LETTER: The South Kilburn Saga: financial problems, delays, tenure changes - what is achievable now?

Dear Editor,

Brent Council are resending the Hereford & Exeter site, along with the Craik Court-Crone Court -Zangwill House (CCZ)  site back to planning, as the new buildings will need second staircases.

 

The CCZ site was due to be completed by 2029 but it will now be much later.

 

This has a knock-on effect, as all those tenants and some of those in temporary housing will now face longer waits for a new home.

 

The CCZ project is in phase 6 which now means that phases 7 & 8 will now be pushed several years forward beyond their schedules.

 

Previously the council always said 'the whole 15 year (?) South Kilburn Regeneration would be completed by 2029' but that date now looks unachievable.

 

Also, the SK budget is facing financial difficulties but for now the budget has not been changed but the council are reducing their overall Capital programme by 25% (£103M.) covering the rest of this year and 2024/25.

 

We will find out the costs of the SK Regeneration at the meeting in February 2024 when the council sets their budgets for the future years.

 

The increased costs of the SK regeneration are the result of the higher interest rates that the council have to pay for their borrowing, together with high inflation causing increases in the cost of building materials and  higher labour costs.

 

It now looks like the 72 council homes on the NWCC site due in 2025 may be the last ones for some time and I expect that the allocations have already been made, as all the needs assessments have all been completed.

 

That leaves approximately 370 tenants and those in temporary housing having to wait for several more years before they will be offered a new home in SK.

 

 

Nobody seems to be bothered about this but the Peel site LINK has only 42 homes for social rent out of a total of 308 new homes. That is roughly 15% instead of the usual 50:50. So far 38 of the 42 are already occupied with the remaining 4 homes not available until 2026.

 

The Peel site is the largest one of all the SK sites but has the lowest number of social homes available. Many of the new homes are both for private sale as usual but there are also several shared ownership properties.

 

The 72 homes on the NWCC site will be available in 2025 with allocations given in 2024, although as I understand it the possible tenants have already completed their needs assessments. NWCC is Neville House, Winstanley and some of Carlton House and the Carlton Centre

 

This might be of interest to the tenant you featured in Wembley Matters on the 4th October LINK.

 

However, it seems that anyone in SK needing a 4 bed or higher have been offered new homes in both Stonebridge and Wembley.

 

All the remaining tenants and those in temporary housing wish to remain in South Kilburn, as their children attend school there, although some of them have been offered a new larger home in both Stonebridge & Wembley, However, this causes further allocation problems for Brent over who should get priority for a new home.

 

 

The Queen's Park Cullen House site will probably need to go back to planning, as the current one was approved as far back as 2016 with the tenants decanted in 2014.

 

However, the council still do not own the site. They have been trying since 2019 to purchase the Falcon Public House but Londonewcastle will not sell it. Londonewcastle built all the new blocks in Albert Road and may be holding out to win the contract for the Cullen House/Queens Park site, but the council do not want them. So will Cllr. Butt get his way or will he be disappointed?

 

This is the key site, as Cllr. Butt said it would mark the new gateway to SK with several up-market stores in the ground floors with flats above them,

 

Countryside say because they are developing the Health Centre on the Peel site, they had to reduce the number of social homes to make it viable for them.

 

Back in 2004 I seem to remember there was NDC money set aside to fund two health centres (and not just one) but the funding was 'borrowed by the Primary Care Trust' and would be made available when the health centres were to be developed

 

But of course, the Primary Care Trust' closed down and passed its assets to the Brent CCG who themselves have now closed down and are now in the super CCG (8 CCG's)

 

So, I assume the money has long gone and that is why we are having to rely on Countryside to build it and the Council to provide the revenue to run it.

 

 

South Kilburn Resident

LETTER: Brent Council is failing South Kilburn residents who are living in fear in with damp, mould, cold and debt

 Video created from photographs provided by the letter writer

 

I reported on last week’s Brent Renters meeting calling on Brent Council to take action on bad landlords, but what happens when it is the council itself that is the bad landlord?  Wembley Matters has received this letter.

 

Dear Editor,

 

South Kilburn is a lively and friendly community.

 

My neighbours are quiet but ever so respectful.

 

We look out for one another.

 

With a predominantly Black and African community the English language is not the first language of most residents however, it does not create a barrier.

 

In fact, it sometimes draws people together in support for each other, whether it be housing, schooling, benefits, or young people’s needs. We support each other where we can.

 

There is a great deal of deprivation and poverty.

 

With many temporary tenants living in council properties and being charged £440pw, the cost of living crisis, is nothing new to them. Many of them have been living in such conditions for 9+ years, hardly temporary?

 

They were promised that, should they vote for the regeneration bid, upon its succession, they would be placed in new-build properties with a choice of paint colour, kitchen fittings, flooring, and new white goods, some even a dish washer!

 

However, this has not been the case. The council carried out housing needs assessments for every individual to gain knowledge of exactly what was needed but, they failed to deliver many of their promises and continue to do so.

 

Many tenants have been forced to move to new areas outside South Kilburn despite being promised they could stay.

 

Not enough new-builds and not enough of the required bedroom sizes!

 

But didn’t the council carry out assessments? Yes they did?

 

What happened to the planning and the order of blocks to be-rehoused? After the succession of the bid, it all changed – it all fell apart and promises were broken.

 

So, the people moving to new-builds received the promises of flooring and paint etc. However, the others forced to take re-lets are being failed.

 

They must move urgently- within 1 week, to properties with no flooring down, an empty shell.

 

Where are they supposed to find the money to start all over again?

 

There are disruption payments to be had according to the council yet, many are refused and if they are lucky enough to be chosen to receive it, they must wait up to 3 months to receive it!

 

Some are reimbursed for their flooring and white goods, some even for their curtains but some are not, with the council picking and choosing who can and can not be reimbursed. It this discrimination?

 

But Countryside and the Mayor’s office are providing the council with this money to take care of the tenants. If it’s not going to tenants, where is it going?

 

They are not even following their own promises and despite the tenants complaining to heads of departments, they are simply passed from pillar to post with no answer.

 

The council have no fear of breaking the law as the tenants have no-one fighting for them. Even MP Tulip Siddiq is doing nothing to assist vulnerable tenants.

 

Is it because Labour can not fight itself?

 

The electricity bills in the blocks are huge and the saddest part is, regardless of how much they do spend on heating, the properties are ice cold.

 

The health risks to tenants living in damp and mould riddled flats are at an all time high.

 

One of the residents, a mother of 4 and 3 asthmatics had pneumonia three times in one winter and the year before 2 pneumonia and sepsis. Still, she was afraid to put the heating on because she could not afford the bills and was falling deeper and deeper into utility debt. How could she find a way to clear it when all avenues seemed to be closed?

 

They are left in thousands of pounds worth of debt because of the electricity bills. The properties are insufficient, no insulation and ineffective heating units.

 

Go and earn more money you say?

 

With the majority of residents having at least one person working, it’s impossible to up your income.

 

Why? As the wage increases the more hours you work, the council simply reduce the Housing Benefit top-up that is essential to pay the £440pw rent. They trap you into the Benefits system with no hope of getting out unless you become secure tenants paying council rents.

 

The more you earn, the less Housing Benefit you receive and the family’s chance of living better is diminished.

 

We have hard working families paying £440pw rent and £1000/£2000 pm electricity! That’s without council tax, water, food etc

 

What happens then?  The children suffer. Less food on the table, freezing cold mould and damp living conditions, parents constantly stressed because they can’t make ends meet and provide even essentials for their children or themselves.

 

No talks of holidays, new clothes, toys or even a day out!

 

We have knife, gun and gang crime around every corner - but it’s the norm.

 

The last three to four months have taken a turn for the worst, become more dangerous due to the high number of squatters living in the blocks.

 

All night long it’s screaming, fighting, cursing and break-ins.

 

Parents and children are fearful to step into the blocks and afraid to open their front door! Cannabis farms growing, pipes and boilers being stolen and sold for money resulting in tenants homes being flooded and their few positions ruined.

 

Whilst we are fearful, we are concerned with the amount of squatters who have nowhere to turn. They run their own rings, charging other squatters to live in abandoned houses in the blocks. When they can’t pay up, they beat them up and throw them out. It’s horrifying, the wails and screams, the sounds of blows to the bodies of desperate and destitute men and women.

 

Prostitution, it’s also included in the list, men coming and going all night because the women are being pimped out and beaten.

 

The council put two security guards outside for four days. Whilst they are in their car with no toilet or place to get a warm drink, the squatters are upstairs in the blocks and there’s no change.

 

Then we have the schools, they seem to run the same ethos as Brent Council, ignore complaints and carry-on?

 

Despite receiving petitions and concerns of safeguarding from parents, they simply choose to ignore it. The governors simply refuse to hold meetings with parents?

 

They take the case to Brent education and the same response?

 

They take it to Ofsted who agree based on information received, it needs to be investigated.  Ofsted write to Brent Council and raise concerns requesting investigation and Brent reply to Ofsted with ... No further investigation needed!!

 

What do we expect to produce in South Kilburn?

 

The next generation thriving and positively optimistic about a bright future?

 

Where would they ever get this impression from when all they see is doom and gloom?

 

Parents working hard but never having enough.

 

Parents, that when chidlren look at them, their faces are etched with pain and struggle.

 

From where are the young people given hope and is it the faults of the parents, or the people with whom the responsibilities and power is given to make a change?

 

Poor housing, poor  schools and poor finances.

 

No opportunities to thrive yet still, you see the smiling friendly faces of the South Kilburn tenants toward each other, while secretly, their hearts and hopes are broken.

 

I love living in South Kilburn, the residents are very special people who deserve more.

 

Ngozi Gemma Ijanboh

 

The Brent Council Promise in 2019

 

 

 

Wembley Park 'regeneration v gentrification' revisited 6 years on - do the warnings in this article still hold?

Wembley Matters has been following the development of the Wembley Park 'regeneration' areas for some time. In October 2017 LINK  I published the guest post below which attempted to look forward to the impact of what the author termed 'gentrification' rather than regeneration.  Some might argue that 'gentrification' doesn't fit as very few residents lived in the largely light industrial and warehouse area that were displaced, but it could apply to the wider area with many working class people unable to continue to live here.

Since then we have seen what residents claim is over-development in Alperton, further demolition and building on South Kilburn estate with shrinking green space; masterplan for the Neasden Stations area with high rises on the College of North Wesr London  Dudden Hill site and the light industrial area between Willesden High Road and Dudden Hill; and the huge re-development of the 'one public estate' (comprising Network Homes, NHS NW London, University of Westminster Brent Council) of what will almost be a new town in Northwick Park.

This is the original article with my introduction:

 

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

South Kilburn 'Carnivale' Saturday 15th July - 12-5pm - Carlton Vale

 

£765,000 project to save and improve the deteriorating Kilburn Library

Photographs from collection submitted to Cabinet

Brent Cabinet will be considering major plans to rectify structural problems at Kilburn Library and improve the facility at its meeting on Monday. The project will cost £765,000 of which  £534,000 would come from Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy and £231,500 from an application to the Arts Council of England's Library Improvement Fund.

A dossier of photographs (see above) are submitted alongside the proposed works.

Offices explain:

This investment will:

 
· Upgrade the library facilities and building, including the substantial but
underused garden;
· Implement a flexible design to expand the use of the library and enable
hires outside of core opening hours;
· Improve the accessibility of the building through improved design and
signage;
· Extend the footprint of the building to create a dedicated event and
learning space which could also be used for community hire.

The last refurbishment undertaken at Kilburn Library took place in 2009/10.
Structurally, the building is in a poor state. There are large cracks forming in the
structure of the building and there is concern that debris may fall. Furnishings
are mostly fixed and offer limited flexibility to develop the library offer or adapt
the space for different audiences and uses. There is no dedicated event space
despite the strong demand for cultural programmes in the area. Local
consultation for the Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2022 also identified
community priorities of food growing and access to green space. Kilburn Library
has an underutilised garden and will meet this need, but it requires investment to
make it fully accessible and be used more extensively by the community.

 

The works would entail building an extension to the existing building and
reconfiguring the layout to create a larger more flexible space. The driver for this
is a need to increase engagement with residents in the South Kilburn area and
to meet an increased demand and need for services, with a particular focus on
digital, learning, culture and health, following the large amount of growth that is
currently taking place and expected to take place. The new spaces and design
would enable us to increase our programming in these areas and work more with
local partners to expand our reach and library usage in the area.

The increasing population of South Kilburn is cited as a further reason to improve the facility.

Costings:

The Project Plan

Difficulties with South Kilburn redevelopment?

We know that rising costs of regeneration schemes in the pipeline have led to proposals for changes in tenure. There is a clue to possible similar problems in South Kilburn in the last paragraph of the Finance Report going to Cabinet on Monday morning that follows information on slippages totalling £16.2m.

South Kilburn

South Kilburn has a budget variance of £16.2m, owing to slippage.

There is a £5.2m slippage due to acquisitions being forecast in future years primarily on Austen House and Blake Court. A £4.9m SCIL contribution from the NWCC projects will not be used within the financial year. There is a £4m slippage on the Carlton and Granville project, the project has moved into the construction phase after procurement and the forecast now reflects a more realistic schedule. There is slippage of £1m on the District Energy Network
project which will be used in future years due to the concept design being reworked to meet the amended requirements of the London Plan. There is also a £1.1m slippage on the infrastructure works at Peel and Carlton Vale Boulevard.

Risk and Uncertainties

The mixed-use nature of the scheme relies on developers making the schemes viable and providing the affordable housing alongside the private units. Possible difficulties with high inflation could make this more difficult, so the programme is reviewed regularly to ascertain the potential impact on future phases.

LETTER: The rotten stench of neglect

 

Dear Editor,

I've often written on Wembley Matters about how South Kilburn is neglected by Brent Council, the apparent thinking being that if they put up nice looking new buildings (don't look too closely inside), no-one will notice the lack of concern for the maintenance of the area.

I could do so again, since so little changes, but of immediate concern is a single example of the extent to which Brent shows little concern to sort out the most extreme of issues.

Since the heavy rain early last week, there has been a pool of stagnant, stinking water at the bottom of Coventry Close, just off Kilburn High Road (photo). This has been reported to Brent almost since it appeared, and repeatedly by several residents since. Apparently there was an unsuccessful attempt to clear it towards the end of last week. Since then nothing.

As with so many issues, reports to the Council receive little useful response. Repeated messages to officers and Councillors have had no reply until this morning (Monday) when we are simply told by Council officers that they know about it. It may (?) be that they deal with it today, but why does it take the best part of a week to sort out an extreme health hazard. People walking past think it smells of raw sewage, residents close by cannot open their windows. How long would it take for Brent Council to act if this was in the more affluent areas of the borough or even outside the Civic Centre?

Pete Firmin

SCANDAL UPDATE: Brent Council's remediation costs for Granville New Homes, puchased from Higgins for £17.1m, could rise to £22m plus VAT. Number of residents due to be decanted during works is uncertain.

 

The buildings known collectively as Granville New Homes sold by builders Higgins to Brent Council for £17.1m now look likely to cost Brent Council taxpayers  £20m-£22m to bring up to standard. Market conditions, including the cost of materials means that officers warn the council that costs could rise further. If more people have to be decanted than allowed for whilst works go on, that will also add to costs.

The whole thing is a scandal and a nightmare for residentts and tenants in which Higgins seem to have got away scot free. They have even been given additional work by Brent Council:

 

The report going to Cabinet on November 14th clearly outlines the poor quality of the build:

4.0  Survey Findings

4.1  There are two main issues with the blocks. These are the water ingress at various locations in the blocks and uncertainty about the fire rating of the external and internal walls and floors. These two issues are interlinked as they are generally related to the same construction elements. Thus, both issues will be resolved in tandem.

Fire Safety

4.2  The fire risk assessment for the blocks, and the subsequent intrusive investigations have identified that the construction is poor. The blocks have two distinct methods of cladding. One is formed of cementitious panels and the other is of brick effect panels. Both of these appear to have a variety of insulation materials, including expanded polystyrene, mineral wool and void spaces. Because of this, the fire rating of the blocks is uncertain. However, they will certainly not comply with current building regulations and are unlikely to have complied with the class 0 requirements at the time of construction.

4.3  The panels and insulation will require to be removed and replaced with A1 or A2 rated materials to comply with building regulations.

Water Penetration

4.4  The properties have suffered from water penetration for many years. Attempts at remediation have been unsuccessful.

4.5  Ridge Consultants were commissioned to undertake an intrusive survey of the blocks and to identify any significant areas of defect.

4.6  Ridge’s findings are as follows:-

o The external envelopes on these buildings have been constructed from relatively inexpensive materials and there is evidence of poor-quality workmanship.

o There is a lack of information available, relating to the original build and it is clear that what has been installed on site has not worked.

o The doors and windows are suffering rot and timber decay, which is not, a defect readily associated with buildings of this age.

o The horizontal surfaces to the external envelopes (roofs, balconies and walkways) have been poorly finished.

o A further note is that none of the components that have been installed should have failed because of age.

4.7  Ridge’s recommendations are as follows:

o   ·  The defects noted in relation to the buildings’ external envelopes are not easily repairable in a way that will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems.

o   ·  All specified systems and products will have long insurance backed guarantees. All designers and the main contractor will provide warranties. The Council’s legal team will review these before making any appointments.

 

4.8  A key to being able to complete these works without decanting residents is being able to work without disturbing the internal blockwork leaf of the system. It is likely that once the cladding is removed, the blockwork wall behind it will remain intact. This may mean that not all residents require being decanted. Only vulnerable residents may require decanting.

Energy Efficiency

4.9  As a consequence of the fire safety works specification. The energy efficiency rating of the properties will also be improved.

5.0  Works undertaken to Date

5.1  It was identified that the blocks have suffered from a number of defects, which included fire safety issues, water penetration, window and cladding defects.

5.2  In addition to the above the Fire Brigade served FWH with Enforcement Notices, which led to a waking watch to be introduced in the blocks.

5.3  A comprehensive communal and dwelling interlinked fire alarm system has been installed into the properties. This has now been set up with alarm monitoring arrangements.

5.4  In addition, combustible materials have been removed from communal areas and additional fire stopping has being installed. The waking watch has been removed as the alarm monitoring has been commissioned and now in use.

5.5  The fire alarm system will be monitored in order that any suspected smoke or fire is alerted to the London Fire Brigade.

6.0  Budget Requirements

6.1  The nature of the works is significant and therefore costly. The estimated cost of the works and associated works and consultancy services is £19,870,804. This includes costs associated with supporting more vulnerable residents such as respite care and temporary decanting, inflation and a contingency. The works are high risk and the market is currently extremely volatile in terms of costs and pricing, hence the large contingency. In addition, it is prudent at this stage to make provision for the potential decant of a significant number of residents who may not be vulnerable but who may not be able to stay in their homes during some or all of the works. Therefore, Cabinet is requested to allocate £22M plus VAT to this project.

6.2 The difference in cost from the 6 December Cabinet report is due to ongoing uncertain market cost conditions, and the addition of VAT. Some allowance has been made for ongoing building cost inflation. However, due to several uncertainties in the marketplace and world events, there may be further building cost increases. Cabinet will be advised of this should this become apparent during the course of the project.

 HISTORICAL INFORMATION

Brent Executive Plans including Wembley and South Kilburn when there was a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition LINK

Impact Needs Assessment completed by Robert Johnson, then Housing and Community Care Project Manager, South Kilburn, now a Labour councillor.  LINK

Reponse to a Freedom of Information Request re the South Kilburn Redevelopment LINK