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

 

 

 

Unhappy Windmill Court residents put Brent Council Lead Members on the spot over infill proposals, estate neglect and fire risk

Residents from Windmill Court, Shoot Up Hill, Brent, have tabled written questions for Brent Council's Full Council Meeting on Monday.These are the questions and replies. The questioners are allowed to ask a follow-up question based on the Lead Members' responses.

 

Question from J. Audrey to Councillor Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness & Renters Security

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court. Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court? Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

Response:

You want to build additional homes as infill development at Windmill Court.Why are you forcing this excessive option in direct opposition to and to the detriment of existing residents?

How can you justify excessive development that will have an adverse and overbearing effect that will create an unduly oppressive living environment for existing and future residents?

The Council has brought these proposals forward in response to the chronic shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Brent. There are 24,000 households on the waiting list, over 1,700 families currently living in temporary accommodation and a further 240 families in priority need for a transfer because of issues such as overcrowding. Every home we develop is an opportunity for a family to have the security of a permanent home that meets their needs.

Whilst building council homes is a priority for us, so is ensuring that any new council development also works for people who already live in the area. That's why we have engaged with residents living on Windmill Court early on, to hear their views and create proposals that balance the needs of existing residents with those that do not have a safe, secure and affordable place to call home.

 

We appreciate the concerns voiced about the development proposal at Windmill Court and acknowledge that the building close to existing homes will have some impact on existing residents. The Council is working hard to mitigate the impact of new homes being built where reasonable.

Why are you not making any improvements or doing anything for the existing residents of Windmill Court?

Carrying out infill development whilst doing nothing for the existing residents or building is breaking the promises made by councillors and the Council. How can you justify the neglect?

The New Council Homes development at Windmill Court will deliver improvements for existing residents, this includes security improvements such as boundary fencing and CCTV, which we know are a priority for residents as well as landscaping to improve the communal green space.

Alongside the development of these new homes, it was recognised the need to improve standards for existing residents.

The Council will be spending approximately £40m over the next three years on its tower block refurbishment programme of which approximately £14m will be spent on Windmill Court, and we are already consulting with residents on this.

The proposed specification is comprehensive and includes repairs to the building fabric; new energy efficient cladding; new windows; roofing; upgraded heating; upgraded mechanical and electrical services; internal refurbishment of the dwellings; and refurbishment of the internal communal areas.

How is it acceptable to remove sunlight from every room in my home & to reduce my kitchen window light down to 0.4 and in winter to 0.0?

Other residents are also badly affected by loss of light in every room of their homes as well as the loss of outlook along with a total lack of privacy given we are being overlooked from head to toe within our own homes.

As part of the development process and planning application, a detailed assessment of the impact the proposed development at Windmill Court will have to existing residents light was carried out. This assessment ensures that the proposed development is in line with local, regional and national planning policy, which is clear about not permitting any new development that will cause an unacceptable loss of daylight or sun light amenity to the surrounding properties.

The findings of the assessment compiled in the report concluded that the vast majority of the neighbouring habitable windows and rooms will retain good levels of daylight and that the development is consistent with the British Research Establishment guidance and relevant planning policy in terms of daylight and sunlight.

 

This will be reviewed and considered as part of the planning application submitted for Windmill Court.

How can you justify the negative impact on existing and future residents?

Our commitment is to balance the building of new affordable family homes with improvements that will benefit existing residents whilst mitigating potential impact this will have on them. Whilst we understand and appreciate the concerns voiced, we are confident that the development project team will implement the necessary measures to minimise any disruptions or inconvenience to achieve a positive outcome for all.

 

Question from S. Culhane to Councillor Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Planning

The Transport Consultant's document submitted as part of the full Planning Application for the Windmill Court proposed infill development contains swept path analysis showing how vehicles can access and negotiate the site layout.

This analysis does not include high-reach fire appliances, and the main tower is over 40m high.

 

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask why?

Did anybody in the Planning Department ask or direct the Transport Consultants to conduct such an analysis?

