Serious scrutiny requires review of how Brent works with residents on regeneration

This is the full version of Pete Firmin's presentation to Brent Scrutiny Committee tonight. Not all of it was delivered due to the time limit on presentations.

I’m the chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury tenants and Residents Association on the South Kilburn Estate behind Kilburn Park tube station.

We welcome the opportunity to raise our concerns about many aspects of the South Kilburn regeneration. While we thought it rather late in the day, we were pleased when the previous chair of Scrutiny, Dan Filson said there would be a task force set up to look at the issues involved and that residents would have substantial input into that.

He contacted us mentioning many issues which should be looked at, including:

how the decanting process has gone so far, and 

what lessons can Brent (and maybe other authorities too) learn from the project and apply in future schemes. 

whether the properties should have had greater internal usable space  

the disruption during building works  

the amount and nature of external social amenities like play space, open space, doctor surgeries, primary school facilities, community hall facilities or general circulation  

In addition, one of our Kilburn Councillors, Rita Conneelly, suggested to himand us additional issues:

What was delivered and was it the best we could have ?

Whether choosing Catalyst and Willmott Dixon was best for this phase of the development and whether Scrutiny feels Catalyst and Willmott Dixon have breached significantly enough of their contract for Scrutiny to recommend they not be used in future commissions (remembering that Willmott Dixon failed to remain enrolled in the Considerate Constructers scheme, failed to manage their site and minimise impact on residents and failed to deliver the project any where near on time; for example).

What concerns were raised by residents when the regeneration plans were first publicised- and how have these borne out- and most importantly, still not been resolved in cases (e.g. pressures on parking and community cohesion)

Who has been chosen for future phases and how have we insured we will not have the above problems with them?

whether perfectly good blocks which could have provided good homes into the future with a good refurbishment program were sacrificed so that developers could build private flats on prime land? Whilst the blocks in most disrepair have been left until later phases of the programme leaving many families and children in substandard housing for years unnecessarily. 

The report in front of you says under 6.0:

However it is also considered timely to refresh the Master-plan. Therefore, inconjunction with Planning colleagues it is proposed to consult local residentsand tenants on a revised and refreshed master-plan and accompanying SPD.

Brent will appoint master-plan architects, Cost Consultants and also engagewith the local community in regard to proposals. These proposals will considermatters such as, infrastructure, density, mix and range of accommodation, phasing and also the possibility of incorporating additional sites into the Master plan area.

But it is not just a matter of appointing expensive consultants anddrawing up new plans. They should not be drawn up without critical appraisal with real input from residents. That’s why we hope you will press ahead urgently with the task force which Dan Filson proposed.

Missing from the report in front of you is virtually any mention of problems with the regeneration of South Kilburn. There is just  a passing mention to `slippage’ under 5.0 `Current position’.

Of particular concern for us is that there is no mention of the Kilburn Park Catalyst/Wilmott Dixon development. Yet this is not complete even though it is already over a year late. And there are still several important aspects to deal with, such as the recent discovery that not enough refuse storage was planned to cope with both the new and existing residents. While Brent and Catalyst are arguing over whose fault this is, we are the ones suffering with frequently overfull storage bins.

This is just the latest of the relentless problems we have had with a building site next to us. I’ve given you each a copy of the summary we drew up on April so you can see the scale of the problem at least.

While the last 2 paragraphs in the report highlight contractors working with local residents, our experience on the ground has been the opposite.

For instance, under `Green Space’  (page 3) the report says “there is also a communal garden space, provided as part of the CatalystDevelopment, which will also be available to local residents.” Has it been forgotten that this space is only communal because we had a very long and sometimes bitter row with catalyst who were insistent that it would be only for the residents of the new blocks?

We have wider concerns than just the way in which developers impact on those neighbouring their sites, and have attempted to raise them.

The other document I’ve passed you is a resolution passed by our Tenants and Residents association annual general meeting in July of last year. The issues there fall into 3 categories – the attitude of Wilmott Dixon/Catalyst towards us, but also issues around planning – such as the closeness of new blocks to existing ones, which we raised at the planning stage, and have become more obviously dreadful with construction, and our concerns about what regeneration has meant for South Kilburn in general. We have attempted to get these at least addressed by the lead member for regeneration, but despite frequent requests (and promises by her) she has not engaged with us in the 15 months since it was sent to her.

