Wembley Housing Zone: Never mind the gloss - what are the details?

 Impression of the Cecil Avenue blocks, High Road, Wembley

 

Brent Council’s press releases are notable for what they leave out as much as what they include. The latest heralding new homes on the Cecil Road, Wembley site (formerly Copland School) and Ujima House on the other side of the road (See PR below) leaves out vital information pursued by Philip Grant in several guest posts on Wembley Matters.   LINK  LINK

 

 Brent Council received planning permission for this development more than two years ago (February 2021). On the latest information only 37 of the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue will be for London Affordable Rent (LAR), and the 54 LAR homes promised for the Ujima House site (which still only has outline planning permission) are not expected to be delivered until 2026.

 

The Wembley Housing Zone scheme is Shama Tatler's responsibility - she talks it up in the press release. Cllr Tatler and Muhammed Butt must bear the blame for the details and delay over the provision of these home.

 

Reacting to the Council press release on Twitter this morning Cllr Anton Georgiou (Lib Dem Alperton) asked:

 

Will these be Council homes for Council tenants? Genuinely affordable family homes? Or more of the same? We need answers and clarity, not just headline figures.

 

The Brent Council Press Release

 

Deal signed to deliver more than 300 new homes in Wembley

More much-needed housing will soon be a reality following an agreement to build 304 new homes in Wembley. 

 

A deal was signed this week between Brent Council and Wates to deliver 250 homes on land east of Cecil Avenue, which had previously been the site of Copland School. The plan is for a high-quality, mixed-tenure courtyard development of five to nine storeys with one-bed, two-bed, three-bed and four-bed apartments and maisonettes. The new development will also house commercial units and community floorspace at street level.

 

Opposite this site at Ujima House, another 54 homes will be built, along with workspace units, including a café at street level.

 

A total of 152 homes will be made available for private sale on the Cecil Avenue site. The other 152 properties on both Cecil Avenue and Ujima House will be a mixture of affordable homes for council tenants and people on middle incomes.

 

Councillor Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Growth, said: 

 

“This is fantastic news for residents of this up-and-coming area. The vision is to revitalise the eastern end of the High Road of the town centre, linking the established Wembley Central to the new Wembley Park neighbourhood emerging around the stadium.”

 

Designated and partly funded by the Mayor of London, the Wembley Housing Zone aims to create new homes and jobs, new leisure, retail and workspaces, public realm improvements and increased accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and road users. 

 

Nick Williams, Regional Managing Director at Wates, said: “Our guiding principle is that everyone deserves a great place to live, and these modern new homes will be warm, comfortable and safe to live in. Not only that but we will be working with the local community to deliver these mixed-tenure homes. This means employing the services of local businesses and people along the way to help regenerate the area and inspire a new community.”

 

The new development agreement represents another opportunity for Brent Council and Wates to collaborate. The two organisations are currently working together to create 99 new council homes at Church End and have recently successfully delivered 149 homes at Knowles House and Anansi House. 

 

 

SHARED OWNERSHIP – Let’s have a debate!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

 

By the time you read this, item 13 on Monday evening’s Full Council meeting will probably have happened. Martin has already shared a copy of the motion on “Building the Homes our Community Needs”, put forward by Lib Dem councillor Anton Georgiou, which deals with affordable housing, and whether Brent Council should make some of its New Council Homes shared ownership properties, rather than for letting at genuinely affordable rents. 

 

It is certainly ‘an issue of relevance to Brent’, but the chances are that it won’t get a proper debate on the actual issues the motion raises. Although this is a meeting of all the councillors, who are supposed to represent the views of the residents in their Wards, across the borough, what will be played out is a game of party politics.

 

A small extract from the Labour Group amendment to Cllr. Georgiou’s motion.

 

When the agenda for the meeting was updated on Monday, it included an amendment to the motion by the Labour Group. The word ‘amendment’ is perhaps an understatement (see extract where red = Labour). Although I suspect that few Labour Group members were consulted over it (perhaps just the Leader and a couple of Cabinet members?), it is likely they will be “whipped” to support the many amendments, then to vote for the amended motion.

 

The amendments have been proposed to change the motion completely, so that it promotes the policies which the Cabinet adopted on 14 November. I set out many of these in a guest blog on 11 November, “Brent’s New Affordable Council Homes promises shredded!”, and Martin’s blog on 14 November, and comments on it, give a flavour of what happened when the Cabinet approved the recommendations of the “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” report, without any noticeable discussion of it.

 

 

One of the key issues in all this is whether Brent Council should “convert” some of the affordable housing it plans to build from the “genuinely affordable” London Affordable Rent to shared ownership homes. That is something which does need a proper debate, which it won’t get at a Brent Council meeting, so I’m offering this opportunity for you to have your say. Here are the two versions of the shared ownership issue, from the motion and the proposed amendment to it. 

 

Proposal 1:

 

This Council believes: Shared Ownership schemes are not a ‘genuinely affordable’ housing model and are not something that should be promoted by Brent.

 

This Council resolves to: Ensure all new developments taking place on existing estates within our borough must be seeking to provide more Social Housing and not Shared Ownership or Market Sale units.

 

Proposal 2:

 

This Council believes: Shared Ownership schemes are not a top priority for Brent Council, but do form a valuable part of an overall housing mix, as they allow some people to get onto the housing ladder when they otherwise would not be able to afford a full deposit.

 

This Council resolves to: Continue to work with the GLA and DLUHC to secure the funding needed to ensure all new developments must seek to provide as much social housing as is financially viable.

 

If you have a view on whether Brent should provide some shared ownership homes, rather than those homes being for affordable rent to Council tenants, please share it in the comments below. Even if you are a member of a political party, please just give your personal views. 

 

You can just “vote”, for Proposal 1 or Proposal 2, if you wish. You don’t have to give your reasons, although it would help to properly understand how Brent residents feel about this subject if you do.

 

You can comment as “Anonymous”, although if you do, it would help if you can give some indication of what angle your view is coming from. But please comment honestly, so that we can have a proper debate on ‘an issue of relevance to Brent.’ Thank you.

 

The Labour Group amendment was submitted by Cllr Shama Tatler, Kingsbury ward.

 

The full Labour Amendment in red and black is HERE, 

Philip Grant.

 

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE

UPDATE: Mumbai Junction/John Lyon pub planning application return greeted with dismay by local residents. Developer's pre-app meetings with lead councillors, officers and planning committee.

The Sudbury Court Residents' Association have reacted quickly to the return of a planning application for the Mumbai Junction(John Lyons) site.  Although the applicant claim they have listened to Muhammed Butt, councillors and officers at a pre-planning meeting. Little seems to have actually changed.

 This extract indicates a Pre-app meeting with the Planning Committee!

 

Residents at consultation gave the plans an almost unanimous thumbs down and an anonymous comment  that seems to have been accidentally published on the Statement of Community Involvement is revealing:

 

The Sudbury Court Residents Association are informing residents about the proposal via a leaflet:

 Comment on the Planning Application HERE,

      

A tale of 'Towerblock Tatler' and 'Taylor's Towers' as Shama Tatler makes bid to become Labour parliamentary candidate for Watford

 

As mentioned by Wembley Matters on May 1st LINK Shama Tatler has her eyes on becoming Labour's parliamentary candidate for Watford and so did not stand for the deputy leader of Brent Council's Labour Group.

Today she launched her campaign for the nomination  on twitter with links to a pretty slick campaign website LINK and announced backers including David Lammy MP.

She will find herself in the strange situation where she will be standing for a local Labour Party that has campaigned against the Liberal Democrat Watford Mayor on the basis of the building of tower blocks in the area. They even call them 'Taylor's Towers'.  In Brent of course in her role as Lead Member for Regeneration Shama Tatler has strongly supported the building of tower blocks in Alperton, Wembley, Stonebridge and South Kilburn earning herself the nickname  'Towerblock Tatler.' 

These are examples of the Labour campaign in Watford:

 The image is hard to read so this is it says:

• The Liberal Democrats have taken their eyes off the ball here in Watford and have spectacularly failed to reduce the housing targets for our town.
• They shamelessly blame everyone else for their disastrous decisions which are all of their own making. They've allowed these towers
• UNLIKE neighbouring Three Rivers Council, the Lib Dems here have failed to bring in policies that prevent high developments, but we get more and more Taylor's Towers springing up here, there and everywhere.
• The Liberal Democrat's biggest failure yet is a 24 storey tower block. That's just the start if they get in again. They'll be yet more and more ever higher and higher 'Taylor's Towers.

IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?

  You can have some fun substituting Labour for Liberal Democrats, and Brent for Watford and Tatler's Towers for Taylor's Towers and see if it makes sense.

 It will be an interesting selection meeting.  Perhaps they should invite Peter Taylor to be a guest panellist?

On her website Cllr Tatler highlights her 6 years' experience as Cabinet member for Regeneration, Property and Planning and includes an image of South Kilburn but not any tower blocks...

