments with be required on other regeneration sites across South Kilburn and the rest of Brent threatening to lower the amount of social housing overall. In South Kilburn it could mean (I hope councillors ask the question) that all the displaced council tenants will no longer be housed as promised.

The recent South Kilburn Tenant Steering Group received updates on the various South Kilburn sites and I highlight below the number of social rent homes proposed  out of the total number of homes proposed. The paragraph on Hereford and Exeter seems optimistic in light of the above:

Peel

In total, the Peel scheme is delivering 308 homes including 46 social rent homes for existing South Kilburn tenants and 98 shared ownership homes. 39 of the social rent homes have already been completed and let. The lower than usual number of social rent homes relates to the scheme financing the new Health Centre. However, the Council has now secured an additional four family homes for social rent in Phase 4.

NWCC Development

Countryside are progressing with the NWCC scheme (Neville, Winterleys, Carlton House and Carlton Hall), which will provide 225 new homes including 95 social rent homes for existing South Kilburn tenants. 40 of the social rent homes are 3 and 4 bedroom properties. Demolition works were completed in January with piling works for the new buildings are getting underway.

Craik, Crone and Zangwill

A planning application for the Craik, Crone & Zangwill (CCZ Site) had been submitted to the Council but was being reworked to comply with subsequent GLA guidance on fire safety requiring a second staircase. A mixed tenure scheme of 252 new homes is proposed, 104 of which would be for social rent to existing South Kilburn tenants. Two thirds of the social rent homes will be family sized to meet identified needs. New commercial and workspace, public realm improvements and infrastructure facilities are also proposed. The project has been paused whilst more strategic aspects of the programme are addressed.

Masefield, Wordsworth and Dickens

On the Masefield, Wordsworth & Dickens site, the proposed scheme includes new homes, a new primary school and enhanced green space. It is proposed that 146 homes would be built on the site in addition to the new school. 40% of the homes would be for social rent to existing South Kilburn tenants including 15 four bedroom houses. The South Kilburn Open Space will also be redesigned with new facilities within the scheme. The Planning submission is pending while the team work on funding mechanisms to deliver the school ahead of the rest of the development and examine opportunities to maximise housing on the site.

Austen and Blake

Proposals for the Austen & Blake site are intended to include new community facilities alongside new homes for social rent and private sale. The scheme would also reinstate Percy Road through to Malvern Road. It is anticipated that the site would deliver around 200 new homes in total. The team are currently considering options to combine delivery with the neighbouring Masefield, Wordsworth and Dickens site.

Neville, Winterleys, Carlton House & Carlton Hall

As reported, Countryside are onsite as the Developer Partner for the scheme at 1-8 Neville House, 1-64 Winterleys, 113-128 Carlton House and Carlton Hall (NWCC Site). 225 homes are proposed for the site, 95 of which will be for social rent to South Kilburn tenants with a significant number of family sized homes. It is proposed that the first 72 homes for social rent would be completed by early 2026.

Hereford & Exeter

The Hereford & Exeter scheme is intended to deliver 250 homes, 109 of which will be for social rent for existing council tenants in South Kilburn and a new open space. A new planning application has been submitted following redesign work to meet GLA guidance on fire safety requiring a second staircase on taller buildings. This should be the next phase onsite in construction by 2025.

 There was a Q&A at the same session that will be of interest to the tenants:

 

Questions were asked as follows:

Q – Is there any progress with the Queens Park/Cullen House site ?
A – The Council is continuing to negotiate the purchase of the former Falcon pub in order to facilitate the design of a revised scheme and subsequent planning application.

Q – What are the Council doing about squatting and break ins at Blake Court ?
A – The Council are trying to work with the police to prevent squatting and securing empty properties where possible. Residents should contact the Council on 020 8937 2143 or email at Housingmanagement@brent.gov.uk regarding instances of squatting or break ins to empty properties. If there is a threat of injury, the police should be contacted on 999.

Q – Are empty homes in John Ratcliffe House going to be refurbished and relet ?
A _ The Council is letting empty flats in later phase blocks as temporary accommodation to save costs and improve security. However, these tenants will not have the right to permanent rehousing in South Kilburn.

Q – Why is the rent going up when we live in such poor conditions at Dickens House ?
A – Rents are being increased across the borough at RPI plus 1% in line with Government guidance in common with other social landlords. The Council are actively looking at options to move tenants from Dickens and Austen House.

Q – Why has rehousing priority for Craik and Crone Court tenants been changed ?
A – Tenants in Dickens & Austen House and Blake Court are now being prioritised due to the need to vacate the site for redevelopment.

Q – Who will be prioritised for the new homes at NWCC and Granville ?
A – Tenants in Dickens & Austen House and Blake Court are currently being prioritised for all available homes. However, any surplus new homes will be offered to tenants in subsequent phases.

Q – Are new build flats fitted with baths or shower ?
A – They normally have a shower within the bath but separate showers or wet rooms are provided for tenants with specific identified needs through an Occupational Therapist.