One small example of the issues which have not been addressed – regeneration has significantly increased the population of South Kilburn. The proposed new  `health centre’ has been given much publicity by the Council, yet this is the bringing together 3 existing GP practices. It is not an increased in GP facilities for an increased population.

The section of the report under 5.0 headed “Salusbury Road Car Park Site” reads as if the siting of the vent shaft is settled (in favour of Canterbury Works). It isn’t and won’t be at least until after Parliament has heard the several petitions residents have submitted against the shaft being sited next to a primary school and in the middle of a residential area. Quite honestly. people in the area are shocked that neither HS2 or Brent even attempted to engage with us while arguing for the site to be changed, even though the opposition of school parents, governors and local residents was known to Council officers.B

Which brings me to my final point - the Council has not ensured that developers listen to and respect residents . Indeed Brent Council itself has declined to enforce its own standards with developers and has failed to seriously consult and involve residents in decision-making. For instance, the report says under `Sports provision’ (4.3) that Land was provided for the construction of a new sports hall facility. Built by Westminster City Council, primarily for the, expanded, St. Augustine’s Secondary School. The Council secured reduced rates for South Kilburn residents as part of the deal”. I checked with other members of our TRA before coming here and no-one can recall having seen this advertised anywhere. At the same ti8nme, we have been arguing for years that residents should have use of the Multi Use games Area attached to St Mary’s school in South Kilburn, which was partly funded by the Council and we are still unable to achieve this. Similarly the Council has said residents were consulted about what should go in the new urban park on Albert Road( where HS2’s lorries will incidentally be passing for years). None of us can remember seeing a consultation.

If you want serious scrutiny and a serious appraisal of how regeneration has gone so far, you could start by arguing for serious change in how Brent works with, involves and respects local residents. A proper task force which looks at the problems and pitfalls would be a useful start to that.

HS2 and South Kilburn – stitched up by Brent, but fighting back

The leaflet distributed outside the school

Guest blog by Pete Firmin, chair, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association

On Monday 12th October, HS2 – the proposed London to Birmingham high speed rail link – deposited “additional provisions” with parliament with the proposed siting of a vent shaft at Canterbury Works in South Kilburn. LINK

Originally, HS2 proposed that this be on the car park next to Queens Park station, but under pressure from Brent Council it proposes to build on this new site. The  issues involved have previously been spelt out on Wembley Matters.

The Canterbury Works site is next to a junior school (St Mary's) and close to many homes.

Throughout this process neither HS2 or Brent Council has attempted to consult with those who would be most affected by the decision.

HS2 sent residents letters several years ago saying their property might be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order, but this was only in relation to the fact that HS2 will go under or close to our flats. The only meeting HS2 has attended with residents was a “Brent Connect” forum several years ago when this issue was raised with them. They have never followed up on the inadequate response given at the time.

But all that was well before the issue of the moving of the proposed vent shaft arose. Since then, one letter from HS2 about an “information event” (see below), nothing else.

While HS2 has failed to consult in any way, Brent claims to have done so, although this does not stand up to serious scrutiny, and in fact stinks of hypocrisy and duplicity.

Unlike HS2, Brent has never sent information round to all residents in the area about HS2.

While Council Officers have held meetings with Councillors and the (Hampstead and Kilburn) MP, they have never held meetings with either representatives of local residents or parents of children at the school, let alone open meetings which all could attend.

On the contrary, they have put out misinformation implying there has been consultation where there has been none.

So Council Officers have circulated a letter which says that the headteacher of the school and the Diocese are not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft next to the school. Not surprisingly, this fails to mention that this (new) headteacher refuses to consult with parents on the issue. Under the previous head teacher (replaced over the summer) the board of governors were opposed, the head was opposed, and they worked with parents to show their opposition. All this is well known to Council Officers, but they choose to pretend it never happened. Conveniently for Brent Council the board of governors has been scrapped in favour of an Interim Executive Board. The new head says she is only interested in the education of the children and not what is happening around the school. Clearly the welfare of pupils is low on her agenda and that of the Diocese.

