Brent Council tries to stop South Kilburn regeneration from hitting the buffers via a single developer and more private homes

 

The map shows how many sites are still to be developed 20 years after the 2004 Masterplan.

 

The South Kilburn Regeneration began as a concept in the late 1990s, with the New Deal for Communities adopted in 2001.

The first South Kilburn Masterplan was approved on the 12th July 2004 so the project has been going for 20 years and completion may take at least another ten.

The Minutes of the 12th July Executive Meeting show that non-Executive members were concerned that the Masterplan had not gone to the Scrutiny Committee. LINK

Tomorrow's Cabinet starts at 10am and South Kilburn is Item 12 out of 15 items LINK. The meeting will be livestreamed HERE.

Cabinet will be asked to approve a new chapter with the council seeking a single developer rather than a multiplicity of developers for the sites that remain. They include Queens Park & Cullen House, William Dunbar House and William Saville House, Masefield House, Wordsworth House and Dickens House, Craik Court, Crone Court and Zangwill House, Hereford House and Exeter Court, Austin House and Blake Court and John Radcliffe House.  

The Cabinet are told that Early Pre-market Engagement has indicated interest from several companies to take on the very large task with attendant risks in the current climate. Economies of scale are cited as an advantage but there are still risks regarding viability

The regeneration programme is based on the cross-subsidy model where the receipts from market housing funds the delivery of affordable housing, social and public infrastructure.  It is however notable that the programme has up until now benefitted from rapidly rising sales values as regeneration improved the area, but the sales values are now flattening out. 

Meanwhile construction cost inflation has risen steeply and continues to remain high, this alongside the recent regulatory changes, specifically the second staircase, is putting viability under extreme pressures. Also, interest rate rises have affected both development market and purchaser demand. Affordability of the programme is expected to remain challenging and will need to be carefully monitored and robustly managed.

There are still tenants waiting to be rehoused on the estate in line with the Landlord Promise made by the Council that they would be rehoused on the estate. It appears that 164 will have to wait until after 2028:

933 tenants have been permanently rehoused in a new home in South Kilburn. Approximately 200 tenants have been permanently rehoused outside South Kilburn in a new build or an existing home around the borough in areas such as Harlesden, Willesden, Cricklewood, Willesden Green, Kensal Rise, Kensal Green, Brondesbury and Kilburn. 

 At time of writing there are 284 tenants across Austin, Blake, Dickens, Craik, Crone, Zangwill, John Radcliffe, William Dunbar and William Saville remaining to be rehoused. 120 of the 284 will have the opportunity to be rehoused between 2025 and 2028 in the developments under construction at NWCC, C&G and Peel. The rehousing team is working with tenants at Austin, Blake and Dickens as a priority for the next phase of rehousing as these blocks are in the poorest condition.

The report is franker that previously about the difficulties encountered, partly in support of the single developer proposal:

 In a small number of developments however residents have experienced disruptive build quality issues. At Granville New Homes, Franklin, Chase and Hollister House, there have been issues with water leakage, supply of hot water and heating, poor workmanship and use of poor-quality material. Elsewhere, at Merle Court and George and Swift House fire safety issues with cladding has required significant remediation works.  

Multiplicity of landlords and managing agents arising from the site-by-site development model is also reflected in the inconsistent and variable standards of management and maintenance of the public realm across the neighbourhood and sometimes on opposite sides of the street. This inconsistent approach has marred the community's experience of living, working and visiting South Kilburn.  

Parts of South Kilburn have a concentration of sites at various stages of redevelopment - sites which are hoarded up and under construction, sites which are part or fully vacant. There areas have been experiencing increased levels of anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping and squatting. Alongside this is the noise, dust, vibration, and traffic disruption arising from the construction itself.  

Whilst these are the inevitable consequences of large-scale, long-term regeneration programmes, it presents significant disruption to the day-to-day experience of residents and erodes their sense of safety, community and ownership.