Q – When will tenants in William Dunbar House be rehoused ?
A – William Dunbar House is in the final phase of the programme, the block is not due to be redeveloped for some years.

 

ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency Brent), a new coalition of Brent environment groups, challenges Brent Council to step up its climate action

 From words to action

 

 

 

ACE Brent (Action on the Climate and Ecological Emergency Brent), a new coalition of Brent environment groups, challenges Brent Council to step up its climate action. 

 

ACE Brent does not believe that Brent is working effectively to reach Net Zero in 2030, and are asking for : 

• A clearer, more measurable, accountable and ambitious Climate Action Plan
• Prioritisation of actions that reduce emissions most and that protect the most vulnerable residents
• Annual monitoring and reporting 
• A new Climate and Ecological Emergency Scrutiny Committee
• A new Brent Climate Assembly and regular reports to open meetings

Ace Brent have also drawn up a list of specific demands covering cycling and transport, insulation and retrofitting, divestment, planning, renewable energy, food, trees and green space.

 

They have written to all Brent councillors with their requests, and have organised a deputation to the full Council Meeting on Monday 20^th Nov, Brent Civic Centre, at 6pm. 

 

Members of ACE Brent are Brent Cycling Campaign, Brent Friends of the Earth, Brent Parks Forum, Brent Pure Energy, Brent XR and Divest Brent.

 

Christine Smith, from Brent XR, says: 

 

This is an emergency. Act now!

 

Simon Erskine, Co-ordinator of Divest Brent, says:  

 

Divestment of the council pension fund from fossil fuels is an example of a climate action that has been a very long time coming despite active discussions with members and officers.

 

Sylvia Gauthereau, from Brent Cycling Campaign, says:

 

According to the council's own statistics, road transport is the largest contributor to air pollution in Brent, accounting for over 52% of emissions in the borough. The Council urgently needs to implement some specific measures, that are known to effectively tackle road pollution. This cannot be achieved without significant changes to the built environment, to enable anyone who wishes to actively travel, to choose so. The time for talking about it is over, now is the time to act. The evidence is there, the 'how to' examples are plenty, the guidance is available, the opportunity and appetite are there. It doesn't have to be massively costly. Just get on with it now.

 

Suzanne Morpurgo, from Brent Parks Forum, says: 

 

It's Brent's stated intention to be ‘one of the greenest, most biodiverse and climate resilient boroughs in London’ by 2030' . This needs an increase in tree cover and green spaces,  including sports ground provision. At the moment there is no clear plan for this, or any form of 'FiT' status for sites. We are happy to help.

 

Elaine Sheppard, A Co-ordinator of Brent Friends of the Earth, says:  

 

It's 4 years since Brent Council declared a climate emergency.  We are experiencing flooding and extreme weather in Brent. Our relatives and friends in the Global South are facing much worse. We have come together to request a stronger response as appropriate to the emergency. We need bigger change to reduce emissions, proper reporting and proper involvement of Brent residents in the actions being taken. We are looking for more action, ambition and accountability.

UPDATED: Cost of putting Granville New Homes right rises to £25m. Brent Council purchased them for £17.1m

 

Tucked away in the Housing Management Update tabled for next Thrsday's Scrutiny and Wellbeing Committee is the above paragraph, devoid of context.

Granville New Homes were built via  partnership between Higgins and Brent Council in 2009, and purchased by Brent Council for £17.1m.

In 2021 mounting defects led to the independent Ridge report that put the costs of remediation at c£13.5m:

 

 

Philip Grant queried a report to Scrutiny in October 2021  that put the costs of remediation at £18.5m and Debra Norman replied for Brent Council LINK:

 

As you point out, page 26 of the Ridge Report gives the cost estimates as totalling £13,645,000 but the Cabinet, ASAC and Scrutiny reports refer to estimated costs of £18.5m.  You query why this is and whether there is a second specialist report on fire safety issues which accounts for the difference.

 

 

This figure of £13,645,000 is included in the £18.5m referred to in the reports.  As set out in paragraph 3.9 of the Cabinet report, that higher figure also includes the cost of fire safety work already undertaken and paid for by FWH, e.g. the waking watch over the premises and a new fire alarm system, and a contingency figure.  In addition, paragraph 3.9 make clear that the total figure is inclusive of VAT, which FWH and I4B, unlike the council, would be required to pay.  The final sentence of 3.9 should have read that the £18.5m is “based on” an estimated value from Ridge, but in the overall context of the paragraph I think the position was clear.

Brent Council had rejected various options to address the problems including a rebuild.

 Instead they settled for a complex financial arrangement with FWH (First Wave Housing) disposing of the blocks to the Council's Housing Revenue account. LINK

The Extraordinary Scrutiny Committee of October 2021 asked some tough questions, not least Ketan Sheth's on why Higgins was still being offered contracts by the Council after its Granville New Homes failure,. With superb irony Higgins having been involved with building a block that needed £13.5m/£18.5m remediation was awarded the remediation countract, for another faulty block, Merle Court.

The Committee were told that the amount of time that had passed since 2009 meant the Council were not likely to succeed in any settlement claim against Higgins. I believe that changes in the law about time limits means that is no longer the case and there are reports that the Council may be in tlaks with Higgins.

Certainly that is something that Scrutiny should take up with the Council as well as the failure to complete the works by October 2023 as first forecast and of course the rise of costs to £25m which with the original purchase price of £17.1m brings the total to c£42m. It would also be useful to know if the bald £25m is the end of the story or other costs will need to be added as in Debra Norman's response.

It may be instructive for Scrutiny Committee members to revisit the Minutes of their October 2021 meeting. Here is an extract:

The Committee queried whether the Council, as Guarantor of FWH, had chosen to challenge FWH on the issues. Minesh Patel advised that the Council’s role as a Guarantor was to meet with the Board of FWH on a regular basis to go through Key Performance Indicators and understand how the Company was running. The Guarantor had not been made aware of any issues prior to the final Ridge report.

Hakeem Osinaike (Operational Director Housing, Brent Council) advised that the properties were managed by Brent Housing Management (BHM) on behalf of FWH, and they had managed the repairs in those blocks up until the inspection. He advised that it was in rectifying the fire safety issues a decision was taken to rectify any other issues as well.

The Committee noted that Higgins had been appointed to design and build the blocks in 2009, and had heard from residents and staff that there had been problems with the blocks since they were built. They queried what legal action against Higgins, as the contractor, had been pursued, considering the roofs had been previously replaced when FWH took over the building. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that BHP had replaced one of the roofs before FWH took over, and once FWH had taken over they had done works on water ingress issues and had planned to replace all roofs over time as part of previously published business plans for the Company, with an original cost estimate of £2m – 2.5m. With regard to any legal action taken, Peter Gadsdon advised that the records showed the building had been signed off and handed to the Council, but he was unable to comment on anything before 2017 when FWH took over the buildings. He advised that FWH had not had any conversations with Higgins regarding the defects which they were made aware of in May 2021. Legal advice was previously sought about whether there was any chance of redress but due to the passage of time were advised it was unlikely. The Board’s priority was to ensure the properties were repaired back to safety.

Continuing to discuss the contract with Higgins, the Board queried why the Council were not communicating with them on this considering they were current contractors on other blocks being built. They queried whether there was a risk of this happening in other blocks that had been built or were being built. Minesh Patel advised that he did not have the details on the construction contracts with Higgins as that was a procurement process, but nothing had been brought to his attention that there were any concerns on any of the blocks Higgins had worked on.

Councillor Southwood advised that the contractor had been awarded work by the Council through a procurement process without prejudice, the specification of which would have applied modern building control and expectations to whatever they built, and which would include monitoring on the delivery of their contracts. From a FWH perspective it was highly unlikely any other stock would have these issues as Granville New Homes were the only medium rise buildings in the assets. Peter Gadsdon added that, like the Council, FWH and i4B commissioned stock condition surveys and had Fire Risk Assessments in place and there were no issues in that regard. Councillor Southwood agreed to provide written assurances to the Committee that there was no issues in any of the blocks Higgins had worked on, and further information on the procurement process such as whether past performance of a contractor was considered before awarding a contract.

 

Philip Grant adds:

 

 

Another interesting sideline on Granville New Homes is that Brent Council is supposed to have acquired Granville New Homes (for its Housing Revenue Account) from First Wave Housing Ltd for £0 in early 2021. [That should probably say early 2022]

This was part of a refinancing arrangement that would reduce the interest payable on the £17.8m loan Brent had made to Brent Housing Partnership Ltd (as it was then called) to buy Granville New Homes from Higgins (or to pay them for building the four blocks).

It appears that the £17.8m loan is still outstanding, but according to the Charges Register in the Companies House records for First Wave Housing Ltd (as at today, 16 November 2023), that loan is still secured on a property known as Granville New Homes!

How can a loan be "secured" by a 'Fixed Charge over land known as Granville New Homes, Granville Road, South Kilburn, London NW6 0JJ', when First Wave Housing Ltd no longer owns that property?

And another odd thing from the Companies House records. Despite owing Brent Council £17.8m on a loan for a property it no longer owns, as at 31 March 2023, First Wave Housing Ltd had £11,028,334 in its bank account, up from £4,231,167 at 31 March 2022. What is going on?

Perhaps the Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee should be asking Peter Gadsdon, Corporate Director of Resident Services, about that, when he makes his Report to its meeting next week. He should know the answers, because he is also a Director of, and Company Secretary of, First Wave Housing Ltd (a company wholly owned by Brent Council, but a separate legal entity from the Council).

LINK TO FIXED CHARGE CERTIFICATE