Brent Momentum presses Council on education, regeneration, universal credit evictions and fossil fuel divestment

The latest Bulletin from Brent Momentum reveals areas of frustration with Brent Council policy implementation many of which have been covered on Wembley Matters.

Education is a major issue with the failure of the Council to oppose the academisation of The Village School and the proposals for a free school at the Roundwood Centre, are source of contention. The Bulletin does not refer to the proposals to close Strathcona School but I presume Momentum will support the threatened NEU strike action.

The failure of Brent Council Regeneration proposals to take account of community concerns in Granville/Carlton and Bridge Park is criticised as is the failure to ensure the quality of new build on the South Kilburn Estate.

Momentum strongly support the cross-party Divest Brent campaign which is urging Brent Labour to fulfil its local election pledge to divest its pension fund from fossil fuels.

Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council is often accused of making promises and then not fulfilling them, so Momentum is pressing for Butt's promise to not evict Council tenants unable to pay rent due to Universal Credit delays, to be incorporated into official  Brent Council policy.

South Kilburn Masterplan review ordered as project falls 12 months behind schedule and viability questioned

"The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them."

The above statement was included in the papers for the Full Council meeting last month and was a surprise for South Kilburn residents causing cconsiderable disquiet. 

As a result an information request was made to Brent Council to try and find out exactly what was going on. I would welcome comments from SK residents  on whether they feel any the wiser as a consequence of Richard Barrett's response. It would be interesting to know the additional costs that will be incurred by the review.

I am writing on behalf of the Kilburn branch of the Labour Party to request information relating to the regeneration programme in South Kilburn. Last year, I put in an FoI request about other aspects of the programme, and you kindly provided me with useful responses. I hope you will be able to do so on this occasion too.

The basis for my questions is a point in the budget report that was discussed at the full Council meeting on Monday. This is covered in section 14.5 (first bullet) of the report, as follows:

“The South Kilburn Regeneration programme has slipped behind schedule in 2015/16. There is a masterplan review of South Kilburn Regeneration; this means it is being fundamentally reviewed to determine how best to deliver the programme and realise benefits of regeneration for South Kilburn and for its businesses and residents. This review will reconsider the fundamental approach, including whether it is better for the council to retain the South Kilburn Housing Assets, or continue to dispose of them.”

I have searched through the Brent website, and have not found the information that I am seeking. I should therefore appreciate responses to the following:

·         What are the terms of reference of the masterplan review referred to in the above extract?

The intention is to appoint a Design Team to assist the Council review the adopted Master-plan and the current proposals for the remainder of the programme. It will seek to understand whether the principles established in the original Master-plan need to be altered or not given the passage of time and taking into account the schemes already delivered. The review will also look at the scope of the Master-plan and factoring in any relevant new legislation and guidance ensure the programme remains viable; as such it will also look at all sites within the South Kilburn area to consider inclusion or exclusion within the overall Master-Plan. The brief is currently being worked up by officers but when it is ready to go out to market it will be made available to the public via the London Tender Portal 

·         What is the timescale of the review?

It is hoped to go out to market to seek expressions of interest from Architectural Practices in March, appoint, subject to Cabinet approval, by May with a likely consultation process and report back to Cabinet toward the end of 2016 or early 2017 at the latest. This indicative timescale is subject to Cabinet Timetable availability and it is also likely that the Master-Plan will be placed before Planning Committee alongside a proposed SPD for the area.

·         Will there be a consultation of local residents and other interested parties as part of the review? If so, what form will this take?

Absolutely. It is intended there will be a series of consultation events/workshops with local residents, tenants and stakeholders. The most likely format will be drop-in meetings but may also include questionnaires. The final form of consultations will be agreed with the appointed Practice but it will be a specific requirement of any bid to conduct consultation.

·         How far behind schedule has the regeneration programme slipped? What are the implications for the remaining phases of the programme?

The programme has slipped due to external factors such as the safeguarding of Salusbury Road site by HS2 since 2012 and other factors, such as specific project delays on site. This, in turn, has pushed the programme out of kilter by having a knock-on effect on future phases. Some individual projects remain on target but overall the programme has extended by at least twelve months. The intention is that the Master-plan Review will seek to see whether there is any ability to recover this time by reconfiguring the remaining programme. The Master-Plan review will also incorporate a refresh of the financial viability of the scheme. No implications have been identified apart from the obvious prolongation of the programme and the resultant delay in tenants moving into new accommodation.

·         What criteria and methodology will the review use to decide whether to retain the South Kilburn Housing assets?

I note the extract provided by this FoI from the Budget Report but would advise that the Master-Plan Review will not be the vehicle for determining whether the Council disposes or retains assets as they are developed. I am sure the Review will be used to assist in the consideration of this query but it is more likely something that will be considered by the Council’s Investment Board and reported back to Cabinet for decision as appropriate.

·         Whether and how does the review relate to the information that the Council will provide following the Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of its report on South Kilburn regeneration, at its meeting of 2 December 2015 (see LINK)  

The Master-Plan review and the questions arising from the Scrutiny Committee consideration are separate matters. The points made by the Scrutiny Committee will and has assisted in the development of the Brief..