The South Kilburn Trust is also reported as being neutral on the issue. While the Trust is reported in many Council documents as “representing the interests of all South Kilburn residents”, the only contact it has with us is over use by residents of a school playing area. It has certainly never asked our views about the vent shaft.

In the same letter Council Officers say that Peter Jones, chair of the Tenants Steering Group, is not opposed to the siting of the vent shaft in South Kilburn. Those not in the know (like HS2 and most Brent Councillors) reading that will think it means local residents have been consulted. Far from it. The Tenants Steering Group is a forum for those tenants being rehoused under regeneration. That does not include most of those closest to the proposed vent shaft site (including in our 3 blocks). In fact when 2 members of our TRA found their way to a meeting of the Tenants Steering Group they were told the meeting was not for them but they could stay as long as they did not say anything! There is no pretence that the chair of this group (who does not live near to the proposed site) even consulted the forum he is chair of, let alone anyone living close to the vent shaft.

What is known to Council Officers is that our TRA passed a motion unanimously opposing this proposed siting of the vent shaft. Mysteriously, this information has not been passed on.

Worse, when Brent Council considered the issue of HS2 and the siting of the vent shaft at full Council in March 2014, our TRA was refused the right to address the Council on our concerns. We were told that these would be taken into account. They weren’t. And Brent has made no effort to inform residents of developments since, even though it has been pushing at every opportunity to change the proposed siting of the vent shaft.

Latest development – on Thursday 8th and Monday 12th October, Brent, together with HS2, held an `information event’ in South Kilburn studios. Such events have been likened to car salesrooms, at which you are given glossy leaflets and surrounded by people keen to sell your their wares. If this was meant as some kind of `consultation’, then it has to be asked why it was planned to submit the proposals to parliament on the Monday when this event was still going on. Clearly there was no intention to take the responses of residents into account.

To reassure us, we have been told there would be proper monitoring of vehicle movements to and from the site, times of working etc. By who? Brent Council, precisely the people who have failed to do anything about the abuses by developers on neighbouring sites for the last 4 years and a big reason why we are opposed to the siting of the vent shaft here. Very reassuring.

At the Thursday of this event, one residents’ representative asked why no Brent Councillors were present to justify their decision, rather than leaving it entirely to Brent and HS2 employees. Subsequently, all Brent Labour Councillors were written to, asking them to attend. Only 5 of the 50 even bothered to reply. Whether this shows an unwillingness to justify something they voted for, or a total ignorance of the issues, I will leave readers of Wembley Matters to decided. It does rather reinforce the view that it is senior Council officers who make the decisions, not Councillors.

When leafleting residents and parents of the children at the school against the proposal we have yet to find anyone who thinks it a good idea. Though the headteacher did come out and shout at us about “lies” in our leaflet, an allegation which she was not able to sustain. Incidentally, the head is so acquainted with the area that she had to be told where SK studios is, even though it is less than 3 minutes walk from the school gates.

A Council officer has now apparently said he will organise a meeting with school parents, though he seems to think he can do this through the school head who is totally uninterested. If such a meeting should take pace, it will be to report a fait accompli rather than take the views of parents into consideration.

It will be reported that not many residents (around 100 in total) visited the `information event’. Could this be because they feel the decision has been taken and there is not a lot they can do about it?

Residents and parents of children at the school have until 13th November to petition parliament against this proposal, and we will be out trying to get as much support as possible. I’m pleased to say we have the support of our 2 active Kilburn Councillors in this, and our MP, Tulip Siddiq, has raised our concerns in parliament.
 

Regeneration and Gentrification in South Kilburn

Following his recent guest blog about South Kilburn, Pete Firmin, took me on a tour of the estate and talked about some of the issues confronting residents. In particular we discussed the HS2 vent which HS2 want to site on a carpark next to Queens Park Bakerloo and Overground station but which Brent Council wants to site next to St Mary's Catholic Primary School.

It is estimated that the building the vent will take 6 years and at the construction peak will necessitate 187 truck trips into the site and then 187 out again.

It is not clear that people moving into the new flats have been made aware of the disruption that awaits them.

In this video Pete highlights the issues: