Green Party launches petition for more affordable public transport in London

 

 

The London Green Party has launched a petition for more affordable public transport in London:

 

The cost of public transport in London is higher than any other global major city.

 

We need the Mayor of London and Transport for London to urgently focus on reducing the cost of getting around our city. 

 

In the run up to the next Transport for London budget, we are asking the Mayor to prioritise measures to reduce costs of travel to help all Londoners with the cost of living.

 

We are calling on the mayor to:

• Freeze fares at current levels.
• Extend free bus travel to under-22s
• Make free travel available 24 hours a day for Freedom Pass holders.
• Offer free travel to all emergency services staff.
• Provide free bus travel for people seeking asylum

 

SIGN HERE  

New Rokesby Place homes rent set at London Affordable Rent could be over £50 a week higher than the original Social Rent!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

I have watched and listened to the webcast of the Planning Committee meeting for the Rokesby Place application, so can now comment on the information given by the Planning Officer about the difference between the levels of Social Rent and London Affordable Rent.

The figure she gave for London Affordable Rent, for 2022/23 for a 4-bedroom house, was £198.03 a week. This comes from the table published by the GLA on the Mayor of London's website.

  London Affordable Rent from GLA website

The figure she gave for Social Rent, for 2022/23 for a 4-bedroom home, was £183.18 a week. This figure comes from the Government's website on social housing controls, and is the MAXIMUM that can be charged as Social Rent for a home of this size.

 

 

Social Rent caps for 2022-23 from the Government rent standards website

This gives the around 8% difference between Social Rent and LAR which Planning Committee were told.

If the Planning Officer had used the latest London local council average Social Rent figure from the GLA affordable rents table (2020/21), uprated by the statutory maximum annual increases (2021/22 = 1.5%, 2022/23 = 4.1%), the comparative Social Rent for a 4-bedroom home would be £147.75 a week. That's over a £50 a week difference!

What conclusion can we draw from this? 

Do Brent Council intend that any new homes they build for Social Rent will be for the maximum Social Rent level allowed by the Government? 

Or do they take the view "why not make them all London Affordable Rent?", and charge tenants an extra 8% for their homes, but still claim they are providing genuinely affordable housing to Brent residents in housing need?

Why is Brent Council fixing a South Kilburn council property rent at 'up to' 80% of the market rent?

Click on image to enlarge

I've been banging on about the meaninglessness of  'affordable housing' when used by the planning officers in the 'London Borough of Brent and Quintain' for some time and you're probably bored with it.

However, the term is used again in LocataHome, the free sheet of council and housing association homers available in five West London boroughs. Locata guidance says:

At the moment Housing Associations rent most of their homes out at Social Rents. Housing Associations will now be allowed to offer some tenancies at higher rents which could be up to 80% of a market rent. This is called “Affordable Rent”. 

Housing Associations will be able to charge the “Affordable Rent” on new build homes and will also be allowed to let some of their existing properties to new tenants at Affordable Rents. Tenants will still be able to claim housing benefit to help with their rent.

The 2 bedroomed flat advertised in the March 12 edition of LocataHomes (No 529) advertises a two bedroomed flat in Gorefield House, South Kilburn at a weekly rent of  £249.23 per week and adds 'Only applicants in employment should bid for this property.' The landlord is NOT a Housing Association - it is Brent Council. It is NOT new build.

As you can see in the above advertisement a similar property at social rent is just under £100 cheaper.

Brent's Draft Housing Strategy of 2017 had an appendix LINK which looked at what people in Brent could afford.  This table shows the gross income required to pay rent at a level of 40% of income.

So at 80% of market rent for a 2 bedroom flat the family would require an income of £54,971 per year. Incidentally 'up to 80%' in rent terms is the reverse of the 'up to' used for broadband speeds. For housing 80% is most likely while the broadband speed is rarely, if ever, reached!

The London Mayor is quoted in the draft strategy document as giving these figures for the London Affordable Rent and you will see that for a 2 bedroomed property is £152.73, around the same level as the Leighton Gardens flat above.

So I have three questions for Brent Council:

Why are you advertising council housing property on South Kilburn at a rent which does not meet the Mayor's affordability criterion and clearly envisages the tenant has an income well above the Brent median income?

On what basis are you charging a so-called 'affordable rent' for a property which is not new build and where you are the landlord?

What Council policy allows you to stipulate that the prospective tenant must be in employment?

Caroline Lucas challenged the whole concept of 'affordable' on Channel 4 News last night:

"The idea that affordable should mean 80% of market rent is nothing less than obscene."

Green MP Caroline Lucas gives her view on what she calls the UK's “housing crisis”. pic.twitter.com/D3KfBVfoim

— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) March 6, 2018

Controversial Bridge Park regeneration consultation - November sessions

Readers will remember the controversy over the Bridge Park (Stonebridge) development when Brent Council entered agreements with what some felt were rather dodgy overseas registered property companies. LINK

In particular concern centred around General Mediterranean Holdings (GMH)  and its Chairman Sir Nadhmi Avichi who had faced fraud allegations in 2003. Cllr John Warren in January tried to get a debate on the issue, and in particular Avichi's links with the Labour Party LINK but his motion was defeated by the overwhelming majority of the Labour Group.

The proposals include a new hotel and housing that  is unlikely to be truly affordable for local people.  There will be no space for the small businesses that are currently housed on site and apart from the added swimming pool at the Leisure Centre  I understand overall space is smaller as function rooms will not be provided.  The question arises about whether the replacement will be a public facility or run by a private company.

Now the proposals are coming up for public consultation  (two for Lead Members, ward councillors and local residents took place earlier this week)  This is the consultation notice as it appears on Brent Council's website:

2 November 2017, 6.30pm to 9pm, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

See events in: Public consultations

Top of Form

Public Consultation on the redevelopment of Bridge Park

• Update residents on progress with the sale of the land
• Share information on the wider Bridge Park redevelopment proposals
• Seek input on the emerging design for the new leisure centre

Date: Thursday 2 November

Location: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Time: 6.30pm -7pm (Presentation) 7pm - 9pm (Drop-in session)

Have your say on the Bridge Park redevelopment, complete our online consultation survey before 3 December 2017.

Bridge Park redevelopment

Brent Council is working with the owners of the Unisys site situated adjacent to the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre in Stonebridge on exciting proposals to regenerate the site for new homes, businesses and a brand new leisure centre with improved facilities.

Background

In June 2013, Brent Council looked at options for developing the Unisys and Bridge Park sites for residential and commercial development to fund a new sports centre. In February 2014, council consulted with the public on four options for the layout of the new facility. Option three was chosen and includes:

• four court sports hall     
• 65 station gym
• Smaller separate gym
• Children’s soft play area and party room      
• Sauna and steam rooms
• Studios
• Spin studio
• Small meeting room
• 50 car parking spaces      
• Four lane swimming pool with moveable floor

In June 2017, the Council entered into a Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA) with the purchaser.

What’s next?

• Progress plans for the new leisure centre and re-development proposals
• Further consultation events with the public 
• Purchase additional land

Information about public consultation dates will be publicised widely.

Contact

For further information about the project contact

• Project Manager- Tanveer Ghani 
• Email- Tanveer.ghani@brent.gov.uk

FAQs

What is the Conditional Land Sale Agreement (CLSA)?    

The CLSA is a time-limited contract between the Council and the developer. The CLSA includes a range of terms and conditions that need to be met in order to complete the sale of Council land to the developer. Please refer to the reports highlighted in the ‘Things to Read’ section for further information about the CLSA.

When will the current Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre (BPCLC) close?  

The Council’s plan is to keep the current Bridge Park Leisure Centre open until the CLSA is completed. We expect BPCLC to be kept open until the Summer of 2019 and further communications will be provided in due course.

Will BPCLC close once the CLSA is completed? 

Yes, the current facility will have to close for redevelopment to start.

When is the redevelopment expected to begin and how long will it last?  

 It is too early to say at this stage although we don’t expect anything to happen on the site until 2019 at the earliest. The immediate target is satisfy the terms and conditions for completing the CLSA. At key milestones of the project, the Council will continue to publish updates online and through local press.

What will the new leisure centre, hotel and housing look like?

Architects Roberts Limbrick will consult with members of the public on design proposals for the new leisure centre.

Detailed consultation plans are below (Click bottom right to enlarge):

Brent approves more high rise flats at Wembley Stadium

I wasn't able to attend last week's Planning Committee so I am afraid you will have to make do with Brent Council's PR gloss on the latest approval of tower blocks at Wembley Stadium.  As usual the 'affordable' designation remains unexplored. 'Affordable' for whom?

 Brent Council's planning committee last night (Wed 15 March) gave approval for the development of 743 new homes for rent on the doorstep of the iconic Wembley Stadium, part of 5,000 new homes to be built over the next seven years.

When completed the homes will be part of the largest new build rental-only scheme in the UK, surpassing the current biggest in East Village, Stratford which has 3,000 properties. The homes will be available through developer Quintain's build to rent business Tipi, which was launched last year.

Of the 733 residential rental units, 42 per cent (303) will be offered under the affordable housing scheme and the remaining 58 per cent (440) available for market rent.

The new dwellings will range from 12 to 26 storeys in height and will include residential landscaped gardens, a clubhouse, energy centre, 91 coach parking spaces to support Stadium event days, and 569 square metres of commercial space.

The approval comes as part of the regeneration of the area around the stadium by Quintain which includes 11,500 new homes.

The 25-year project will also create 10,000 new jobs, apprenticeships and business opportunities. By the end of 2017 there will be 3,000 homes under construction in the Wembley Park area within a development containing a new seven acre public park, a new landscaped London square, a primary school and a wide range of shops, restaurants and workspaces.

Cllr Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills said:

We know that buying in London is out of reach for many and with rising rent costs we are pressing developers to deliver as many affordable units as possible. We are committed to raising standards in our private rented sector and these newly built and professionally managed homes will provide high quality and safe places to live.

The vision for this vibrant new residential area in Brent will take some years to deliver, but work is well underway. Innovative architecture and design combined with retail, green spaces and excellent transport links create a great place to live and work.

Two blocks of flats planned for Wembley Job Centre site

Wednesday's Planning Committee will have a pre-application presentation on a development on Wembley High Road/St Johns Road/Elm Road.

It is on the site of the present Job Centre on St Johns Road with the Boots store front on 500 High Road retained.

The plan would replace the above building with a 10 and 12 storey block .

The site

The following 74 flat residential mix is proposed (remembering that 'affordable' is up to 80% market rent):

 

Private Market Housing (68% of total):
9x studio
12x 1 bed
19x 2 bed
10x 3 bed

Affordable Housing (32% of total):
8x 1 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 2 bed (5x Affordable Rent and 3x Shared Ownership)
8x 3 bed (6x Affordable Rent and 2x Shared Ownership)

Overall Tenure Split on Affordable Housing = 67:33 (Affordable Rent: Shared
Ownership)

The officers' report considers issues such as the height of the proposed building and the quality of the build and recommends revision before it is submitted as a full planning application. LINK

Is Brent's 'Metroland' suburban housing under threat?

The Quintain site surrounded by 'low density suburban housing'

A report going to the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee on September 6th LINK highlights some of the issues facing Brent Council in the provision of housing.

It is estimated that 1525 new dwellings need to be built every year until 2026. The report expresses confidence that this can be met in the early part of the period through developments taking place, particularly in Wembley, but additional measures will be needed in the future.

One immediate problem is that developers favour one or two bed-roomed units to ensure a maximum return while Brent's  Strategic Housing Marketing Assessment 2016 said that to meet local needs 66% of them should be of 3 bedrooms or more.

The report says that one option would be for the Council to control dwelling size as a condition of the sale of its land, rather than at the planning stage. This comes up against current 'market sentiment' when the Council tries to meet the 50% 'truly affordable' renting target and developers have recourse to viability assessments as well as limits on the ability of the Council to cross-subsidise from other funds.

Given the recent controversy about the development of Heron House, near the Quintain redevelopment area around the stadium, this possibility for finding additional sites is a concern:

...on a potentially more contentious note redevelopment of extensive areas of low density suburban housing where there are high public transport accessibility levels

One of the Heron House residents' issues was that the development was out of keeping with the largely traditional suburban nature of the immediate area.

Could this mean that those traditional 'Metroland' homes in the north of the borough that happen to be close to tube stations and bus routes (see above) might be under threat in the future as high rise-high density housing becomes the norm? Could we see speculators buying up such houses, with their large gardens, in order to redevelop them into blocks of flats with the blessing of the Council?

Other suggestions in the report may also cause concern:

The opportunities for additional sites for housing are likely to be found from a variety of sources for example: 

·      within existing growth areas, through for example increasing densities on already identified sites and identifying new sites; 


·      extending where appropriate existing growth areas into adjacent areas; 


·      more supportive policies for redevelopment/conversion of existing 
residential into addition dwellings; 


·      having a more pro-active approach to identifying sites within town centres; 


·      the identification of further extensive growth areas 

·      a more flexible approach to existing non-residential allocations, the most obvious due to their scale and existing developed nature being employment sites. 

 


The last obviously raises the possibility that local employment opportunities may be lost as employment sites get used for housing.