Wembley reduced to 50% share of Neighbourhood CIL from 83% in new Cabinet proposals

EXISTING DISTRIBUTION

PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION

Widespread complaints about the unequal distribution of Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy monies have resulted in a proposal going before the January 14th Cabinet that will reduce Wembley's share of Neighbourhood CIL from the present 83% to 50% of the total fund - that is a proposed total of £4.23m versus what would have been £7.06m using the existing distribution method.

Wembley retains the lion's share with other areas getting an equal share of the remainder but significantly more for the most part than they get now.  This is Option 4 in the table below:

 The report provides the following commentary on the options:

.        Option 1 (Retain existing distribution). This would be unpopular in light of the review. A significant number of the focus groups and interviews saw the distribution of NCIL funds and concentration of money in Wembley as unfair. Wembley stakeholders were keen to retain a significant sum of NCIL as they are impacted the most by development in the area. However, based on current and future projections, the gap in NCIL funds available to Wembley and the remaining four ClL neighbourhoods is set to increase. 


.        Option 2 (No distribution). NCIL receipts could be used anywhere across the borough. Bidders could propose projects to access funds irrespective of where the funds were generated. This would be easiest method of distribution and would allow equal access to

.        Option 2 could also help mitigate any impact felt by a different community beyond the NCIL boundary. However greater monitoring would still be required to ensure that one part of the borough was not disproportionately allocated funding. The disadvantages of this option are that the areas more greatly affected by development will lose out on the total value of NCIL receipts that would have been allocated if the existing distribution model were retained.

.        Option 3 (Equal Distribution). NCIL receipts would be redistributed equally across the five CIL Neighbourhoods. This would be appealing to areas that do not currently attract significant development. However this approach may disadvantage communities that are impacted most by development. 


.        Option 4 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas equal). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated in the borough. The remaining 50% would be divided equally between the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of NCIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood where the majority of development currently takes place but also ensure that wider impacts of development are addressed elsewhere. 


.        Option 5 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas proportional). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated. The value of NCIL available in the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods is set proportionally based on the amount of NCIL raised in their area. Based on current NCIL receipts the proportion would be Harlesden 41.86%, Kilburn 21.05%, Kingsbury 20.63% and Willesden 16.46%. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of CIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood, however in the future, areas where there is less development will receive fewer NCIL funds. 


-->
Other proposed changes are minor and subject to change when a decision is made on ward boundaries except for a proposal to enlarge the decision making group evaluating proposals to four (Option 4):

Comments welcome.

Big changes for St Raphael's Estate on Brent Cabinet agenda

The Brent Council Cabinet is poised to approve a consultation on the redevelopment of St Raphael's Estate at its meeting on Monday November 12th (4pm, Brent Civic Centre). LINK

The estate borders the North Circular Road and the River Brent and consists of around 1174 properties of which Brent Council manages 807. Network Housing also manages some and others are private following Right to Buy. The estate was constructed between 1967 and 1982 with little intervention since.

'Limited' shops

Open views on to green space

Space for small gardens and lawned common areas

Green space between the estate and the River Brent

The officers' report states:

St Raphael’s estate was built when land was in abundance and therefore the build density is low. This presents an opportunity, for the Council to consider what options are available to maximise housing supply on the estate. By doing so, the Council can start to address the housing needs on the estate, as demonstrated above. Initial indications are that, with careful planning and support of residents on the estate, redevelopment options could produce significantly more homes, of the right size and which are genuinely affordable, than the current residents of the estate require. 

Options: 


1. Refurbishment with Limited New Build– This option would retain but increase the height of the existing blocks but could also possibly add new blocks on available land as in-fill to the existing estate. This option would not likely to be able to deliver the best outcomes for St Raphael’s that a re- development could as it would eat into and not re-provide greenspace. It would not facilitate the reprovision of better community facilities. 


.         

2. Re-development - This option would be the most radical and would likely involve the re-modelling of the estate and also increase the overall numbers of homes located on the Estate and at the same time, address the socio- economic issues affecting residents on the estate through improvements to the infrastructure on the estate. This would require a ballot. 


If Option 2 is not to eat into the green space on the estate and between the estate and the river, it appears likely that there will be high rise development.

In the past the estate had a difficult relationship with the residents of the private houses just over the River Brent in Monks Park. At one stage Monks Park residents asked that the bridge linking the two should be removed so that St Raphael's residents couldn't access their streets. Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt declares two residences on Monks Park in the Register of Interests and Dawn Butler has a house there.

