Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

I’ve already written about the Morland Gardens parts of the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to next week’s (11 December 2023) Cabinet meeting, and Martin has also posted a blog about the temporary accommodation proposals in its South Kilburn section. In this article I will cover some of the other points that caught my eye from that report.

 

I am not seeking to underestimate the “challenges” which the Council faces over meeting current housing needs, particularly over the shortage of Central Government funding, rising construction costs and higher interest rates since the disastrous mini-budget during the short-lived Truss premiership. Brent has aimed to do more over housing than many other London Councils, and the recommendations in this report include to ‘approve the use of usable Capital reserves to fund’ the New Council Homes Programme (“NCHP”), and to provide extra resources to tackle the current temporary accommodation crisis. 

 

A recent feature of such reports is a “Cabinet Member Foreword” (though whether these are written by the Lead Members, or for them by a Council Officer, is unclear). I was struck by these words from this Foreword’s para. 3.5: ‘this report emphasises the importance of being open and transparent with all ….’ I agree that openness and transparency are very important, but does this report deliver on those words?

 

In the report, are the Council being honest about what they have achieved so far? The Cabinet Member for Housing says: ‘we are on track to meet our target of 5,000 homes by 2028’. When the NCHP target was first launched five years ago, the aim was 5,000 affordable homes built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council set itself ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’ So, they’ve missed that target, and replaced it with another!

 

 

Table 1 in the report (above), which should be accurate because the “numbers” have been “cleansed”, shows that 3,901 affordable homes will have been finished in the borough in the five years to March 2024 (although the “by tenure” column totals 3,943! - see my corrections in red). 812 of those are shown as delivered by Brent Council. But only 560 (those described as “General Needs”) of the new Council homes will be “genuinely affordable”, and of those 235 were for existing Council tenants being moved from older blocks due to be demolished. 

 

The affordable homes provided by RPs (Registered Providers of social housing, such as Housing Associations) make up 3,089 of the 3,901 total, but only 940 of those homes appear to be “genuinely affordable”. That is just over 30% of the total, with the rest being “intermediate” homes, such as shared ownership. Although most of these will have received planning consent before Brent’s Local Plan came into force in February 2022, that is the opposite of the tenure split for affordable housing which is now supposed to apply: 70% genuinely affordable and no more than 30% “intermediate” affordable housing.

 

More details about the types of “affordable housing” can be found in an article, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply, which I wrote after a previous Cabinet update in November 2022.

 

The report has a section headed “Schemes on site and in main works contract”, and there are two schemes in particular from this that I would draw attention to. The first of these is Watling Gardens, the Council’s positive publicity over the start of work on which was mentioned in another article on Brent’s Council housing in October.

 

 

While the report says that this scheme ‘is currently on track’, it would cost more than the £38.5m which Brent’s Cabinet approved as the contract award price in June 2022. Brent’s answer is to issue an instruction that the project must be “value engineered”. What does that mean? It means that it will still have to built as planned, but using some materials which are less expensive than those originally intended. Previous examples of “value engineering” which come to mind are the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in some public buildings during cost saving measures in the 1960s to 1980s, and the £300k “saved” by using cheaper cladding when Grenfell Tower was being refurbished!

 

The stage and TV drama, where all the words were taken directly from Inquiry transcripts!

 

I’m not trying to suggest that the cost saving at Watling Gardens would result in anything as life-threatening as Grenfell Tower, but in the interests of transparency the public, and particularly future residents of the development (including those whose homes were demolished with the promise of a replacement there), deserve to be told what cheaper materials will be used as part of this “value engineering”.

 

I have written about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone project on a number of occasions, including about the extra GLA funding it received, and about the 152 out of 250 homes on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue which Brent’s “developer partner” will get for private sale, rather than being Council homes for Brent people in housing need. The report now says there will be less than 250 homes, because of the need for extra staircases, as a result of fire safety changes following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

 

 

I’m pleased to see that Brent appears to have learned one lesson from Morland Gardens (the need to begin work before planning consent expires), but why has it taken nearly three years to get to this stage? However, the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!

 

You need to read to the end of the report, on page 21, to find out what it means by ‘the importance of being open and transparent’, which I quoted near the start of this article. It appears that, to Brent Council and its Cabinet, this is more to do with the messages it gives out, rather than a commitment to being genuinely open and transparent about everything:

 

 

In other words, it is the usual “spin” that Brent Council puts out, either only sharing “good news” stories (usually with the Leader and/or one of his Cabinet colleagues getting the credit for something positive) or giving the reasons (excuses?) for why they can’t do what they had originally promised to deliver.

Philip Grant

 

Kilburn Square – Brent planners seek to reduce Affordable Housing by stealth

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

The recent guest post by the Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, Kilburn Square – Decision time (Chapter One) is finally here this Wednesday, ends with a reference to a future decision which will have to be made if planning permission for Brent Council’s proposed scheme is approved. But if Planning Officers get their way, there will be no Chapter Two.

 

Martin’s earlier blog about the various Brent infill housing applications on the agenda for Wednesday evening’s Planning Committee meeting, Say after me, 'The benefits of the scheme outweigh the harm/impact/conflict with policy', showed how Brent’s Planning Officers are using claimed “public benefits” to justify ignoring any objection points against the applications they are recommending should be accepted.

 

The main “public benefit” which they say would ‘far outweigh any harm’ on the Kilburn Square application (despite the many valid objection points set out in the KVRA Chair’s recent article) is that the proposed 139 new homes would all be affordable housing. That is what the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final) says, despite Brent’s Cabinet giving the green light to some of them being "converted" to shared ownership or even outright sale at its meeting in November 2022.

 

The rent details from the application’s Affordable Housing Statement (Final)

 

The affordable housing proposed in the Kilburn Square application is 99 "general needs" homes at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent ("LAR") level, and 40 New Accommodation for Independent Living ("NAIL") flats at the "intermediate" Local Housing Allowance rent level.

 

Other local Brent housing estate applications (Watling Gardens and Windmill Court) approved in 2022, under the current Brent Local Plan policies, also showed that all of their new homes would be for genuinely affordable housing (LAR, or Social Rent level for returning existing tenants). The affordable housing condition (Condition 3) in their planning consent letters made clear that 100% of the homes would be affordable housing, as set out in those applications. The reason given for this condition was: 'In the interests of proper planning.'

 

There have been no changes in planning policy or law since those consents were issued in April 2022, so the position should be the same for Kilburn Square.

 

However, if you look closely at the proposed Condition 3 in the draft decision notice, tucked away at the end of the Planning Officers’ Committee Report for Kilburn Square, it says:

 

'The development hereby approved shall contain 139 residential dwellings. A minimum of 50 % of those dwellings (measured by habitable room or number of homes) shall be provided as Affordable housing ....'

 

I submitted an objection to this proposed condition, and I will ask Martin to attach a copy of the pdf version of it (which I submitted online, and emailed to the three key Planning Officers - Head of Planning, Development Management Manager and Case Officer – on Sunday evening) at the foot of this article, for anyone to read if they are interested. 

 

I also objected to a weird Condition 4 in the draft decision notice, also concerning affordable housing, for which there was no mention or explanation of in the body of the Committee Report:

 

The opening part of the proposed Condition 4 from the draft decision notice.

 

If the application is approved on Wednesday, as recommended by Planning Officers, allowing affordable housing Condition 3 to stand would totally undermine the "public benefits" which the application is meant to provide. 

 

A minimum of 50% of the proposed new homes would be 70, leaving 69 which Brent's New Council Homes team could "convert" away from genuinely affordable LAR rent to local people in housing need. They could even be “converted” from affordable housing to private sale, leaving as few as 30 of the 99 “general needs” homes at LAR rent level, promised by the application, actually delivered by Brent Council’s Kilburn Square project.

 

What is equally as bad is that Planning Officers are trying to do this "by the back door". When Brent wanted to "convert" some of the Watling Gardens LAR homes to shared ownership, they had to make a fresh planning application to change Condition 3 in the 100% affordable housing consent they'd received for the scheme.

 

My objection is seeking to have Condition 3 of the planning consent, if Planning Committee approve the plans, require that 100% of the 139 homes should be affordable housing, as set out in the application itself. 

 

I am also seeking that the Condition(s) should include a requirement that any change the applicant (Brent Council!) wishes to make to that affordable housing condition should be made by way of a “material change” application under Section 73, Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That type of application requires public consultation (so the chance to object), and detailed consideration of the reasons and evidence given for seeking a change.

 

I had drawn attention to the discrepancy between what the Kilburn Square application promised for affordable housing and the November 2022 Cabinet decision on “conversion” of units from LAR last February (Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!). When Brent’s planning agent did not submit revised affordable housing details, Brent’s Head of Planning promised that the application would be ‘considered as submitted’. 

 

This should have meant that the affordable housing condition would specify 100% affordable housing. To change that, by stealth, to ‘a minimum of 50% affordable housing’ feels like a dirty trick, which Brent’s Planning Officers should be ashamed of!

 

Philip Grant

 

 

 

Watling Gardens costs rise by £3 million to £42 million

 In a decision announced yesterday the rise in the costs of the Watling Gardens contract by £2,964,971 to £41,980,605 has been approved.

EXTRACT

That the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security, in consultation with the Leader and Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources & Reform:

 

i)             Approves the costs increase ahead of imminent execution of the design and build contract for Watling Gardens with Hill Partnerships Ltd, originally in the sum of fixed price of £38,535,643. Plus the additional sums of £480,000 to reflect the tenure changes required for the viability assessment undertaken and agreed by Cabinet in June 2022.

 

ii)            Notes and approves that the cost increase sought is £2,964,971, which will render the total cost of construction to £41,980,605.

 

iii)           Approves the increase of costs to be confirmed and conveyed to Hill Partnership Ltd in a side letter, which will state that the uplifted costs will be dealt with under the costs fluctuation within the JCT contract.

Brent Council insists change from London Afforable Rent to Shared Ownership at Watling Gardens is still affordable despite latter needing an annual income of £60,000

 Comment from Philip Grant in a personal capacityL

Brent's Head of Planning has issued a letter on 18 August 2022 granting consent to the change from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership for 24 homes in the new Watling Gardens scheme.

I've included an extract from the Final Delegated Report on which the decision was based, but basically Brent's planners are saying that both LAR and Shared Ownership are "Affordable Housing".

They also say that as there is (or was, in 2018) an identified need for Shared Ownership homes in the borough, it doesn't matter that the Council wants to replace homes which would be "genuinely affordable" with homes which require the shared-ownership lessee to have an annual income of up to £60k!

This argument ignores the fact that there are thousands of people on Brent's housing / homeless list who need genuinely affordable housing, and that Brent's planners have approved hundreds of other shared ownership flats as part of the "affordable housing" requirement on applications by private developers or housing associations in recent years'

Extract:

'Regarding comments on the affordability of intermediate units for Brent residents, the definition of 'Affordable' comes from the Brent Local Plan, London Plan and NPPF. Intermediate (Shared Ownership) is treated as an Affordable Housing product in Brent, but the significant need for those on lower incomes is recognised by the 70 % target for Social / LAR homes. 

However the Brent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2018), which forms part of the evidence base shaping the housing policies contained in the Local Plan, outlines that there is a proportion of residents within the Borough who require homes which would be classified at an Intermediate level. Therefore, introducing an element of shared ownership units into the proposal ensures this need is met.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the non-material amendment procedure as there would be no material change to the type or quantum of development approved under the original permission, nor the overall amount of affordable housing which will remain at 100%.'

Watling Gardens – what happened next?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month, Martin wrote that there was more to the Watling Gardens new homes than the Council was letting on, in its press statement claiming that it was providing 125 new homes for local families. This followed on from a guest post I had written about the rushed and incorrect report on Watling Gardens which was going to the Cabinet Meeting on 20 June.

 

Brent wanted to reduce the number of London Affordable Rent homes at the last minute, and replace 24 of those with Shared Ownership instead. In order to go ahead with awarding a construction contract on that basis, they needed to change the “Affordable Housing” condition in the planning consent they’d received for the project in April this year.

 

Opening section of application letter from Jones Lang LaSalle on 14 July 2022.

 

Variations to planning consents are covered by two sections of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Section 73 is for “material” amendments, while Section 96A covers “non-material” amendments. An application on behalf of Brent Council (as developer) was submitted to Brent Council (as Local Planning Authority) on 14 July, on the basis that what was being sought was a non-material amendment.

 

Unlike Section 73, applications under Section 96A do not have to be put out for consultation, and are usually dealt with by Planning Officers under “delegated authority” within 28 days. However, they do appear on the Council’s planning website, so I read the supporting documents for the new application, 22/2519. 

 

Planning agents are paid good money to present their client’s case in the best light, but I felt that the “spin” in JLL’s letter might be considered misleading on a couple of points. One of these was the claim that ‘there will be no change to the amount of affordable housing being provided’. I have been keen for some time to remind Council Officers and Cabinet members (and now agents acting on their behalf) of the truth about different types of “affordable housing”.

 

The rest of this “guest post” is the “neutral” comment on application 22/2519 which I submitted online on 25 July (although I have added some relevant illustrations to break up the text):-

 

‘This application seeks to amend condition 3 of Brent Council’s application 21/2473 (“the main application”), which was approved as recently as three months ago.

 

1) In the Affordable Housing Statement, prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle (“JLL”) and submitted as part of the supporting documents for the main application, this was the paragraph on viability:

 

A paragraph from the Affordable Housing Statement on application 21/2473.

 

‘Viability

A separate Viability Assessment Report has been prepared by Savills under separate cover and demonstrates that Brent Council are providing in excess of the maximum viable amount of affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, Brent Council are fully committed to delivering these much-needed new affordable homes.’

 

In this application, 22/2519, JLL’s covering letter says:

 

‘Brent Council seeks to alter the wording of Condition 3 of planning permission ref:21/2473 to vary the tenure mix of the affordable homes at the Watling Gardens Estate in order to improve the overall financial viability of the scheme.’

 

The earlier statement acknowledged that the amount of affordable housing proposed in the main application was more than would be financially viable, but said that, despite this, Brent Council were fully committed to delivering the affordable homes set out in that application.

 

Now, the applicant is seeking to go back on that commitment. 

 

But JLL, on behalf of Brent Council, have not submitted any updated viability data to justify the proposed amendment. Shouldn’t such additional information be a requirement?

 

An elevation drawing showing two views of Block B at Watling Gardens, from application 21/2473.

 

2) At the end of the section of JLL’s covering letter which sets out their proposed new wording for Condition 3, the agent states:

 

‘The proposed amendment does not materially impact permission 21/2473 and will enable a financially viable scheme to be delivered.’

 

I believe that there WOULD be a material impact in substituting 24 shared ownership homes instead of what were to be 24 homes for London Affordable Rent. 

 

Extract from JLL’s covering letter of 14 July, with details of the proposed shared ownership flats.

 

Although shared ownership is technically an affordable housing tenure, it is not an affordable home for the vast majority of Brent residents in housing need. 

 

The 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report found that the only really affordable Council housing in the borough was homes at Social Rent level. London Affordable Rent levels were just about affordable for some families, if they could top up their incomes with Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. 

 

Shared ownership homes SHOULD NOT be treated as “affordable homes” for the purpose of affordable housing in Brent. 

 

To take away 24 London Affordable Rent homes from the mix in Condition 3 would effectively reduce the number of General Needs Housing homes available to residents on the housing waiting list, or in temporary accommodation, by more than 35% (from 67 down to 43).’

Philip Grant.

 

Common threads emerging as Council tenants rebel over Brent's infill plans

 Newland Court, Wembley Park

Brent Council's project to use space on existing council estates to build new council homes is running into trouble from current tenants.  In a nutshell the council's commendable commitment to house people on the waiting list in council accommodation puts puts the backs up of existing residents  who feel patronised and treated with carelessness, if not disdain.  

Early on the building of 4 bungalows on existing car park and garage spaces encountered opposaition but is now nearing completion.  The saga of Kilburn Square has been frequently covered on Wembley Matters and more recently Rokesby Close, Watling Gardens, Clement Close and Newland Court have all provoked opposition.

There are several themes emerging across the borough. Claims include:

1. Consultation letters not delivered

2. Poor information, wrong information and lack of detail on the consultation letters

3. Consultation web portals that are difficult to access

4. Questions phrased  in  such a way as to provide the answers the council wnts

5. Insufficient time to respond to the consultation

6.  Loss of open space that was previously designed into estates by enlightened architects and planners that became essential during lockdown and loss of mature trees,

7. Estates picked out to cram in much needed affordable housing while the council encourages the building of unaffordable housing, often sold abroad, in other parts of the borough. 

8. The proposals are being made despite the council's lack of response to long-term issues on some of the estates.

Some residents feel that estates are being picked off one by one and suggest that those affected should get together to campaign on these themes.

 

This letter sent to Cllr Promise Knight and Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) covers some of the issues and more:

OBJECTION LETTER AGAINST A NEW DEVELOPMENT AT INITIAL STAGE OF CONSULTATION IN NEWLAND COURT WEMBLEY HA9 9LZ 

 

I am a tenant living in Newland Court for the last 22 years. I OBJECT to this planned development going ahead at Newland Court in its entirety. I am aware that currently we are at the initial consultation stage of the planning. I am also aware that there will be a further consultation in September 2022. 

 

It is important that I express how this new development will affect residents. 

 

Whether we are tenants in Newland Court as well as adjacent Grendon Garden feel about these new development plans. Several residents feel insignificant at both locations because they did who not receive the Newsletter with the Feedback form when it was supposedly hand delivered to all. 

 

After making a call to Brent Council last week, I found out that the Newsletter was delivered to every household sometime around mid-June 2022. I can confirm I did not receive it. I found out about this after speaking with a neighbour in early July 2022 only to find out that we have to respond by the end of the day of the 12th July 2022. 

 

I was aware of some plans regarding improvements to the Newland Court area has been on the agenda for about by Brent Council for the past three years. However, I as well as other residents knew nothing about this plan until a few weeks ago. We have a very short time to consider the development plan with vague and misleading information provided on the Newsletter. The majority of residents do not see this plan as an improvement like me. It is important to take into account that all residents want a pleasant space. Brent Council could be prioritising the development needs for the existing residents. We will collectively resist any new development that would prejudice safety and the livelihood of our local community. 

 

I recently supported my neighbour Marc with getting a petition signed with residents who oppose this development plan and we asked residents in Newland Court if they got the Newsletter. We went door to door and spoke with many residents. We asked them if they were aware of the development plans and most people did not read it, or did not receive it. I think it is unreasonable to expect to get a realistic input or feedback from the majority of residents and for all of us to consider the information carefully. It is important for all of us that you should provide a more realistic plan. The full extent of the development including all the dimensions and how this will affect our day-to-day lives. We believe that this development will have a direct negative impact on all the community both short term and long term at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens. 

 

It would have been more appropriate if the development plan information had not been casually sent in a Newsletter; when there was a deadline for feedback of the 12th July 12.00 midnight 2022. It is only reasonable to expect this information to have been received via recorded delivery by each resident and leaseholder at Newland Court. Ideally, a reasonable amount of time such as 30 working days to be fair. This would give us more time to raise concerns individually. We should have been provided with links to easy to understand and access drawing; maybe both to scale and a 3D Plan to give clarity. 

 

At Newland Court, we had the impression that the garages were going to be knocked down to make more car parking spaces for the residents. For many years we have been aware of that, all the Garages have Asbestos on the roofs. It is more important to address the problem with Asbestos as well as the drainage in the grounds around and between the Garages. The drains haven’t been cleaned for many years and there are issues already with flooding. However, it makes perfect sense for Brent Council to demolish the existing Garages and make more parking spaces for the existing residents instead of building these 7 town houses planned. 

 

EXISTING MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLOOKED & IMPACT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOCAL RESIDENTS 

 

Brent Council has done nothing about tackling the ongoing problems with Fly tipping, lighting in communal areas, not enough refuse bins both general and recycling, no proper security gates at the entrance, no marked parking bays, no disabled parking bays; just to name a few safety concerns raised with Brent Council over at least the last 5 years. 

 

The gate for emergency access at one end, towards the end of by 55-60 Newland Court, which has been broken for at least 10 years, it has never been repaired or fixed. The padlock on the gate has been stolen or removed many times in the last few years; Whenever it has been reported to Brent Council, they still take up to 3 weeks to replace a lost or stolen padlock every time . This is supposed to be an emergency access but because it is adjacent to Forty Avenue, many drivers normally using the busy Forty Avenue have been using it as a short cut speeding down the road without a care in the world. This is dangerous especially as many families with young children live here and they play in the little greenspace by this road after school, weekends and in school holidays. This space is close to the road and we need Brent Council to consider the safety concerns we have as existing residents’; not ignore the safety concerns we have raised many times and then decide to erect 7 houses directly on top of us. 

 

This development plan will damage the character of our street. It will psychologically affect all the residents, local community as a whole and it is not in the public interest to proceed. In accordance with the new plan, Disabled and Older Person’s walking access will be restricted as well as Wheelchair user access to name just a few concerns. 

 

We have had significant problems with the Refuse bins are overfilled. There are no cameras to deter fly tipping and it is happening on a regular weekly basis. There are no consequences for fly-tippers and this has been going on for years. There are Refuse bins for general waste as well as Recycling but they are not enough for the 60 flats at Newland Court. At present, they are located between garages, some under the flats on the greenspace, and some in the designated area .The new plan shows only one designated space for the placing of the existing bins; which residents in that Block deem to be unacceptable. This simply is unrealistic and inconvenient, as the bins will not be able to fit in that small space .It looks like we will have lines of large bins right outside the blocks to ensure there are enough bins. We strongly believe this will be impractical, very unpleasant, and dangerous for children to have to play in the small green space left. Local Infrastructure, as well as the green space will be practically gone; especially if you erect a concrete jungle, looking play area for the children. This consideration in the development plan to entertain the new kids on the block; or do Brent Council think its compensation for taking the greenspace. The reason I bring this to your attention is because it t has never been a consideration in the past for us residents with kids in Newland Court. 

 

Brent Council has not considered the current issues with parking at all. There are no allocated spaces for the disabled residents or wheelchair users and not enough spaces for the current residents. The new plans show that there will be 11 parking spaces only .I am sure they will be pay and display too. How can this be a consideration for Brent council? when we currently have maybe 30 parking spaces and these are not enough for the residents now. Some Garages are in use for some residents to park their cars; this development plan will be detrimental to those needing access for emergency services, those residents who drive and park here as well as resident motorcyclists, where will they go? Where will delivery drivers park? Where and how will the Refuse Collection vehicles get through to the Refuse Bins when you are narrowing the current road plan? We have no dimensions to view in the space between the proposed development plan and the current layout. Many parking spaces will disappear along with Garages. Are there any safety considerations that Brent Council have identified for drivers? All drivers should be able to see any potential hazard in time to slow down or stop before reaching it. 

 

We have a reoccurring issue with parents picking up their children from the Ark Academy and they use our parking spaces, park their cars blocking the emergency exit. I have reported this to WING many times over the years and they do not do anything. This issue is between Mondays to Fridays. At weekends, residents cannot park at Newland Court because if it is not an event day parking is free. So it is FREE for anyone to park here and leave their car for whole day or all weekend .There are no consequences for them only the inconvenience for residents. What can we expect from the new plans that would not make this problem a lot worse? 

 

OUR VOICES MATTER 

 

Instead of addressing the problems, we currently have and listening to us, you are going ignore us and plan to try erect 7 houses to make it worse. How many of the 7 houses will be affordable homes? If you want to reach your target to build affordable homes then stop selling all the land to developers and use the land, you own only for affordable homes that would be fair. Brent Council have already sold enough land in Wembley to private developers. Wembley Park is a concrete jungle of new developments. Why it is that existing residents at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have to pay the price for your greed? 

 

We have no idea about the dimensions of the planned new development. It will block light for us and for Grendon Gardens. We have come to know that the roots of the large trees will damage the new development because you will need to dig the foundation for the new development. You will have to cut the Trees down the middle at the back of Grendon Gardens because so many are leaning over to Newland Court. 

 

You destroyed the beautiful Tree on the Corner at Masons Court so why  are you providing us with misleading information .We know that you will be removing the Tree at the entrance of Newland Court on the Corner of Corringham Road. You will most likely destroy the smaller existing trees in our greenspace too. How does existing destroying existing Trees and then planting new trees feel justified to you. The new trees cannot replace the charisma of the existing trees by a long shot. 

 

The impact of the construction work alone will cause mayhem on the green area and the road. There is no indication of how long this construction will take and I know residents have a lot a great deal of concern about the disruption, noise, increased safety risk as well as the inconvenience of delivery vehicles and trades people increase. Disabled and Elder residents will not be able to walk freely or use most of the parking spaces as they will be taken up by the construction for a significant period of time most likely a few years.. This will be very disturbance to the residents and the local community; as access roads and footpaths will be restricted and narrowed during works. They will not wide enough for residents who use a wheelchair , mobility scooter or a pushchair .The lack of outdoor space will have an impact on wellbeing and mental health of the local residents. 

 

There will be a significant Loss of privacy for all the residents affected. This has not been a consideration in this new development plan by Brent Council. I strongly believe the planning of the new 7. houses proposed at Newland Court with the windows that will not be able to open will cause problems of natural lighting in the new houses and a deficit in our natural lighting because these houses will block the natural light. 

 

WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS IN THE PLANS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT I would like to draw your attention to the following

5.1 Privacy and amenity Development should ensure a good level of privacy inside buildings and within private outdoor space. Directly facing habitable room windows will normally require a minimum separation distance of 18m, except where the existing character of the area varies from this. A distance of 9m should be kept between gardens and habitable rooms or balconies. Reduced distances between new frontages may be acceptable subject to consideration of overlooking and privacy as well as high quality design and solutions, which can sometimes mitigate impacts and allow for efficient use of land. For sites within an existing street scene, the distance between front elevations should normally be determined by the character of road widths or setbacks from roads in the area. Windows may be designed to direct views in certain ways and to avoid overlooking in other directions.

https://legacy.brent.gov.uk/media/16411795/brent-design-guide-spd1-nov-2018.pdf

 

We all believe that it is only fair that Brent Council provide us with all the answers to the points myself and other residents at Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have raised. Also provide us with an accurate scale plan with transparency on the dimensions in reference to the above for us to consider further. 

 

Yours faithfully. 

 

TONYA NIAZI

 

Rokesby Place  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/05/brent-councils-infill-housing-plans.html

 

Gauntlett Court  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/letter-lack-of-information-on-brent.html

 

Clement Close  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/clement-close-residents-set-out-reasons.html

 

Newland Court https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/newland-court-residents-objection-to.html

 

Watling Gardens https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/06/watling-gardens-rushed-and-incorrect.html

 

Kilburn Square https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/02/kilburn-square-residents-present-900.html

 

Potential Compulsory Purchase Orders  https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/07/cabinet-to-approve-last-resort.html

 

Brent's "secret" Council Housing Projects: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/08/brents-secret-council-housing-projects.html

 

Ditto - the Council's Response: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/09/brents-secret-housing-projects-councils.html

 

Gauntlett Court, and Airspace explained: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2021/10/brents-secret-council-housing-projects.html