21. The delivery programme as set out in the 2016 Masterplan review has been delayed due to economic and viability challenges and recent regulatory changes requiring extensive design amendments. Beyond the sites which are currently under construction there is no future pipeline of new homes. For residents (tenants and leaseholders) remaining in the existing blocks the uncertainty of not knowing when and where they are going to move is frustrating, particularly for residents living in overcrowded and poor quality homes.

For viability there will be an increase in the private homes quota as well as an increase in densification.

According to the 2016 Masterplan, the remaining sites can provide a further 1,400 homes. An initial review of the Masterplan has indicated that there are opportunities for optimisation, densification to deliver more housing The remainder of programme will include a higher percentage of private housing to re- balance the overall distribution of housing tenure and front loading of affordable homes provision in the earlier phases of the programme. The level of private housing will be critical to the viability of future phases.

 

There is never much discussion, and certainly not debate, at Cabinet - that is all done in private with officers at a private pre-Cabinet meeting, so this complex and risky proposal is likely to go through in a few minutes. It is important that Scrutiny Commitee (unlike in 2005) considers it at the appropriate time.

 

Democracy in Brent – Open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet.

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Webcast recording of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, just about to begin.
(But Cllr. Tatler has to answer an urgent telephone call – I wonder what that was about?)

 

Under my recent guest post, “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet meeting minutes a work of fiction?”, I added several “FOR INFORMATION” comments, sharing the texts of email correspondence I’d had with Council Officers. I was trying to get them to amend the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May, so that they show a true and correct record of what happened over the award of the advertising lease for the Bobby Moore Bridge.

 

“FOR INFORMATION 4” was an email I’d sent on Friday afternoon to Brent’s Corporate Director (Law and Governance), setting out the changes I believed the Council needed to make to item 7 in those minutes. But the people who finally decide (at least officially) whether the minutes of the previous meeting are a correct record are the members of the Cabinet, and this is due to happen at their next meeting, on Monday morning, 17 June, at 10am (or probably 10.01am, by the time they get to item 3 on their agenda). 

 

In view of that, I sent the following open email to the Council Leader and all members of his Cabinet at around 11.30am on Saturday 15 June. (I know it is a weekend, but they are probably all working hard, preparing for Monday’s meeting!) My email forwarded the one I had sent to Debra Norman (and I had anonymised the name of the more junior Council Officer in the version below, to protect his privacy):

 

FW: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect.

 

This is an open email

 

Dear Councillor Butt and Cabinet members,

 

I am forwarding the email below, which I sent to Debra Norman (Corporate Director, Law and Governance) yesterday afternoon, so that you are aware of the need to amend the published minutes of Cabinet's 28 May meeting, when you deal with item 3, minutes of the previous meeting, at your next meeting on Monday morning, 17 June.

 

I know, from being at the 28 May meeting for this item myself, and from the webcast of it on the Council's website, that the minutes document attached to the agenda for your 17 June meeting does not show a correct record of the proceedings over item 7, the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease.

 

In my email below, I have set out the changes which need to be made, based on the evidence in the webcast recording. I hope that you will approve those amendments at your meeting on Monday.

 

While writing, I would suggest that the method of "voting" on decisions at Cabinet meetings also needs to be changed, as the present 'standard practice'* can lead to misunderstanding.

 

Cabinet meetings are the place where the public should be able to see and hear the borough's big decisions being made. If nobody speaks about the matters being decided, or expresses their view on the decision, for or against (particularly when there is more than one option available), then there is no demonstration of democracy in action.

 

At the very least, when resolutions are put to Cabinet for agreement, or otherwise, the voting should be by a show of hands. I hope that Cabinet will adopt that practice, to avoid any further episodes which could bring the Council into disrepute. Thank you. 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

------------------------------

Forwarded message:

 

Subject: Fwd: The minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, for item 7, are incorrect

 

To: debra.norman@brent.gov.uk

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Further to the emails today from *****  ***** and yourself, in response to my email this morning (sending you a copy of the blog article I had written, which has now been published online: https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2024/06/democracy-in-brent-are-cabinet-meeting.html ), I am writing to confirm that I still wish to challenge the accuracy of item 7 in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024.

 

I have noted the explanations given by Mr *****, but believe that the main criticisms of those minutes in my article are still valid. In order to try to resolve this matter, I will set out below the amendments which I believe are required to make the minutes a correct record.

 

1. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'The Cabinet thanked those involved in the work on this and the residents who had put their views forward and RESOLVED, having noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition relating and the following options presented for consideration in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease: 

 

Option A – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge only where the existing digital screens are located. This will not affect any of the tiled areas.

 

Option B – Advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.

 

(1) To approve, having taken account of the reasons detailed in paragraph 3.2.6 of the report, the award of contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease on the basis of Option B (namely advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque) to Quintain Ltd.

 

(2) To note the minimum guaranteed amount in respect of Option B would generate additional financial return above the required guarantee over the four-year contract period compared with Option A.

 

(3) To note in respect of Option B the tiled mural with plaque in honour of Bobby Moore would remain on permanent display inside the underpass framed by the lightboxes.' 

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Councillor Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. No Cabinet member indicated that they wished to speak.

 

Councillor Butt then moved the recommendation in the Officer Report, in relation to the award of the contract for the Bobby Moore Bridge Advertising Lease, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He asked whether he could take this in agreement from Cabinet members, and although there was no response from them, he declared that the Recommendation was agreed.’

 

2. Remove this section of the minutes for item 7:

 

'Following on from the above decision, Philip Grant sought to raise a point of order, which the Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) advised he was not minded to accept on the basis of Mr Grant already having had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. '

 

Replace that section with:

 

‘Immediately following that declaration, Philip Grant raised a point of order. Councillor Muhammed Butt (as Leader of the Council) refused to acknowledge that a point of order had been raised, but Mr Grant continued to raise it, saying: 'Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.'

 

Councillor Butt continued to object to Mr Grant speaking, on the basis that he had already had the opportunity to address the meeting when presenting the petition. Councillor Neil Nerva tried to intervene, saying: 'Chair. On a point of order ...', but was ignored by the Council Leader. When Mr Grant finished trying to get his point of order considered by Councillor Butt, the Council Leader said: 'Thank you very much. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

These two proposed changes to the minutes of the meeting for item 7 would remedy the worst of the inaccuracies. If they are made, I would accept that the minutes would then be a true and correct record, which at present they are not. I hope that you can agree to make those changes. Thank you. Best wishes,  Philip Grant.

 

I hope that Councillor Butt and his Cabinet will agree to correct the minutes, but I won’t be holding my breath.

 

Philip Grant

 

* This is the ‘standard practice’ I was referring to in my open email to the Council Leader and Cabinet members, as explained to me by a Brent Council Governance Officer:

 

‘In terms of the minutes, from my perspective these set out in full the decision made at the meeting based on the wording of the recommendations within the accompanying report, which were approved by Cabinet on the basis of Option B being clearly identified by the Leader as the substantive recommendation in relation to the award of the contract for the advertising lease and the remaining recommendations all listed for noting. These were agreed by Cabinet without anyone indicating they were minded to vote against, or seek to amend, with the minutes reflecting standard practice in the way decisions are recorded.’

 

Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet Meeting minutes a work of fiction?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting, published with the agenda for the 17 June meeting.

 

In March 2022, Martin published a guest blog from me entitled “Democracy in Brent – are Cabinet Meetings a Charade?”. This is a sequel, based on my own experience from the Cabinet meeting on 28 May 2024, including the incident reported by Martin in a blog later that day.