Brent Council recognises the socio-economic challenges the estate faces:

The Council is committed to improving the housing, environmental and economic outcomes for those who live on the St Raphael’s Estate. The Council is aware from both the feedback and from its own knowledge of the Estate that there are environmental, safety and socio-economic issues for St Raphael’s. For example, the Community Profile for St Raphael’s identifies some specific challenges for its residents:

·      38% of children are living in poverty in St Raphael’s compared with 19% across England 


·      25% of people have no qualifications in St Raphael’s compared with 22% across England, 18% in London and 19% in Brent 


·      27% are in full time employment compared with 39% across England, 40% in London and 36% in Brent 


The Council also knows that there are other issues.

·      St Raphael’s is identified as having a low PTAL (public transport accessibility level), and only 56% of households have a car (compared to 74% nationally). 


·      The nature of the roads and river surrounding St Raphael’s can make it feel isolated even although it is relatively close to Wembley, which is exacerbated by the limited retail offer on the Estate. 


·      There are also issues in regards to the air quality and noise from the North Circular. The parts of the estate immediately beside the North Circular have high poorer air quality (65-90 NO2 (ug/m3) – reducing down to 75 dB) - reducing down to 0-55 dB further into the Estate. 


The Council is also aware that personal robbery is a prevalent crime on St Raphael’s estate, which increased by 107% from last year, compared to an increase of 52% in the rest of the borough. Also increasing, but to a lesser extent, are assault of wounding/Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH). There is also recorded gang activity on the estate. The Council’s Community Safety and Housing Management teams are working very closely with the Metropolitan Police to try and tackle these issues. However, the design and nature of the estate is likely to be a contributing factor in these crimes. 

The redevelopment option would introduce private housing into the St Raphael's mix in order to finance the redevelopment and provision of additional affordable housing and the South Kilburn regeneration is cited as an exemplar. However there are differences in terms of involvement with private developers:

Whilst the South Kilburn model has worked through the Council engaging with delivery partners to deliver and manage new private and affordable housing, on St Raphael’s the Council will seek to explore with its partners and Council wholly owned companies such as I4B and First Wave Housing, to be able to deliver/manage private sale or market rent housing products, as well as retention of social housing by the Council alongside Network Homes and Peabody Trust.

Unlike the South Kilburn development any redevelopment of St Raphael's will have to go to a tenants' ballot following GLA rules. 

Here are extracts from a residents' survey about the estate (click on images to enlarge):

Given the report's mention of gang activity it is noteworthy that 'facilities for youth' is top of the residents' agenda for improvement but that of course is not just a matter of providing a building but also the provision of ongoing funding. The Roundwood Centre is a great building, the last one left in Brent, but the latest Brent Council budget proposes no longer funding its youth service activities.

The high priority given to parks and green spaces by residents is also significant and it is likely that any proposals that eat into that space will be opposed.

Overall of course concerns that the redevelopment is a cover for gentrification will have to be addressed by councillors and council officers.

Do afternoon Cabinet meetings reduce accountability?

I thought that the early timing of the first Cabinet meeting of the new administration was deliberately fixed to allow a General Purposes Committee (with almost the same personnel) to take place afterwards, but the next Cabinet meeting is at 4pm on June 18th.

This switch to office hours clearly makes it easier for officers, and perhaps reduces costs, but at the same time restricts the ability of the public who are in employment or have school age children to attend to watch proceedings or make representations. The same must go for backbench councillors who work.

The last Cabinet meeting only lasted about 20 minutes as major items were rubber-stamped and it is likely that Cabinet meetings held at 4pm will routinely be over by 5pm.

This may be a small point but is part of a gradual erosion of transparency when it is even more important that a council with a very large majority and a tiny official oppositon is held to account.

Butt loyalists rewarded with Cabinet posts

The Brent Cabinet is expanded to nine members in the new administration. Tom Miller loses his place with the Willesden Green election not taking place until June 21st. If elected he could enter the Cabinet at a later date with the Community Safety portfolio currently allocated to Butt. Cllr McLennan appears to have no portfolio at present but the important Finance responsibility is not yet covered despite Butt's statement at the AGM that 'terrible decisions' are yet to come.

Cllr Agha who served as Chair of Planning Committee in a period of many controversial decisions, when Cllr Marquis was on maternity leave,  joins the Cabinet as Lead Member for Schools, Employment and Skills. He is a fellow Welsh Harp councillor of Cllr Mashari who challenged Cllr Butt for the leadership. He was closely involved with pushing through the redevelopment of Chesterfield House, known locally as the Twin Towers development, and a host of the Quintain high rise developments around Wembley Stadium.

Cllr Krupa Sheth (Wembley Central)  joins the Cabinet as Lead Member for Environment and Cllr Southwood moves to Housing and Welfare Reform.

Cllr Farah moves to become Lead Member for Adult Social Care, a new post created by removing it from Cllr Hirani's brief which is now Public Health, Culture and Leisure.

With Cllr Agha leading on schools, Cllr Mili Patel is now Lead Member for Children's Safeguarding, Early Help and Social Care.  The separation of schools from children's social care is significant as the combination arose from concerns that the two aspects of child provision should be integrated for better efficiency as a result of institutional failures in preventing the deaths of children.