 

Response:

It should be noted that the fire service does not use very large vehicles as a starting point for firefighting, there are many other ways that they approach a fire, working mainly from the inside. A very tall appliance would only be used in the case of very significant failure of the other fire safety measures, and it would not be a requirement of Building Regulations (which is the main regulatoryframework for considering fire safety measures, rather than planning).

The assessment of vehicular access for fire safety has been made based on the likely vehicles that would attend a fire at the site.

IMPORTANT EDITOR'S NOTE

Windmill Court was one of the infill projects mentioned in a recent Cabinet paper for the 'conversion' of up to 50% of the  tenures from London Affordable Rent to Open Market Sale or Shared Ownship, neither of which are truly affordable for Brent residents. LINK

Letter to Wembley Matters on  Windmill Court infill proposals HERE

Brent’s New Affordable Council Homes promises shredded!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity 

 

When I shared my open email to the Council Leader on Morland Gardens in a guest post earlier this week, I drew attention to the “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes” report, which is going to next Monday’s Cabinet meeting. Now I will highlight some points from that.

 

It’s only a month since I wrote about Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality, but that reality has got a whole lot worse. Then I was writing about Social Rent, London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) and Shared Ownership (“SO”), which is neither ownership nor “affordable” housing. Now Council Officers want to include some new terms, Open Market Rent (“OMR”) and Open Market Sale (“OMS”) into Brent’s New Council Homes programme.

 

Extract from the “Update” Report for the 14 November Cabinet meeting.

 

They are saying that some (in fact, quite a lot!) of the new homes the Council builds can no longer be for social housing, which is what Council homes are meant to provide. They will have to be for rents that are not genuinely affordable, such as OMR (or Local Housing Allowance level, as it is sometimes referred to), or they will have to be for shared ownership or sold off privately, the same as any other developer would do. 

 

‘What is the point of the Council building new Council homes which are not new homes for rent to Council tenants?’ you might ask. The answer from the Corporate Director, Resident Services, is that you have to “convert” some of those homes to unaffordable homes, or homes for sale, in order to be able to afford to build other homes which are for affordable rent. But the Council, as a social housing provider, can’t offer unaffordable homes to Council tenants, so it has to pass on the OMR and SO homes it is “converting” to someone else.

 

The start of a long list of recommendations for Cabinet to agree on 14 November.

 

The Report recommends that the “conversion” will be done by ‘Officers’. Which Officers? – it doesn’t say (why is that?), but many of the other recommendations delegate the power to make decisions to the Corporate Director, Resident Services (the Officer who signed off the Report, Peter Gadsdon). 

 

As will be seen from my first extract from the Report above, the “conversion” will be ‘via the Council’s wholly owned subsidiary company i4B.’ Because i4B is a separate “legal person”, it can charge higher rents than the Council itself would be allowed to charge. The Council would build the homes to be “converted”, then sell them to i4B (who would pay for them with a loan from the London Borough of Brent), for rent to Brent residents (possibly homeless families). 

 

But as well as making these recommendations, Peter Gadsdon is also a director of i4B, which would benefit from the extra properties in its portfolio. Isn’t that a conflict of interests? And another director of i4B is Cllr. Saqib Butt, the brother of the Council Leader who will chair the Cabinet meeting considering the recommendations. I have raised these potential conflicts of interest with Brent’s Monitoring Officer, and await her response.

 

How many of the New Affordable Homes are likely to be “converted” to unaffordable ones? It could be as many as 50% of them, on the basis of this recommendation from the Report:

 

And it is not just ‘new planning permission applications’ that that are at risk of losing up to 50% of their affordable homes. Windmill Court, which has an “affordable housing” condition in its planning consent specifying that the tenure of the homes must be for no more than LAR, is one of the schemes proposed for “conversion”. The planning consent gave the reason for the LAR condition as: 'In the interests of proper planning.'

 

Extract from the Update Report, including proposals for Kilburn Square and Windmill Court.

 

Also on this particular list (there are others) for “conversion” is Rokesby Place. Regular readers may remember that I have been challenging the action by Brent’s Planning Officers in secretly changing the tenure for those two new 4-bedroom Council houses from Social Rent to the more expensive LAR. Now the Report to Cabinet wants to change things again, and either sell off one of the houses, or transfer it to i4B, to be let out at OMR! 

 

The Rokesby Place  planning application was pushed through, against the wishes of existing residents, on the grounds that the Council had to use any “spare” land on its estates to build genuinely affordable homes for local people in housing need. Now one of the two houses won’t be, despite the Report’s empty words: ‘Large family sized homes at low rent remain a priority for the Council.’

 

 
The Update Report’s section on the Council’s Wembley Housing Zone.

 

Another housing “battle” I’ve been having with Brent, for the past 15 months, is to try to get more genuinely affordable Council homes at their Cecil Avenue development. It’s a vacant, Council-owned site which has had full planning permission for 250 new homes since February 2021. The Report says that since Cabinet approved the project in August 2021, ‘officers have advanced competitive procurement of a delivery partner.’ When there are 250 homes which could be for Brent residents in urgent housing need, that’s very slow progress!

 

The delay has been even longer, because Officers carried out a “soft market testing” exercise in April 2021 (which was so soft that it guaranteed the result they wanted, to justify their recommendations to Cabinet). They could have started the project last year, when the cost of borrowing to build the homes (152 for the “developer partner” to sell for profit, 61 as intermediate housing - SO or OMR – and only 37 for LAR!) would have been much lower. What further cuts to the affordable housing in the Wembley Housing Zone are hidden in ‘(Exempt) Appendix 3’, which the public will never be allowed to see?

 

 Now, quickly, here are two more recommendations to Monday’s meeting from the Report: 

 

 

What are Modern Methods of Construction (“MMC”)? I would suggest you read a blog article on “Airspace” which Martin published in October last year. ‘A minimum of 25% of all homes’ out of the 700 the latest round of GLA funding will almost certainly include Gauntlett Court in Sudbury, and probably Campbell Court and Elvin Court in Kingsbury. Has there been any genuine consultation with residents of those Council estates yet?

 

 

 

 

The Report is recommending “conversion” of LAR homes the Council proposes to build to SO, when it has no evidence that there is any demand for them! There are already a large number of shared ownership homes built by, or in the pipeline from, private developers on big schemes in Wembley and elsewhere. Those developers are forced to provide a proportion of affordable homes as part of their plans, and they make as much of it as possible shared ownership, because that is recognised for planning purposes as “affordable housing”, even though it is unaffordable to most people in housing need in Brent.

 

There was an interesting Q&A on Council housing, and shared ownership, as part of consideration of Brent’s Draft Borough Plan 2023-2027, at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on Tuesday, 8 November. I’ll end this post with a transcript (from the webcast recording - at around 2hrs 5mins in!) of that exchange. 

 

Cllr. Anton Georgiou (“AG”): Just for complete clarity for the committee, what does Brent Council define as a Council home? Most people define a Council home as being a property owned by the Council that is let at Social Rent.

 

Carolyn Downs, Chief Executive (“CD”): That is what we do as well.

 

AG: From documents that I’ve read, it seems that Brent have extended this to include Shared Ownership, London Affordable Rent, temporary accommodation and assisted living.  

 

CD: Absolutely not. When we talk about one thousand general new Council homes they are Council homes. It is Council housing.

 

 

AG: This isn’t Shared Ownership?

 

CD: We have not ever built a single Shared Ownership. Developers might, we the Council haven’t.

 

Shout from an unidentified person: Not genuinely affordable!

 

Cllr.Muhammed Butt, Council Leader:  Apologies. What you just said there, right, comes under the broad banner of affordable homes, right, but we do actually build Council homes.

 

Cllr. Rita Conneely, Chair: So, I’m going to draw this item to a close.

 

You can make up your own mind, from what was said at that meeting and from the Report, how committed Brent Council are to their promise of ‘genuinely affordable housing for families in Brent’. 

 

My own “Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes”? Far fewer than were promised ahead of last May’s local elections!

 

Philip Grant.

 

LETTER: Windmill Court residents join others in pinpointing flaws in Brent Council's infill proposals

 

The site in context. Red rectangles are the development areas

 Brent Council's Key Plan

Dear Editor,

In your earlier article on controversies over Brent Council infill proposals, Common threads emerging as council tenants rebel over Brent's infill plans, you missed out Windmill Court on Shoot-Up Hill which is close to Watling Gardens.  We are one of the three in the Cooperation Agreement with Network Homes alongside Watling Gardens and Kilburn Square.

The Windmill Court application went before the planning committee on the same night as Watling Gardens.

One councillor objected to the application and one, Cllr Kennelly abstained on fire safety grounds (he’s no longer on the committee).

The head of planning, Mr Ansell, chose to ignore the legislative requirements under land use planning for fire safety and even directed the committee members that it was not a matter for them and could be dealt with at building control.(See video  below)

This is against the current fire safety requirements and a breach of the legislation on fire safety in high rise buildings that came into force on 1st August 2021. 

The legislation, Planning Gateway One, came from the Dame Judith Hackett recommendations to ensure that fire safety and access is dealt with at the earliest possible stage. 

Under Planning Gateway One Windmill Court tower block at 17 storeys with 120 households is a relevant building. The legislation requires a change in culture in that the existing building and the land around it has to be part of the planning process and taken into proper consideration regarding fire safety and access. This should be done at planning committee but Brent have clearly not incorporated the necessary change in culture to take proper account of the legislative requirements. 

You would be aware that planning would usually have been concerned only with what was being proposed and not the existing buildings and residents. I am unsure whether they deliberately chose to overlook the legislation on a proposal where the design concept being put forward is fundamentally flawed.

I noticed you picked up on the sale of some of the properties at Watling Gardens. Under the Mayor’s affordable housing this does allow for shared ownership to be included under the banner of affordable housing.

Windmill Court is financially unviable to the tune of millions and we did notice in an early Cabinet document where they included us along with Watling Gardens in a mention about increasing sales!

Whilst this is all being done under the banner of new council homes the chance is that they will be offloaded onto another housing organisation and a large number will be sold.

As for the affordable rent and local lettings policy. This is problematic for existing residents wanting to downsize or requiring a larger property. The council quite recently produced a document showing council rent’s for all sizes of homes with regards this year’s increase of 4.1%. 

 

When you compare this to the Mayors affordable housing rent benchmarks and include the service charge the differences are quite stark. Someone downsizing from a two bedroom property to a one bedroom property would be paying an extra £60 per week. Someone here at Windmill Court in a one bedroom flat with a child or children requiring a two bedroom flat would have an increase above an extra £60 a week and would lose having a separate kitchen and lounge. The option to consider staying in their one bedroom property with a kitchen that is large enough for a table and chairs and utilising the lounge as the parental bedroom would save them over £60 per week.

This is creating a two tier system on Brent estates where existing residents are having amenities removed to allow for new residents at higher rents being given what was previously shared communal space as private outdoor space as per GLA requirements.

We have had the same shoddy work with misrepresentations and misinformation and lack of communication. The submitted documents for planning also have misrepresentations and misinformation.

 

The submitted fire statement contains erroneous information and this has to be the most concerning. 

Our committee members have been researching every area including the council submitting the Lambeth Methodology Survey on available alternative parking spaces which includes 37 spaces on the A5 Shoot Up Hill that have 0% stress! That’s because they don’t exist! And listing CPZ’s in Camden as being available to Brent residents!

An anonymous consultant appears to have been paid  £43,340:00, mostly in £1,750:00 amounts, according to the Windmill Court submitted invoices.

I am attaching the video from the planning committee where fire safety is discussed. The first part with Mr Ansell explaining the change in legislation and stating this is a genuine serious concern then proceeding to direct members that it’s not a matter for them which is advice that is against the law. The second is Clr Kennelly expressing dissatisfaction with the reply and suggesting deferral of the application.

Yours sincerely,

A Concerned Windmill Court Resident

(Name supplied)