 

I am not suggesting that Brent Cabinet meetings are fictitious. They happen every month, usually with a similar 40 to 45 minute ritual, presided over by the Council Leader. Nor am I implying that everything in the minutes of those meetings is false. But the minutes of those meetings are meant to be a true and correct record, checked (and, if necessary, corrected) before they are signed by the Chair as the official record of what took place, a summary of what was said and what was decided.

 

“Minutes of the Previous Meeting”, from the minutes of the 28 May Cabinet meeting.

 

This is the official record of the checking and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting at Cabinet on 28 May. What actually happened was that Cllr. Butt said: ‘Can we just go through them for accuracy. Page 1, page 2 ….’ Ten turned pages in as many seconds, then onto the next item with no resolution or agreement that they were a correct record.

 

A similar thing will probably happen at the next Cabinet meeting on 17 June. But the published minutes of the meeting on 28 May are NOT a correct record, and I will explain why.

 

The countdown clock for my petition presentation to Cabinet! (That’s me in the corner)

 

I have no quarrel with the minutes for item 5 on the agenda. That was my presentation of the tile murals petition to the Cabinet meeting. The Governance Officer asked me to let him have a copy of the text for my presentation, which I sent him, so that it is an accurate reflection of what I said, and very similar to the version which Martin published the day before the meeting.

 

Where the minutes do not reflect the reality of what happened is at item 7, when the meeting dealt with the award of the Bobby Moore Bridge advertising lease. This is the first part of that section of the minutes:

 

The Report which Cllr. Butt introduced did clearly state, at the start, that there were two potential options as a basis for awarding the contract. But the Council Leader did not refer to the option which would have restricted the advertising to the parapets of the bridge. The petition, and my presentation on it, did refer to both options and made a strong case for that option, ending with: ‘I commend Option A to you, and ask you to vote for it.’

 

I have highlighted the wording which states that Cllr Butt “responded” to the points I had raised. He did not. He only made the slightest reference to my presentation, in part of a sentence, ‘how the contribution that Mr Philip Grant spoke about benefits the borough’. He spoke mainly about the benefits of working with developers, the CIL money this brought in, and the £210m in government funding taken away from the borough over the past 14 years. He wanted to assure residents that his Cabinet was on the side of residents, and that it would continue to provide those services that every resident needs and depends upon.

 

This second part of the minutes gets even worse, as far as accuracy is concerned:

 

‘The Cabinet thanked…’? Cllr. Butt said that he would open the item up for comments from Cabinet members. He glanced around for one second, but no Cabinet member had indicated that they wanted to speak before he moved on to ‘the Recommendation’!

 

There was no evidence that the Cabinet had ‘noted the comments made during the presentation of the petition’. Even if they had “noted” them, they had not discussed or considered those points. It was as if the Cabinet members had decided, or been instructed, that they should not interfere with how the Leader wanted to deal with this matter.

 

It was very soon clear how he wanted to deal with it. The minutes again refer to the two options, and set out what they were. They give the false impression that the “Resolution”, or decision, was made how it SHOULD have been made, along the lines which I set out in an open email to Cllr. Butt on 20 May.

 

In order that the decision between the two options was not only fair, but could be seen to be fair by members of the public interested in the Bobby Moore Bridge tile murals, I had written:

 

‘From my previous experience of watching Cabinet meetings, you would usually ask members whether they agree with the recommendation(s) made by Officers in their Report. 

 

In this particular case, I am requesting that you invite individual votes for “those in favour of Option A” and for “those in favour of Option B”. In the event of an equal number of members voting for each option, you would, of course, have the casting vote as Council Leader and Chair of the meeting.’

 

Straight after his very brief invitation for comments from Cabinet members, Cllr. Butt moved on to the recommendation in the Officer Report, saying that this was for Option B, ‘advertising on the parapet walls of the bridge, plus the underpass walls excluding the mural with plaque.’ He then asked, ‘Can I take this in agreement from Cabinet members?’ With hardly a glance, and in virtually the same breath he said ‘Agreed. Thank you very much.’

