St Raphael's Voice committed to work for investment & improvements to estate after decision not to redevelop

 

When Brent Council announced on August 12th LINK that redevelopment after demolition was no longer an option for St Raphael's Estate, Wembley Matters offered both resident groups active on the estate a guest post  to explain their reaction.

St Raphael's Estate Community Action posted a guest blog on August 13th welcoming the decision LINK.

Today Asif Zamir, Chair of St Raphael's Voice, puts their perspective:

We are happy to have had the opportunity as St Raphael's Voice and residents of St Raphael’s Estate to co-work with the council and KCA to develop both masterplans.

 

Having heard the announcement that redevelopment is no longer financially viable and will not be offered as an option; as per the original commitment from the council there will be no need for a ballot.

 

This has left many residents who were looking to exercise their preferred choice by way of democratic vote (Ballot)disappointed as they felt that redevelopment could have been a life changing opportunity for them financially as well as positively changed and uplifted the area they live in. Others welcomed the decision as it has meant that they will not have to make any changes and can continue with their lives and do not have to plan for any major changes.

 

Many residents are of course disappointed that they won't get the opportunity to vote on the redevelopment and that there is no longer an option for it to happen but we understand the reason for the decision and will work positively with the council to ensure the Infill plus option delivers the best possible result for residents. SRVs role has always been and continues to remain to support and ensure any consultation/work was truly led by the community. It is a role we have always taken seriously and have delivered on it. Over the last few years we have worked hard to support residents and have assisted residents throughout covid - leading the Stonebridge ward mutual aid group offering a food and medical supplies support service, we have set up the residents association which assists in the management of the estate, we have successfully set up youth sports clubs on the estate and lots more. We are committed and will continue to work hard to ensure St Raphael's Estate receives the investment it needs and there continues to be improvements to enrich the lives of residents.

 

St Raphael's should never have become a point scoring platform for organisations such as ASH who with certain individuals attempted to divide the estate - fortunately residents did not play into their hands and continued to support St Raphael's Voice- we have always attempted to be the backbone of the estate and stand up for the rights of residents and amplify their voices it was never their masterplan - it was always ours. Even though we didn't get the opportunity for a ballot, it remains a victory for the residents of St Raphael's Estate, as this process has allowed us to attract investment and further improvements.

Redevelopment no longer an option for St Raphel's Estate Brent Council announces

 Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, yesterday informed residents of St Raphael's Estate that redevelopment of the estate was no long an option. This had appeared to be inevitable once funding  no longer seemed likely due to changed criteria, although the Council continued talks to try and achieve funding.

The change means that there will no longer be private housing built on the estate and there will be no demolitions. Instead there will be infill new housing on parts of the estate and the council promises to 'invest in existing council homes' and carry out improvements on the estate.

The two options for the estate: infill and redevelopment, both had the support of sections of the community. LINK  A ballot would have been held which would have established the true extent of support for either. Now the council has announced the infill decision no ballot will be held.

Controversy is likely to continue, as it has on other estates, on exacly what infill will take place and where, and the impact on residents' amenity.

This is the letter sent to residents.

The Council has also issued a Newsletter outlining potential estate improvements that could be possible over the next 5 years.

 

Detrimental developments – What’s Brent Council’s Game?

 Guest post by Philip Grant

1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.

What do these three proposed developments have in common?

 

1.    1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge, with its planned demolition of a locally listed heritage building;

2.    St Raphael’s Estate, with plans to build on part of Brent River Park; and

3.    Kilburn Square, where it’s proposed to build extra homes on an existing green space with trees.

 

The answer is that all three were drawn up by Brent Council officers, and all three go against Brent Council’s own adopted planning policies.

 

Brent River Park, looking towards Wembley Point, with St Raphael’s to the left.

 

How could officers in Brent’s Regeneration major projects team even consider proposals that breach those planning policies? I found out, from a Freedom of Information Act request into the origins of the 1 Morland Gardens proposals, that as early as December 2018 (three months before the first official pre-application meeting between the project team and planning officers), an unnamed planning officer had told them that ‘we’re not likely to refuse a scheme due to loss of this building.’ Planning officers had given the green light to ignore Brent’s heritage assets planning policy DMP7, and backed that up all the way to the Planning Committee meeting twenty months later.

 

A recent protest against Brent’s Kilburn Square proposals.

 

In a recent blog on the Kilburn Square proposals, the Chairman of the local residents’ association said that Brent was ‘playing games’ with existing residents and their near neighbours. There are certainly some games being played by Council officers, and some of those involve “funny business” and questionable practices.

 

It’s perhaps not unexpected that Brent’s planning officers will “aid and abet” their colleagues in Regeneration’s capital projects team, and maintain that ‘on balance’ it is ‘acceptable’ for some of Brent’s planning policies to be broken, where Brent Council is the applicant. But how do they get around other legal requirements over which the Council does not have total control?

 

The 1 Morland Gardens scheme included building out over a highway / footpath and a community garden. As I couldn’t see that the Council had taken the necessary steps to make this possible, I submitted an FoI request in April to get some answers. In a guest blog last month, I was able to show that the Council had not yet followed those legal processes, which meant that the project would be delayed. I wondered whether this was just a careless oversight, or whether Council officers had not bothered to take those steps, hoping that as they were “the Council” they could get away with ignoring them!

 

But surely they had appropriated the main site for planning purposes? After all, the details of what was required to fulfil that legal requirement had been set out in the report to Cabinet on 14 January 2020, and Brent’s Cabinet had delegated responsibility to the then Strategic Director for Regeneration to carry out the required process for this. 

 

I put in another FoI request, and will ask Martin to attach a copy of the response I received last week (the replies provided by Brent are in red). You will see that, eighteen months on from being given that authority, Council officers have not even begun the process. Perhaps they never intended to (after all, you’d have to provide supporting evidence to justify that the heritage building is “surplus to requirements”, among other hurdles). Now they will have no choice!

 

To make my point, I forwarded a copy of the FoI response to Alan Lunt, the current Strategic Director, and referring to this and the earlier failure over the stopping-up order asked:

 

‘Please let me know whether this means that Brent Council does not intend to proceed with its ill-conceived planning application 20/0345, involving the demolition of the locally listed heritage asset, the Victorian villa "Altamira".’

 

I received this prompt response from him:

 

‘Thank you for your email. The Council intends to continue with the proposed development of the site in question.’

 

The demolition of the Victorian villa, currently used by the Brent Start adult education college (for which it was acquired, restored and converted from a disused members’ club in 1994), was meant to be principally so that a more up-to-date college facility could be built on the site. But the FoI response (see attached) claims that the “compelling case” for the appropriation of the site will be ‘housing needs’.

 

The shortage of housing in the Borough is a real problem (and a continuing one, because it was a problem 45 years ago, when I worked for a Harlesden-based housing association!). This is a common theme in all three proposed developments that I listed at the start of this article. Yes, Brent has been set challenging targets for the number of new homes which should be built in the borough over the next 20 years. But does this justify some of the tactics being used to force through developments which are clearly detrimental to the environment of the areas they are proposed for?

 

Council officers are ‘playing games’ with the lives of Brent’s residents. But why are they playing those games, what right do they have to play them and who is encouraging this behaviour? It is about time that this was explained, and if our elected councillors won’t challenge what is happening and let us know why, perhaps we need to demand some answers ourselves.

 

Philip Grant.

 

Brent Council's Response to Philip Grant's Freedom of Information Request

 

St Raphael's Community raises doubts over Brent Council's demolition and rebuild plans

 St Raphs campaigners have raised doubts about whether Brent Council will be able to go ahead with the option to demolish and rebuild the estate following a GLA announcement.

The Newsletter is reproduced below. Click bottom right square to enlarge.

Winning hearts and minds on St Raph's

Two groups are active on social media with differing views on the current consultation taking place over the future of St Raphael's Estate.  Brent Council has put forward two possibilities - refurbishment with infill or demolition with the new blocks financed by private development on the same site.  South Kilburn has come into the equation both as a positive exemplar and a negative one.

From St Raphael's Estate Community

www.architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk

From St Raphael's Voice

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-community/st-raphaels-estate/

Comments are welcome but please focus on the issues not the people involved.

'Old St Raphs' to be excluded from redevelopment/refurbishment plans going to Brent Cabinet

Brent Council Press Release (unedited)

Recommendations for which parts of St Raphael’s should be included in proposals to improve the area, and create more much-needed affordable council housing, will be put to cabinet by Brent Council on Monday 9 December.

The council is considering two approaches, infill development and redevelopment, for the future of the estate, which straddles Neasden and Stonebridge.

Since November 2018, the council has been working with residents to create community-led masterplans for each approach while undertaking a detailed study of the design and financial considerations around the proposals.  

Following this work, the council is recommending that only the area known locally as ‘St Raphael’s Estate’ be included within the future masterplans, and that the area known locally as the ‘Old Estate’ is removed from the masterplanning exercise.

The council is also recommending that a local lettings plan be established once infill or redevelopment has taken place, to help the council tenants most in need living across St Raphael’s to benefit from the opportunities created.

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council’s Chief Executive said: 

"We’re committed to making sure, alongside residents, we develop the best possible options for the future St Raph’s. Our recommendations to cabinet are the result of detailed work from industry experts and nearly a year of feedback from residents, and conversations with more than 50% of households on the estate. We look forward to continuing to work together with residents, local businesses and community groups to develop the masterplans for both infill and redevelopment.” 

The council has written to all households on the estate to share its recommendations, and to answer frequently asked questions.

A series of drop in sessions for residents on the estate will also be held over the next two weeks at Henderson House, Henderson Close:

• Tuesday 3 December – Friday 6 December (9.30am – 12.30pm and 2 - 5pm)
• Monday 9 December  - Thursday 12 December (9.30am – 12.30pm and 2 - 5pm)

Comments from residents on this news welcome.

St Raphael's residents appeal to Green AM Sian Berry to ensure they have a say on estate refurbishment/rebuild

Residents of St Rapahel's Estate in Brent have launched a petition appealing to Sian Berry, Green Party AM, to intervene with London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, to ensure that the power for residents to control the future of their estate is upheld.

The petition is available HERE and the text is below

We the residents of St Raphael Estate,  do not want Regeneration. We want  Refubishment with the clause that we are  in control of how this is done.  we need to protect our homes and open space. We need to preserve it for our children and the generations to come. If our estate undergoes regeneration we will lose our community, pay higher rents,  private housing association as landlords, tower blocks, short and unsecure tenancy, higher water rates, losing green space, breaking up of famillies with older children.

The  upheaval of relocation, while work is being carried out, there is no guarantee of coming back to the Estate or London. Although St Raphael’s estate has always had pejorative connotations to it and is portrayed as an unplesant place. This is wrong, there is a strong , united community  here who do not want to be separated from their famillies , stripped of the place they have called home for so long , moving away from neighbour, friends and family simply because it’s profitable to the investors they’re leading us into an ambigious future. We need to achieve 2000 signature, so we can forward our plight to the London assembly member Sian Berry to insure that the Mayor pledge to allow the Residents the power to control the future of their estate is upheld

-->

Some issues for the St Raphael's consultation meeting on December 8th

Brent Council will be consulting with residents on the St Raphael's Estate next Friday on their plans to redevelop the estate. St Raphael's will be the first estate where residents will be balloted on the changes.

Concerns have been expressed on social media over possibilities of gentrification and social cleansing with private housing being built on the estate to help pay for the redevelopment. There are also worries over the potential for the loss of green space, not just in the area surrounding the estate which stretches to the River Brent, but within the estate itself.  People are aware of what happened in West Hendon with private developments next to the Welsh Harp reservoir and social housing close to the poor air quality main road. St Raphael's borders on the heavily polluted North Circular.

Another issue is the need to ensure the future of the premises of various community groups, nurseries, children's centre and the Sufra Foodbank and Edible Garden if new blocks are to be built requiring additional land.

St Raphael's Estate is on a flood plain for the River Brent. There are artificial hillocks between the river and the estate which protects it to some extent but locals speak of underground springs in the area. They suggest that this could limit any high rise developments. There was flooding in the area in the 1970s.

With climate change underway the flood risk is clearly something to be considered. This is the longer term risk from the Environment Agency: