Guest post from Sara Hojholt in a personal capacity
It’s over two years (!) since Brent Council shocked
our local community with a far too ambitious “Mini Master Plan” to build 180
new homes on the estate it owns in Kilburn Square – adding 80% to the 2019
population, on a smaller shared space. Last September it finally listened
to the near-unanimous rejection of that; and agreed to a re-think -
acknowledging three major objections: the huge increase in density of
residents; the loss of precious green space and mature trees; and the inclusion
of a 17-storey tower.
But then in January it settled on a version only
about 20% smaller, removing the tower but ignoring the other two objections.
And despite good words about collaboration with residents, a scheme that would
work for everyone, and not forcing homes on us… that’s essentially what they’ve
now carried through to a Planning Application (reference 22/3669). And in the
138 documents of the dossier, they have failed to show clear evidence
of substantial support from the estate residents or our neighbours in the wider
community.
So, here’s a message to our Council. For more
information, search “Kilburn Square” on Wembley Matters, and visit our website https://save-our-square.org
The other end of the telescope
An Open Letter to Brent Council from a Kilburn Square Resident
Dear Councillor Butt and Ms Downs,
I live on the Kilburn Square estate, where you want to
build an extra 139 homes. You sit in Civic Centre, miles away from Kilburn. All
your justifications for this still oversized scheme are top-down, and viewed
from an external perspective. But I’m pleading with you to look at
things from the other end of the telescope. One of your Housing Officers
described our estate to our MP as “brilliant”; we believe your scheme would
undermine our physical and mental wellbeing, and the “sense of place” which
Brent used to put at the heart of its development planning.
Your arguments
You tell us there’s a huge waiting list, the GLA has
grant funds, you’ve committed to numerical targets, you have a target
proportion of larger homes and you can’t afford to buy land. We hear that; but
you then use abstract or euphemistic terms like Infill, Densification and PTAL
(accessibility to public transport).
·
“Infill” suggests a few
extra units here and there – not 60% more households than our original estate
had in 2019, with a reduced communal space.
·
You tell us the GLA
supports “densification”; but Kilburn Ward is already the most densely
populated in Brent. As for the estate itself, the GLA has dropped its
quantified measures of density of residents, as unfit for purpose; but Brent
still has one – it’s called Amenity Space and our estate already fails to meet it before a single new
brick is laid.
·
Your team have told us “if
we had to respect that norm, we could hardly build anywhere”. Is that a
justification?
·
Good public transport is of
course essential if any development is to be car-free; but that doesn’t in itself
justify adding more new homes than the site can reasonably absorb
You’ve already added a Block to the Southwest corner of
the site. The next, little-publicised move to add
more housing was a GLA grant allocation in November 2018 – for 70 new homes by
demolishing one adjacent daytime use building. Then in March 2020 Cabinet
approved a Network Homes agreement, with an increased target of 80-100 new
homes – removing a second daytime use building.
Had you stuck on that, the
broad local community would have seen it as an acceptable compromise – and the
new Blocks would be halfway built already. Contrary to your regular public assertions,
neither we residents nor our supportive neighbours are NIMBYs.
Instead, your team chose to double their target. You
thoughtfully offered us a second 17-storey tower - thankfully now cut to a
“mere” 7-8 storeys. But you’ve persisted with three satellite Blocks (now
merged to make two) on our existing communal space.
·
Brent’s project website
refers, to this day, to “the availability of significant parcels of land that could
be suitable” for development – with no justification offered.
·
And now your Planning
Application claims that the green space and trees where you want to impose a
37-unit merged Block C is “underutilised”. Outrageous!
·
We’ve told you for well over
a year that this is not only a precious area for physical relaxation. It’s also
our Green Lung – a crucial visual and environmental amenity for the whole
community, on and off the estate.
West Kilburn is already in Brent’s worst category for
green space deprivation – and your own Climate Strategy seeks to increase
green space not remove it. But don’t just take it from me, read the second
Comment posted on the Planning Portal, from a Barrett House resident. Here’s an
extract:
“My
flat , it's dark and I have very little sunlight come in, I have significant
health conditions including my lungs being damaged thanks to black mould, covid
and asthma . I also struggle with other conditions. Taking away trees [and]
green space will Impact on our health and quality of life. We utilised the
green space in lockdown it was our neighbourhood connubial area!! It got us
through tough times. Because we are poor and not privileged does that mean we
don't deserve quality of life? In the long run it will cost the council more as
mental and physical health will decline. Several other neighbours object to
this work but due to either lack of English or learning difficulties have been
unable to make objections. Please don't take away our trees, sunlight and
quality of air!!!”
That’s the view of your Block C from our end of the
telescope. And Block E would be shoehorned in unacceptably close to two
existing Blocks.
In the meantime, the long-planned and urgently needed
refurbishment of our existing tower block is no closer to being carried out.
On a broader front, you’ve not explained why you have
pressed this scheme on us Kilburn Square residents rather than, for example,
devoting the whole Cecil Avenue site – Council-owned and with Planning
Permission in place – to Brent-owned affordable homes. That would not be
financially viable?... Ah, but wait a minute: you’ve publicly acknowledged to
Cabinet that the Kilburn Square Planning Application as submitted IS NOT
FINANCIALLY VIABLE. How misleading is that?
When our local newspaper asked the Council last week LINK
to comment on the scheme’s viability, your spokesperson dodged the question;
nor did they comment on the number of units to be available at social rent
level (the answer is none). The report to Cabinet is
unambiguous: to achieve viability, most of Block B would need to be converted,
after Planning Permission is granted, to Shared Ownership; and there’s even a
hint of Open Market Sale!
For two years, your project team’s laborious
pre-engagement process has tightly controlled the agenda, and has failed to gain
the trust and support of the great majority of us residents. We do trust our
Independent Advisors – 60% of our households gave them their honest views last
year and they reported “There is no measurable support for the scheme, nor for
the process”. But for subsequent “consultation” on alternatives defined by the
project team, they were sidelined.
So, in summary, as the Council moves further away from
meeting the needs of the truly most needy on the waiting list, towards becoming
just another developer, the view from our end of the telescope is looking less
acceptable than ever! For more information visit https://save-our-square.org
Sara Hojholt, Kilburn Square Resident