 

I was watching, as was Martin, and a fellow Wembley History Society colleague of mine who had signed the petition and come to support it. We are all agreed that no Cabinet member raised a hand, or spoke, to show their agreement!

The final part of the published minutes deals with what happened next:

 

I am pleased that the minutes do mention my point of order, but I did not only “seek” to raise it, I DID raise it. Immediately after what I saw as a procedural irregularity over the “agreement”, I went to the public speaker microphone and said “Point of Order”, an action which should have led to the Chair of the meeting asking me to state what my point of order was.

 

But even as I was approaching the microphone, Cllr. Butt put his hand up and said “No!” He continued to speak over me as I made clear what my point was: ‘‘Point of Order. You said it was agreed, but not a single member of the Cabinet put their hand up to agree.’

 

“No!” Cllr. Butt trying to stop me from speaking. (from the webcast recording of the Cabinet meeting)

 

The minutes say that Cllr. Butt ‘advised he was not minded to accept’ my point of order. That is untrue. He did not even acknowledge that I was raising a point of order. The minutes do not include what my point of order was. If they had included it, and if Cllr. Butt had listened to it, then the “reason” given in the minutes (that I’d already had the opportunity to speak, when presenting the petition) is shown to be nonsense. My point was that the “decision” he had just declared as “agreed” had not been agreed by the Cabinet at the meeting. 

 

What Cllr. Butt actually said, speaking over me, was: ‘Mr Grant. Thank you very much. Mr Grant. Thank you for your contribution. There is no further …’ I continued to explain that I was raising a point of order, and what it was. Cllr. Butt then tried to humiliate me, saying: ‘‘Why are you embarrassing yourself like this?’ At this point, Cllr. Nerva tried to intervene:

 

“Chair. On a point of order …’ (From the Council’s webcast recording at 16:00)

 

Cllr. Nerva appeared to be trying to explain to the Council Leader how he should deal with a point of order which had been raised. However, Cllr. Butt ignored him, and continued to direct his words at me: ‘I’m truly disappointed in yourself. It just shows….’ As I had stopped trying to speak, he finished with: ‘Thank you very much. We will move on. Cabinet has agreed the recommendation for Option B. We will move on.’

 

The reality of what happened is very different from the record in the published minutes!

 

Brent’s Chief Executive, who was sitting next to the Council Leader at the meeting, but kept quiet throughout this, clearly realised that I had raised a point of order, what it was, and that Cllr. Butt had failed to deal with it properly. She wrote to me the following day, with what appears to be the response she thought Cllr. Butt should have made (and not the one included in the minutes!).

 

She wrote (and I have underlined the last part, for emphasis): 

 

‘I noted that you spoke again at the Cabinet meeting at the conclusion of the item that you had spoken to at the beginning of the meeting, in relation to there not being a show of hands in relation to the decision. For clarification, Members were not required to vote in this way, …. The Leader asked for confirmation that the other Members were in agreement with the recommendations and the agreement was unanimous through a verbal process, rather than a show of hands.’

 

My reply to her was:

 

‘There was definitely no show of hands, but a 'verbal process' suggests that Cabinet members spoke their agreement. 

 

There was silence. There was no vote. There was no evidence of agreement at the meeting, other than Cllr. Butt claiming that the recommendation had been agreed.’

 

Silence when Cabinet members were invited to discuss the (heavily biased) Report, and my petition presentation which put forward an alternative view to balance that. Silence when Cabinet members were asked for their agreement to the Officers’ recommendation. Paul Simon summed it up in a 1960s song:

 

Sounds of Silence. (Album cover image and lyrics extract from the internet)

 

Although I have shown that parts of the minutes for item 7 of the Cabinet meeting on 28 May are “a work of fiction” (you can confirm this from the webcast recording on the Council’s website, from 11:50 to 16:23), I don’t wish to blame the Council Officers whose task it is to prepare those minutes. They may have been following instructions. They may have prepared correct draft minutes, but been forced to make changes, after the Council Leader or a Senior Officer went ‘through them for accuracy’. I don’t know. All I do know is that these minutes are not a true and correct record!

 

Philip Grant.

Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments for 2024-2025

 Brent Council Cabinet and Committee appointments have been published ahead of the AGM tomorrow evening where Cllr Tariq Dar will be installed as Mayor.

Cabinet and other appointments/nominations are all made by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt. Note that on the Barham Trust Committee the Cabinet have to approve their own appointment!

The two Scrutiny Committees are important to ensure there is careful consideration of Cabinet decisions and initiatives. I do not know if there is any significance in the word 'Scrutiny' missing from Resources and Public Realm. Note that chairs and vice chairs of both committees are from the Labour Party. This will change if the Liberal Democrat constitutional amendment is passed.

Given the amount of development in Brent the 'non-political' Planning Committee is of particular significance. Again Chair and Vice Chair are Labour nominations.

 There are several fairly independent Labour councillors on the Audit and Standards Committee:

 

Other Committee appointments are Labour only. Note the appointment of Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair of Planning and brother of Muhammed Butt the Council Leader, To the First Wave Housing Board, 14B Board and deputy to Cllr Kelcher (Chair of Planning) on Old Oak and Park Royal Development Corporation Planning Committee.

For other appointments see LINK.

Brent budget for 2024/25 agreed: Council Tax +4.99%, council rents +7.7%, communal heating +90% and £8m in savings

 The Brent Cabinet yesterday approved the Council budget for 2024-25 with Deputy Leader Cllr Shama Tatler saying it was the worse situation they had encountered yet: 'We didn't come into politics to make these sorts of decisions.'  Cllr Butt stressed that they had to be honest with residents about they decisions they had been forced to make.

The budget includes a council tax rise of 4.99% (2% ring-fenced for Adult Social Care), 7.7% increase in council rents and £8m in 'savings'.

Cllr Anton Georgiou addressing the Cabinet said that the Liberal Democrats would come forward with a 10 point alternative budget. 

Council Tax Bands including GLA Precept

Council rent rises will be at the maximum (CPI+1%=7.7%)

 

Council Service charges including 90% rise for  communal heating and hot water

 

Council garage rents will also rise by 7.7%

 

Brent is NOT ditching the blue bags

There was a flurry of activity and some pretty pithy comments on Next Door earlier today when a resident posted a copy of a letter that seemed to suggest that the blue bag for the collection of cardboard and paper was to be ditched by Brent Council and mixed recycling re-introduced.

Cllr Georgiou checked it out and Brent Council confirmed it just referred to one specific street because of particular practical collection difficulties.

The 3,400 blue bag petition is due to be presented at Brent Cabinet on January 16th 2024.

Brent Cabinet members put on the spot by residents' questions. Detailed Q & A's here.

 Asking written questions of Brent Cabinet meetings is a chance for residents to air issues that directly concern them. Next week's Council Meeting has eight written questions and answers. The people who asked the questions have the opportunity to attend in person and ask a supplementary question, following up the answers received. The Cabinet member has two minutes to respond. You may like to suggest supplementary questions (one minute remember!) in the comments.

Next week's question cover:

1. The Council's upkeep of their estates

2. Collection of food waste & parking on North End Road, Wembley.

3. Lack of progress on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

4. Problematic Event Day traffic management.

5. Network Homes increasing service charges beyond what had been agreed with the Council.

6. Brent Council's actions on the requurements of the Building Safety Act.

7. Residents' opposition to Newland Court infill proposals.

 8. Brent Council action on Wealdstone Brook sewage & the finding of the polio virus in Brent's waterways.

 

The questions and answers can be found in the document below. Click bottom right corner for full page view.