The Brent Cabinet of June 19th, starting at the earlier time of 6pm, has a full agenda with several items relating to the controversial South Kilburn regeneration. The main item is adoption of a revised South Kilburn Supplementary Planning document. I receommed a full reading of the Officers' responses to representations made by local people (report embedded below) and others but here is a taster:
Leslie
Barson and Dee Woods representing users of Granvill Plus Centre and the Carlton
Centre
The
vision is not the vision of the people of South Kilburn. It is an imposed
vision whose prime purpose is to maximize housing. This has no long term
benefits for the people of South Kilburn nor does it address the council’s own
aims such as “improved public realm” (Masterplan Consultation Website) building
for health and happiness. In fact it feels that the views are used to justify
the decisions the Council wants with those decisions not necessarily in the
interests of those who live and work in South Kilburn. They may coincide but
they may not. The document has so many inaccuracies that it is hard to believe
the people writing it really knew or were interested in South Kilburn. Its
platitudes and disingenuous statements skew the reader to the decision the
Council would like to see but don’t show the full picture. Brent Council should
sign up to Community Engagement Principles as defined in the National Standards
for Community Engagement (http://www.scdc.org.uk/what/national-standards/)
putting these into action in South Kilburn to make some recompense for the
years of bad practice.
Officer response
The
vision is an update of the original South Kilburn SPD, informed by the New Deal
for Communities work. It has been subject to extensive engagement and reflects
the opportunities that the area provides taking account of the area’s social,
environmental and economic assets within the wider macro context that exists;
particularly the need for viable delivery of new social rent dwellings, greater
tenure diversity in the area, update of and additional provision of social
infrastructure, increased opportunity for residents plus updated London
planning policy which requires the efficient use of land.
Identifying that the
masterplan has no long-term benefits for the people of South Kilburn is clearly
inconsistent with the evidence of what has been achieved so far, including
feedback from tenants who have moved into new dwellings, or accessed
new/updated facilities. It also ignores the external validation of the work
achieved for example by the Mayor of London. The Council recognises that
regeneration is more than just a physical process ‘done’ to the local
community; it complicated and requires engagement/support/participation and
covers a multiplicity of issues. The Council has sought to follow good
principles of regeneration wherever it can and for the vast majority of
resident’s/local community groups, this is evidenced by a positive feedback.
Inaccuracies have not been identified by the respondent and their response
contains the type of sweeping generalisations it identifies the Council exhibit
in the SPD. The masterplan process since 2005 and regeneration of the estate
has quite rightly given the proposed level of change exhibited substantial
levels of sustained engagement.
South Kilburn Trust
There is
a risk of creating a divided community – on the one hand of people in social
housing, set against private housing - very expensive to buy, or at high rents
on short tenancies. There are a huge swathe of people in between - people who
are working, and can’t get into social housing, but increasingly can’t afford
to live in South Kilburn, let alone buy or rent a space big enough for their
family. Different tenures and opportunities needs to seriously be considered so
as not to end up with community of, bluntly speaking, rich and poor. And so it
needs to be considered whether making the most amount of money out of a site is
the best thing to do for the regeneration of an area.
Officer response
This
scenario is one which officers are well aware of and is recognised in the SPD.
The SPD identifies that ideally a wider range of tenures should be provided in
the area. Nevertheless, it also identifies that firstly that the Council must
make good on its promise to replace the number of existing social rented homes
lost to the regeneration.
Unfortunately in the financial climate within the
public sector currently, without grant/additional external funds opportunities
for provision of alternative tenure types will be very limited. Social rent
properties are extremely expensive to subsidise. The only other alternative
would be to increase density to create greater subsidy. The Council is not
using South Kilburn as a money making exercise; all proceeds are recycled
within the regeneration of the area. The Council takes a whole life view of its
assets and functions balancing up commercial property values with its role as a
wider supporter of the community a significant number of which are reliant on
many of the services it provides.
Residents will be concerned about another proposal on the Agenda which 'appropriates' the green space to enable the redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court to go ahead. A 'quality' replacement is promised:
-->
The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site consists of:
· The demolition of 209 residential
units and garages contained within the Gloucester House and Durham Court site
· Erection of 236 new residential
units - market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new
homes)
· Relocation and improvement of the
public open space and play area at the north of the Site
· New public realm and improved routes
through the Site
· Landscaped private and shared
gardens
· Basement car park providing 91
spaces
· Space for an energy centre for the
South Kilburn District Energy System.
· Market and affordable dwellings
including a range of 1 to 4 bed flats and 3
and 4 bed duplex family units
·
The appropriation includes open space with a public
children’s play area, however a new replacement play area will be provided.
The Planning Committee Report of 20 August 2014 identified that in order to
justify the proposed redevelopment it is important that the replacement
facility is of a significantly improved quality. The report found that overall,
the proposals appear to be of sufficient quality to justify the redevelopment
of the existing play area and inconvenience that will be caused during construction
when no play area will be provided.
It should also be noted that Paddington Recreation Ground is around 330m away,
South Kilburn Urban Park approximately 400m away and in May 2016 the new
Woodhouse Urban Park in South Kilburn opened which is just over 500m away.
