Brent Community Land Trust shows what community-centred planning and development can do. Impressive proposals outlined for Brentfield Road

 

 

Plans for a new development in Brentfield Road have been lodged with Brent Planning. It is a small Brent development by tower blocks standards and aimed at single people,  but it has revolutionary potential as Brent families and indivuals continue to be locked out of new housing in the borough. Can the approach be expanded to include family housing?

 

The site outlined in red

 

The plans are submitted by Brent Community Land Trust, dedicated band of volunteers who have a different approach to development compared with the usual developers. Home grown, based in the borough, committed to community participation, and wanting to address the housing needs of local people.

 

Extract from the Design and Access Statement for Planning Reference 26/0315

 

Brent Community Land Trust

 

Brent CLT is an independent, not for profit organisation, led by volunteers who live, work or have a connection to Brent. It was established to create genuinely affordable housing with and for the Brent community. Brent CLT was established in 2020 in response to the lack of local affordable housing identified in the Harlesden Neighbourhood Plan, which included a commitment to explore community-led housing locally. Brent CLT identified a first development site in collaboration with Brent Council and has developed a functional brief through a series of capacity studies and community workshops.

 

The Brentfield Road Scheme creates a distinct and much needed opportunity for local people by developing a community led response to increase housing supply with a scheme that is designed specifically for single adults on low incomes. This includes individuals who may be; currently living in temporary accommodation such as local hostels but ready to live independently; those on the council waiting list; or living in overcrowded accommodation with their parent(s) or guardians; and those who cannot access private renteaccommodation, whether due to affordability, lack of tenancy history, or inability to provide a deposit, rent in advance and/or agent’s fees. The design and density of the proposed development allows the scheme to keep rents and service charges below the relevant Local Housing Allowance and more akin to London Affordable Rent, as defined by the GLA.

 

The site is particularly suited to this client group as prior to offering the site to Brent CLT, the council commissioned a feasibility which showed that the site is not suitable for family sized units.

 

Funding

 

London Borough of Brent has resolved to make the land available to Brent CLT at nil or notional cost subject to conditions being met. The scheme will be in receipt of GLA funding for at least 50% with the remaining funded through borrowing.

 

The Brief

The key elements of the brief are as follows;

 

• The target market for the development is single people who may find it difficult to access self-contained accommodation due to cost or availability. Therefore the brief is for a development with 1Bedroom1Person units sized at 37sqm.

 

• A communal space is to be provided. This will provide shared amenity for residents. Use will be decided through engagement with the local community and potential residents.

 

• The development will be car-free.

 

• The ambition is to build quality, beautiful homes and thriving communities that will leave a lasting legacy in Brent.

 

In addition: The proposals provide a 100% affordable scheme, exceeding the targets set out within the Brent Local  Plan and London Plan (2021). Furthermore, the proposals are to be set at 100% social rent levels, exceeding the tenure mix targets in respect of social rented accommodation set out within the London Plan (2021) and the Brent Local Plan (2022).

 

Given the size of the site Biodiversity Net Gain will have to be provided off-site but an effort has been made for some small greens paces witin the develpment. Similarly amenity space is limited:

 

Ground floor green space

 

 

The walkway on upper floors are provided with benches to encourage social interaction 

 

A communal space is provided and its exact use left  to consultation with the tenants
 

 The proposed building on Brentfield Road

As with all developments there are issues to be resolved including loss of light to nearby homes but as the first attempt by volunteers in the Brent CLT  it is impressive, particularly in their attempts to gain participation by local people at a very early stage in the planning.

So far there is only one comment on the Brent Planning Portal:

I am writing in support of this application and wish to highlight the significant role the proposed development will play in addressing homelessness and housing insecurity in Brent.

Brent continues to experience extremely high levels of housing need, with many households living in temporary accommodation or facing the risk of homelessness. One of the core aims of this scheme is to provide 19 high-quality, secure, and genuinely affordable homes that will offer long-term stability for residents who are currently unable to access suitable housing.

Community Land Trust (CLT) homes are permanently affordable by design, as they are held in community stewardship and linked to local incomes rather than market values. This ensures that these homes remain accessible to those who need them most-both now and for future generations. By delivering housing at social-rent-equivalent levels (or other sub-market tenure depending on agreement), the development helps prevent homelessness by giving residents a stable, long-term and affordable home within their own community.

In addition, the inclusion of communal spaces and shared gardens will help create a supportive environment, enabling residents-particularly those who may previously have experienced housing instability-to build community connections, improve wellbeing, and maintain stable tenancies.

This scheme directly supports Brent's wider strategic objectives around homelessness prevention, affordable housing delivery, and community-led regeneration. It transforms underused garage land into much-needed homes that will be owned and managed for the benefit of local people.

For these reasons, I strongly support this application and believe it represents an important, socially-responsible step in addressing homelessness and housing need in the borough.

 

 PLANNING PORTAL DETAILS

Planning – Planning Application Documents

26/0315 | Demolition of existing garages and redevelopment to provide a part three and part four-storey building comprising 19 residential units (Use Class C3) with ancillary communal room, communal gardens, landscaping, cycle parking and stores and all other associated ancillary works | Garages rear of 8-12 Stonebridge Park, Brentfield Road, London LINK

Altamira and the Morland Gardens delay – Brent Council’s response.

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

From Brent Council’s adopted Local Plan Historic Environment Strategy.

 

Last week Martin published a guest post with the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Director of Property and Assets (Morland Gardens – (Happy?) Anniversary Brent! Why the delay?). I promised to let readers know what the Council said in reply, and here is the full text of the email I received on 18 November, with the names of Council Officers replaced by their job titles.

 

‘Dear Mr Grant,

 

RE: New Service Request: 1 Morland Gardens, NW10 - What are Council Officers' recommendations and when will they be published?  

 

Thank you for your open letter dated 10 November 2025, and note that [the Director of Property and Assets] has asked me to respond on the queries raised:

 

1. Please let me know the date by which Council Officers intend to make their detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens.

 

As you state in your open letter dated 10 November 2025, Cabinet approved the facility mix at Morland Gardens for affordable homes and youth facilities in June 2025. Please note that establishing the youth provisions/requirements is a crucial enabler to bringing forward a vision for the site that aligns with the Cabinet approved facility mix. The Council has therefore been liaising with a range of youth service providers to better understand what/how they would seek to use the building/site to meet the needs of young people living in Stonebridge and across the borough.

 

In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in with regards to increased borrowing costs, construction inflation, and compliance with new/enhanced building safety standards. The Greater London Authority (GLA) has recently issued its new Social and Affordable Homes Programme (SAHP) 2026 – 2036 and the Council will be reviewing this funding prospectus to see if it can provide the Council a viable route to bring forward affordable housing schemes on sites such as Morland Gardens. The SAHP funding window opens in February 2026 and closes in April 2026, so the Council will be able to confirm after this date if a grant bid for Morland Gardens has been included.

 

With the work currently being undertaken, the Council cannot confirm a date by which officers intend to make detailed recommendations to Cabinet for the redevelopment of 1 Morland Gardens until we are able to lock in the proposed youth service provisions for the site and the affordable homes funding opportunities through the SAHP.

 

2. Please also let me know (as some decision on this point must surely have been reached after two years of review) whether those recommendations will include retaining the heritage Victorian villa building, Altamira, as requested in the Willesden Local History Society petition which was presented to September's Full Council meeting, and supported then by councillors from across all three political parties.

 

As per the response to the petition from the Willesden Local History Society, no decision has been made on the retention or not of the Altamira building. Any decision will be based on the outcome of the above (youth provision identification, housing scheme requirements) for Cabinet to make a considered decision.