 

 

New London Councils cross-party Executive will work together across boroughs to deliver a shared agenda

 

The new London Councils Executive

There's a bit of a spat going on via Twitter this morning after Labour's Cllr Shama Tatler criticised Lib Dem Cllr Anton Georgiou for meeting with Tory Cllr Sunita for what Georgiou described as an attempt  'find ways to work together to improve our communities' despite being on 'different teams'.

 

The concept was clearly anathema to Cllr Tatler but the reality is that on many councils and similar bodies different political parties have worked together for the benefit of the community. London Councils is one such body bringing together mayors and council leaders from different parties across London.  Indeed, until yesterday's AGM, Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council was the London Councils Executive Member for Welfare, Empowerment and Inclusion.

In the press release from London Councils below I have emphasised in bold a pertinent comment by the Chair of London Councils who is also leader of Camden Council:

Cllr Georgia Gould has been re-elected Chair of London Councils, promising to deliver on the boroughs’ shared agenda at this “important moment” for the capital.

 

At London Councils’ Leaders Committee AGM, held  yesterday borough Leaders and Directly Elected Mayors from across the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation met to agree leadership roles.

 

Cllr Georgia Gould, Chair of London Councils, said:

 

The next few years present huge challenges for London - tackling inequality in our city, supporting residents and businesses through the cost-of-living crisis and ensuring London’s voice is part of debates on levelling up.

 

Having stepped up to support our communities during the pandemic despite incredibly difficult circumstances for us all, London boroughs are committed to working together on our shared ambitions from tackling the climate crisis to supporting Londoners facing a cost-of-living crisis. Together we will make the case for London and make sure the voices of Londoners are heard.

 

I feel incredibly hopeful that at this important moment for our city, London boroughs will focus on delivering for communities across the capital.

 

The following Leaders and directly elected Mayors were elected to London Councils’ Executive:

Chair: Cllr Georgia Gould (Lab, Camden)

 

Deputy Chair and Executive member for Regeneration, Housing and Planning: Cllr Darren Rodwell (Lab, Barking and Dagenham)

 

Vice Chair: Cllr Teresa O’Neill OBE (Con, Bexley)

 

Vice Chair: Cllr Ruth Dombey OBE (Lib Dem, Sutton)

 

Vice Chair: Deputy Chris Hayward (Ind, City of London Corporation)

 

Climate Change, Transport and Environment Lead and Digital Lead: Mayor Philip Glanville (Lab, Hackney)

 

Executive member for London’s Future (Business, Economy and Culture): Cllr Elizabeth Campbell (Con, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea)

 

Executive member for Communities (Welfare, Empowerment and Inclusion): Cllr Claire Holland (Lab, Lambeth)

 

Executive member for Children and Young People: Cllr Ian Edwards (Con, Hillingdon)

 

Executive member for Community Safety and Violence against Women and Girls: Cllr Jas Athwal (Lab, Redbridge)

 

Executive member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Care: Cllr Nesil Caliskan (Lab, Enfield)

 

Executive member for Skills and Employment: Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz OBE (Lab, Newham) 

 

 

Contract for 1 Morland Gardens – Brent’s response to an open letter

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month I sent an open letter to Brent’s Strategic Director for Regeneration, and Lead Member for Education, explaining why it would not be a good idea to award a Design & Build contract for the Council’s proposed redevelopment at 1 Morland Gardens. Notice of the intended decision to award a contract on 4 January 2022, dated 3 December, had appeared on Brent’s website.

 

The Key Decision had still not been announced on the Council’s website by the evening of 11 January, but I did receive a response to my open letter then. I will ask Martin to attach that at the end of this article, so that anyone who wishes to read it can do so. The response confirmed ‘that the council intends to proceed with the proposed scheme of works’.

 

Architect’s visual impression of the proposed scheme for 1 Morland Gardens

 

However (as is becoming common with Brent Council, if you can get a reply from them), the response raises as many questions as it answers. It does, of course, begin by referring to ‘the very many benefits that the scheme will provide.’ 

 

This ignores the fact that if Council Officers had followed Brent’s own, and national, planning rules over heritage assets at the start, they would never have come up with this scheme! It involves the demolition of an irreplaceable locally listed heritage building. And if the Planning Committee in August 2020 had been properly advised, they would have known that this heritage asset was too “significant” for them to decide that the “public benefits” of the proposals outweighed the importance of retaining the beautiful, architectural and historic Victorian villa.

 

Extract from Brent Council’s May 2019 Historic Environment Place-making Strategy

 

The response lists one of the benefits of the scheme as ‘65 social rented homes.’ Will these really be homes let to Council tenants at genuine social rent levels, or is this just another example of Brent officers (and Lead Members) misusing the term ‘social rented homes’ when they are actually referring to “affordable housing”? 

 

Brent originally told the GLA that the new homes at 1 Morland Gardens would be for “social rent”, but at the planning permission stage in 2020, the Council had changed this to 'all of the 65 units would be delivered at London Affordable Rent.' In a comment on an earlier blog, I pointed out that £6.5m of the cost for these homes was meant to be funded from the GLA’s Affordable Homes programme for 2016-2021. Even though the end date for that was extended to construction beginning by 31 March 2022, that £6.5m is unlikely to be available. Does a change back to “social rent” mean that some of Brent’s funding from the 2021-2026 GLA programme will now have to be used for this project?

 

Are you are wondering what is behind the "little dig" in the response ('I know from previous correspondence that you are concerned with the pace of delivery of social rented accommodation in Brent ....')? It refers to my attempts to get Cllr. Shama Tatler or Mr Lunt to explain properly why they propose that 152 of the 250 new homes on the Council-owned vacant former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue (Wembley High Road) should be built for a private developer to sell at a profit, rather than all 250 being genuine affordable rented housing for people in urgent housing need. I have yet to receive an answer to that!

 

Moving on to Brent’s responses to the six reasons why they should not award this contract, the “answers” to points 1, 2, 3 and 6 are similar. The Council has not yet done anything about the legal requirements over stopping-up orders, appropriation of land for planning purposes or the planning condition that it needs to “divert” (that is, dig up and move!) the water main in Hillside / Brentfield Road. 

 

It could have begun these tasks, which it admits are necessary to complete before construction can commence, at any time after receiving full planning consent in October 2020. Instead, it now says that ‘the council will complete the first stage of the two-stage design and build contract and finalise and obtain the necessary legal pre-requisites in order to begin any construction works.’ But there is no guarantee that at least one of these ‘legal pre-requisites’, the stopping-up orders, will be obtained! Why even pay for the first stage, when you don’t know whether the proposed construction work could go ahead?

 

The Victorian villa which Brent Council’s project would demolish. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Reason 4 was the effect of the proposed demolition on climate. As Brent Council has declared a “Climate Emergency”, you would think that Senior Officers and Lead Members would take that matter seriously. But here the response is: ‘Whilst the proposed redevelopment will emit CO2, the benefits the project brings can go some way to justify this.’ Have they quantified the climate damage, and measured the harm this will cause as compared to the alternative option, retaining the Victorian villa, which I have suggested? Or is this just another example of Brent Council making fine-sounding promises, but not following them in practice?

 

The response to reason 5, the Design & Build Contract itself, leaves a very important point unanswered. I had asked: ‘Why is it proposed that ‘the contractor is undertaking design work’ and ‘design liability’, when full planning permission was given for a detailed design by architects Curl la Tourelle Head?’ 

 

That point has been ignored. Is Brent Council proposing to pay the contractor to come up with a new design, or make significant changes to a detailed design it has already paid a firm of architects to prepare for it? And if there are any significant changes to the building plans that were approved in 2020, won’t that mean a new application for planning permission? Surely those are important questions that need to be answered!

 

The response tells me that: ‘The council has appointed technical consultants to ensure the designs by the contractor meet the council’s requirements ….’ How much will these consultants cost, and will that cost have to be met out of the budget for the project agreed by Brent’s Cabinet two years ago?

 

A bigger reason why I was concerned about the proposed two-stage contract was this: ‘If the contractor given the proposed D&B contract wishes to keep within Brent’s maximum price for the scheme, there is a severe risk that they would cut corners, both in modifying the design and carrying out the building work.’

 

Brent’s answer: ‘the technical consultants will be monitoring the contractor’s progress to ensure the build meets the requirements in terms of materials used, methods of construction and quality of finishes. It is expected that this monitoring will prevent any issues with the quality of the finished building and any issues can be dealt with under the defects liability (including latent defects) responsibilities set out in the contract.’

 

Do you have confidence in the Council’s expectations that there won’t be any “issues” with a ‘cross-laminated timber structure’ (one of the tallest buildings in this country to use that method), with ‘innovative hybrid steel reinforcement’ supporting external cladding? Or that if there are any “issues”, they will be dealt with by the contractor ‘under the defects liability’? Given Brent’s experience over Granville New Homes, I have a feeling that history might repeat itself, IF the Council continues its insistence on pursuing its flawed 1 Morland Gardens project.

Philip Grant