 

Thank you once again for your open letter, should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Regards

 

Head of Capital Delivery’

 

The response says why Brent is not currently building many new homes, and these words in the answer to point 1 are of more general interest: ‘In relation to affordable housing, the Council is currently unable to deliver 100% social rent tenure due to the economic climate we are now operating in ….’ The reference to ‘social rent tenure’ is another example of the misrepresentation of “social housing” terms frequently coming from the Council’s Officers and members.

 

The only new genuine Social Rent level homes which Brent Council provides go to existing tenants who are moved to new homes because the Council wants to demolish their existing home. If you want to understand the different types of affordable housing, please read my November 2022 guest post Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply.

 

Illustration from Brent’s March 2025 Council Tax leaflet.

 

While I’m on the subject of the Council’s misleading information about affordable housing, you may remember my guest post from last April: How many affordable homes did Brent Council deliver in 2024/25? - Was it 530, or 434, or just 26? It was in a leaflet sent to every Council Taxpayer in the borough, including a letter to residents from the Council Leader saying how well they had done. And the answer to the question of how many affordable homes Brent Council had actually delivered itself in 2024/25 was 26, not the 530 they wanted us to believe!

 

You will also notice from the response above that the proposed affordable housing at Morland Gardens may well depend on Brent getting financial help from the GLA’s Social and Affordable Homes Programme 2026-2036. But I can’t help wondering - what happened to the £107m of funding which Brent trumpeted that it had been promised from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026? 

 

From the GLA’s affordable homes website.

 

How much of that promised £107m was spent by Brent Council, and how many new affordable homes were built with that money? Wasn’t it meant to be helping to fund the regeneration of St Raphael’s Estate (see this June 2021 post: Cllr Butt addresses St Raphael's residents on the delays in fill-in/rebuild development of the estate. Is it the full story?)? How many new homes have been built so far as part of the long-promised St Raphael’s regeneration? (I don’t know – perhaps someone can give the answer in a comment below, please.)

 

Brent’s original 2020 Morland Gardens scheme was meant to use £6.5m in funding from the GLA’s Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2021 (extended to 2023, because of Covid). That money was lost, but it could have been used instead for a Council redevelopment at Twybridge Way, which received planning consent before Morland Gardens in 2020, and would have provided 67 affordable homes. That project could not go ahead because of the flawed Cabinet decision to move Brent Start to a “temporary home” in the former Stonebridge School Annexe on that site. You can read the details in my October 2021 guest post: 1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged.

 

It was hard not to get distracted by some of the contents of the Council’s response above, but I must get back to the main point of this guest post. Should I just accept what the Council Officer was saying, or should I reply? I chose the second option, and this is what I wrote:

 

‘Dear [Head of Capital Delivery},

 

Thank you for your email, in response to my open email of 10 November to [the Director of Property and Assets]. As the text of my open email was made public, both online and in the "Brent & Kilburn Times" (see below), I will seek to make the text of your reply, on behalf of Brent Council, publicly available.

 

The information given at point 1 is helpful in understanding the continuing delay, although this will mean another winter when the empty property can suffer further weather damage. That is not good stewardship of a valuable heritage building!

 

I am disappointed with the response to point 2, because it suggests that the only factors which will be taken into account in deciding whether Officers should recommend either retaining or demolishing the heritage building will be what is required for the proposed youth provision and housing scheme. That approach ignores the requirements of Brent Council's heritage planning policy BHC1, and its adopted Historic Environment Strategy, which both signal the importance of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets in proposed developments affecting them.

 

I have referred to the section on "Valuing Brent's Heritage" before, but these words from it need repeating:

 

'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes.'

 

The historic value of "Altamira" is huge. This was the landmark building at the entrance to an 1870s estate named Stonebridge Park. It was in at the birth of that district of our borough, and with its distinctive belvedere tower, it was one of the few original Victorian villas left standing when most of the street called Stonebridge Park was demolished to make way for the 1970s Stonebridge Park Brent Council estate.

 

Many of those 1970s buildings were demolished after less than 30 years, but "Altamira" is now 150 years old, and still in good structural condition, as well as being a beautiful example of Italianate architecture. It will be part of the Morland Gardens regeneration site, and it can be used for place-making purposes, helping to share the story of Stonebridge Park with young people, and the wider community, now and for future generations. That is why it should be retained, and why you and other Council Officers involved should decide to recommend its retention as part of your detailed submission to Cabinet.

 

Please keep me updated on progress with your review, and let me know if you need support from me (and the wider local history community) for an SAHP funding bid which includes retaining the heritage building. Best wishes,’

 

 

Philip Grant.

 

BE AWARE: Brent Local Plan Review coming up - this will affect your community, your area and perhaps even your home

 

Image from the 2019-2041 Brent Local Plan

Admittedly a consultation about the Brent Local Plan isn't likely to cause a huge amount of excitement but lack of engagement with an upcoming Review that will be discussed at next Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee could cost residents dear.

The 2019-2041 Plan, spearheaded by Cllr Shama Tatler, shaped planning decisions based on support for tall buildings, densification, intensification corridors and the designation of eight Growth Areas. This is transforming our borough. 

The proposal is for a Full Review covering all areas of the Plan rather than a few areas as some other councils are undertaking. LINK  Bold emphasis is mine.

The current Plan is immense and contains proposals for sites across the borough but current conditions and changes in planning laws mean a review is necessary:

     The principal rationale for review is to embrace the need to plan longer term to meet the needs of a growing population to at least 2046 and possibly beyond. The largest priority is to ensure housing delivery can be sustained at high levels in the future. This requires identifying sites well in advance of when they are needed. Due to the complicated nature of future opportunities (the need to parcel up sites that currently include individual homes) this could well be longer than was needed in the past. Large single ownership sites such as Grand Union in Alperton are getting rarer. Sites are more likely to be like 1-22 Brook Avenue allocated in 2011, having publicly been identified 3 years earlier in the draft plan; this only had a comprehensive planning application submitted in 2023 (15 years after first being identified) and it is understood that full site ownership has still not yet been achieved by the applicant. 

Brook Avenue is the road next to Wembley Park station where the developer pressured owners of the suburban houses to sell up to enable a developer to build tower blocks. If they failed to agree the Council would consider compulsory purchase to enable the development to go ahead – it was in the Local Plan. It appears one at east owner is holding out.

 

The paper going to the Committee implies predicts there may be more such proposals:

 

To date much of the population of Brent has accepted the ambitious levels of development that the last Local Plan promoted. The next Local Plan may wellhave to deal with accommodating more development amongst suburban housing, most of which will be in good condition and privately owner occupied.

As well as potentially affecting more people’s homes, it could more likely to result in more areas having more substantial changes in character compared to currently. This may well increase the amount of objection and challenge to the plan from Brent residents or community groups. This could again slow down the plan’s delivery, requiring further levels of engagement and revision to plancontent or policy direction.

 

You have been warned. Look up your area/address on the current Local Plan and you may well be surprised/shocked by what you find. LINK

 

Another reason for review is that the Council has been unable to meet its targets due to the current economic and labour supply situation, and new safety regulations:

 

Brent’s delivery [of housing] prior to 23/24 was excellent. In the 3 financial years to 22/23 Brent delivered the equivalent of 8136 net additional dwellings Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) official figures. This represented 131% of its target against the Housing Delivery Test (HDT). Delivery in 23/24 was however very weak at 656 net dwellings. This is not yet reflected in the latest MHCLG HDT figures but represents only 28% of the 2,325 annual minimum target. Completions for 24/25 have not been finalised but are likely to be well below the target. Lack of planning permissions are not what is holding back delivery. The latest GLA datahub information indicates that as of 31st March 2024, 16,985 dwellings had permission but had not been completed. It is other factors including viability, construction capacity, the contraction of the private sales market, investor caution and building safety regulator sign-off (for buildings 6 or more storeys) that are having the biggest slowdown impact.

  

We know that a higher proportion of private housing is likely on South Kilburn due to these factors and that there is a slowdown in the already limited building of new council homes – the only truly affordable option for most Brent residents. Remember that the definition of ‘affordable’ is often 80% of the market rate and these targets are not being met:

 

In respect of other Local Plan housing objectives, the amount/ percentage of affordable housing, when compared to overall housing delivery, is below the 35% London Plan fast track route target and significantly below the 50% strategic Local Plan target. In 23/24 19.7% of the homes that were completed in the borough were affordable, and 26.7% of the homes that were approved that year were affordable. For 23/24 homes delivered which were subject to an affordable housing S106 obligation, the percentage delivered was 44%.

 

Given the number of families on the Council list, and the Council’s policy to persuade them to move into private accommodation outside of the borough, the policy for more family-sized homes has also failed:

 

The Local Plan has a target of 1 in every new 4 (25%) homes requiring permission being 3 or more bedrooms. In 23/24 delivery was below this at 12.2%. Delivery of this target is impacted by small scale schemes that might be for three of less dwellings, thus not required to provide a three-bed home; on larger schemes, there is often a trade-off reflecting the viability considerations. 3+ bedroom schemes do not attain the same values (per square metre) as properties with 1 or 2 bedrooms, thus requiring the 25% affects development viability and can reduce the number of affordable homes that can be delivered. 

 

If there are to be more smaller developments in future these also have their drawbacks:

 

For minor developments, the range of policies that apply are fewer, in part reflective of the Government’s position that to support the small builders’ sector there should be lower costs/ simpler processes. In addition, many of the homes in this sector in Brent are delivered via conversions of existing homes (e.g. conversions of houses to flats). These factors can bring compromises that might not be applicable in larger schemes, e.g. no lifts, inability to provide outdoor amenity space for upper floor dwellings, encouragement to attain higher energy efficiency/ renewables, rather than requirement, etc.

Although officers try to reassure, there are also issues when builders try to reduce costs:

 

The Council ensures that the quality of the affordable homes is consistent with that delivered for private homes. Applicants know that the Council will not accept obvious lower standards or development that is not tenure blind particularly in terms of outward appearance and location. There however, may be subtle differences, (e.g. communal facilities such as size of lobbies, corridor finishes, incorporation of soft furnishings, gym facilities) as registered providers seek to reduce on-going service charges to occupants.

 

Officers outline other areas of the Local Plan where it is likely that changes will be needed;

In respect of the topic area policies sections changes are likely to be required to reflect recent and proposed trends, e.g. during and post Covid the move towards on-line trading will mean some retail uses are diminishing, meaning town centres are at greater risk of contraction, whilst hospitality uses are also struggling, with existing numbers of pubs proving difficult to maintain as viable. The Council will need to review its viability tests/ periods of vacancy that are acceptable to ensure its not unnecessarily maintaining property vacancies. Review of the borough’s green spaces indicates an inconsistency in categorisation and levels of protection provided for those not identified. These will need a detailed review and amended policy. The affordable workspace policy will need review to apply it to a lower size threshold of development. It was subject to change during the last examination by the Inspectors as it received objections, which the Council was not allowed to address properly due to submission of additional viability being inadmissible. The amount and concentration of student housing has also become a more pronounced concern for councillors and the Plan will consider how to best address this, balancing up London’s strategic student housing needs against Brent’s housing priorities including very high affordable housing needs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Finds that “Affordable” Housing Increases Rents for Low-income Londoners

 

 

As the Labour Party Conference meets in Liverpool and Brent's lead member for Regeneration also takes on a leading role in the national Labour Yimby (Yes in May Backyard) Group a well-researched report has been published that raises doubts about the strategy.

The YIMBY Group seeks to label any opposition to massive housing developments as NIMBYs (Not in My Backyard) - self-interested communities interested only in maintaining their own privilege - the Public Interest Law Centre report shows that the issue is more nuanced.

Although Cllr Tatler has argued that any increase in housing supply in Brent will lower rents through market mechanisms, according to My London Office of National Statistic data shows that Brent has seen the steepest rise in rents over the past 12 months of any local area in England or Wales.

The average rent is now £2,121 per month - a rise of 33.6% since 2023. This compares with a London average rise of 9.6%. 

 From the Public Interest Law Centre website

 

“Immediate action is needed to adopt policies aligned with UN standards of affordability. Time is running out, and the impact on children in temporary accommodation is especially urgent.”

 

PILC has launched a report that has found that estate regeneration projects that feature demolition routinely underproduce truly affordable housing for low-income Londoners and increase rents of council and social housing by an average of more than £80 per week. 

 

We commissioned Dr Joe Penny of UCL’s Urban Laboratory to analyse six of the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ regeneration projects across three London Boroughs including The Aylesbury Estate and The Heygate Estate.  

 

The report has found that the word “affordable” is used with no consideration for what is truly affordable for people who need these housing options the most and there will be a net loss of 2,151 truly affordable council homes. 

 

What is cross-subsidy estate regeneration? 

 

The cross-subsidy approach to estate regeneration has been the dominant model of estate regeneration for the past two decades and looks set to continue under the Labour government. 

It is when council estates are demolished to make way for expensive properties which are put on the market or rented privately. In theory, the new private homes fund the construction of “affordable” homes on the sites. 

 

“As legal aid lawyers, we witness daily injustices stemming from the housing crisis. This research, for the first time, clearly demonstrates the damage caused by current “affordable” housing policies and the push for demolition, which disproportionately affects many of our brave, working-class clients” said PILC’s legal caseworker and community legal organiser Saskia O’Hara.  

 

Challenging the narrative 

 

The new Labour government and the Greater London Authority maintain that cross-subsidy models are the answer to the housing crisis. However this report shows that it is making it worse. 

 

“The findings from this report evidence the urgent need for a fundamental rethink of estate regeneration in London” said Dr Joe Penny who wrote the report.  

 

“The current cross-subsidy model is badly failing council and social housing tenants, as well as those on housing waiting lists. Truly affordable homes – that is, homes that cost no more than 30% of net household incomes – are not being replaced in sufficient quantities; social and affordable rents are increasing beyond what those on the lowest incomes can afford; and structurally sound buildings are being wasted amid a deepening housing emergency.” 

 

Using the evidence in the fight for affordable housing 

 

To make the evidence as accessible as possible, PILC have created a short illustrated guide to the report and a video highlighting the top 5 things you need to know about council house building in London.  

 

These resources are designed to empower residents facing displacement from demolition of their housing estate and communities facing gentrification because of regeneration plans to challenge the plans with hard facts. 

---

We’ve been active in supporting local residents and grassroots campaigns to challenge injustice from gentrification for many years. |We use the law as a tool to assist, support and empower communities at the frontline of gentrification. 

We work to support local residents and campaigns to shift the power balance away from demolition and cross-subsidy regeneration back to the people who live there. 

As movement lawyers, we seek to be on the ground with campaigners, offering legal services as just one tool or tactic amongst others in a campaign. 

 

Download What Golden Era: A guide to help challenge estate demolition plans with hard facts. 

 

Download The promise of cross-subsidy: Why estate demolition cannot solve London’s housing emergency. 

 

Watch What Golden Era? 5 things you need to know about council house building in London. 

 

Tonight's Brent Council motion on housing fails to commit to council housing

 Labour Chancellor Rachel Reeves today announced the reinstatement of mandatory housing targets on local authorities and changes in planning laws in favour of development, including a review of  land designated as green belt as well as  use brownfield and grey belt sites.

She indicated that local communities will only have a limited say (my emphasis):

It will still be in the first instance up to local communities and local authorities to decide where housing is built, but we will bring back those mandatory housing targets..it will be up to local communities where housing is built but it has to be built.

Clearly in areas like Brent, where available land is at a premium, there is likely to be pressure on some of our green spaces. Readers will remember plans to build on the Garden Centre land at the Welsh Harp at Birchen Grove, and the glass house land in Cool Oak Lane. The plans were defeated by a local campaign.

There was no mention in accounts of Reeves' statement that I have read, about the building of council homes. Similarly, a motion put by Brent Planning Committee member Cllr Liz Dixon to tonight's Council Meeting, written before the result of the General Election was known, but reflecting the Labour Manifesto, mentions 'affordable housing' without defining it, and does not mention council housing.

This reflects Cllr Shama Tatler's emphasis on building a range of home types, many of which would not be affordable for local people. Whether taking on the Building New Council Homes remit from Cllr Promise Knight, who is on maternity leave, will change her stance remains to be seen. Certainly her belief in the market: that more homes of any type will increase supply and lower prices, is challenged by some of her fellow councillors, who point to the distortions in the market caused by land banking and foreign investors' acquisition of new homes.

Tonight's meeting will also note the answers to questions to the Cabinet which includes Cllr Butt's advice to to evicted Brent tenants to move out of Brent to areas where rent is lower.

This is Cllr Dixon's Motion:

Declaration of a Housing Emergency

 

This Council notes:

 

* London is the epicentre of the country’s housing crisis, with a quarter of Londoners living in poverty after paying for their homes.

* In one of the wealthiest cities in the world, more than one child in every classroom is homeless and living in temporary accommodation, while rough sleeping is up 50% over this decade.

* Councils in London are spending £90m per month on temporary accommodation for homeless people - up almost 40% on last year.

*The dream of homeownership is out of reach for young people. The government have failed to act despite the housing crisis acting as one of the country’s biggest barriers to growth.

*The government has spent billions of pounds on housing benefit every year, which goes into the pockets of private landlords without creating any new assets.

*Without intervention, the number of new affordable homes built will fall sharply in  coming years thanks to high interest rates and runaway construction cost inflation.

 

This Council further notes:

 

*The Housing Needs Service in Brent has seen a 12% increase in homelessness approaches in 2023/-24 (7,300) compared to 2022/-23 (6,529). The total number of homeless families living in B&B and Annexe accommodation has risen to 485.

*Many Councils are being forced to book rooms in commercial hotels to meet statutory duties. In Brent this has driven a £13.4m overspend. These issues are not unique to Brent and have impacted the whole of the country – but especially London.

* There are 5,688 households in A-C banding on the waiting list. At Band C, the average waiting time for a 2-bed home is 8 years, with a 4-bed home rising to 24 years.

*GLA grant funding per unit of affordable housing is approx. £195k, with typical build costs per average unit in the region of £450k. Brent Council has planning permission ready or has submitted applications for 423 more affordable units, but many face a significant funding gap, and will not be viable without an increase in available subsidy.

 

This Council welcomes:

 

Pledges made during the current election campaign:

 

*To update the National Policy Planning Framework, including restoring mandatory housing targets.

*To get Britain building again, creating jobs across England with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament.

*To work with local authorities to reform Local Plans and strengthen the planning presumption in favour of sustainable development, supported by additional planning officers.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

(1) Work with other local authorities in London that have declared a housing emergency to calling on the incoming government to unlock the funding needed to deliver the affordable homes Brent desperately needs.

 

(2) Write to the Secretary of State to recommend the following steps:

 

*The suspension of the right-to-buy discount.

*A new Housing Revenue Account funding settlement to increase the supply of housing, improve standards and support retrofitting.

*Financial support to immediately purchase more homes from private landlords.

*To review the Local Housing Allowance available for Temporary Accommodation.

 

Cllr Liz Dixon

Dollis Hill Ward

It is important to note the reference to viability as the remaining elements of the South Kilburn regeneration looks increasingly in doubt and the St Raphaels plans have been much reduced.

Leasehold reform, Shared Ownership issues, a rent cap, builders' responsiblity to fund fire safety work, including cladding remediation are issues still to be addressed in the ear;y days of this government.