Cllr Tatler remains Lead Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning.

With Cllr Marquis' pre-election announcement that she did not want to stand for Chair of Planning Committee I understand that this most has now gone to Cllr Denselow.

The chairs of the three Scrutiny Committees, Cllrs Kelcher, Ketan Sheth and Long remain unchanged.

Will it be 'One man' Brent on top of 'One party'?

The 2014 Brent Council result

Muhammed Butt, currently Leader of Brent Labour group and Brent Council, has made no secret of the fact that he wants to sweep the board in tomorrow's election and defeat the Tories in Kenton and Brondesbury Park and the independent seat in Mapesbury.  On the one hand 'that's democracy' as Labour in Islington has argued, as they pour resources into defeating the lone Green councillor Caroline Russell.

On the other hand what does it say about respect for democracy in that they are wanting to wipe out all opposition? Does it betray a belief that all wisdom only exists in only one party and that any opposition is by its very nature an irritant or even a betrayal?

The situation is made worse by the adoption of a Cabinet system where all decisions are made by a group of 8 people.  Hitherto in Brent the only say backbench Labour Group councillors have had in that selection is to elect Cabinet members and the leader  then distributes the portfolios.

I understand that Muhammed Butt is hoping to change things at the Annual General Meeting, which is being held almost immediately after the election on Saturday.  I am reliably informed that he wants to make the leadership position a  four year term, rather than the present two years, which he successfully changed from an annual election. He is also said to want to make Cabinet positions two year, rather than the present one year,

Exploiting an ambiguity in the Labour Group's Standing Orders it is suggested that he wants to appoint Cabinet members himself rather than have the Labour Group select from their number. Sources are unclear about whether this would also extend to Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees and Chair of the Planning Committee.  The latter is statutorily supposed to be independent and it is to the advantage of democracy, as the late Dan Filson showed,  if scrutiny chairs are also robustly independent.  If they owe their position to the patronage of the leader that clearly reduces their independence - especially if that leader has a controlling personality.

It is unclear whether there will be any challenge to Butt's leadership and the closeness of the AGM to the election means that there will be little time to muster supporters by any challenger. As I understand it there is no plan at the moment to delay the AGM because of the postponed Willesden Green poll, which raises an additional issue over the posiiton of Tom Miller, a Willesden Green candidiate and currently a Cabinet member. Will he be eligible for a Cabinet position?

These are all good reasons for moving  to a Committee system rather than a Cabinet system . A Committee system, means decisions are made by a broader group of councillors - even if they are all of one party. Personally I feel that Brent is the poorer for not having an Education Committee and that some of the recent controversies over academisation would have been better dealt with if it had.

A wider question arising from the 'that's democracy' statement is, 'Is it democracy?' How are the thousands of people who voted other than Labour to be represented? This is the proportion of the vote for each party in the 2014 election. About half of those who voted, voted for a party other than Labour.  A proportional voting system would give the combined opposition sufficient seats to contribute to decision making and hold the majority group to account. Regardless of party label this would allow a wider range of people with skills and experience to contribute to the running of the Council to the advantage of the people of Brent. 

Procurement to be brought back 'in house' after joint service fails to deliver the goods

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a proposal to bring procurement back in-house after a joint service with Harrow failed to deliver the envisaged benefits. A shared service with Harrow and Buckinghamshire was first discussed in January 2016 and at the time I noted the lack of clarity in the proposals LINK.  Officers claimed that a joint service would save Brent £272,000 in 2016-17.

Buckinghamshire dropped out and in  September 2016 Brent Tuped staff over to the joint Harrow-Brent  service followed by Brent Housing Partnership staff just over a year later in October 2017. Now less than 18 months after the first transfers they will be transferred back to Brent.

The Officers' report LINK recognise that this doesn't look good:

Reputational damage: To end the Shared Service so early into its life could potentially be seen as a failure by a range of stakeholders and potentially cause some reputational damage although this should be mitigated by getting member level approval for the dissolution.

The report suggests that the recent resignation of the Harrow Divisional Director of Procurement and Contracts gives an opportunity to review whether to continue the Shared Service and recognises that a decision to end it is best done before the arrangement between the two boroughs becomes more entwined and complex - a case of 'get out now before it's too late!'

The report states:

We are now just over 1 year into the Shared Service and a number of difficulties have been identified. At present Brent requires a level of service that is beyond the resourcing initially envisaged by the parties and available within the funds contributed to the Share Service following the restructure.

In addition it has proved difficult to recruit to many posts in the shared structure and continuity has been difficult to maintain. This has put additional pressure on the Shared Service and levels if service and satisfaction are therefore below what some service areas are expecting.

Reading beyond the mild civil service language it is clear that the joint service was just not paying people enough. Rather than the savings first envisaged it looks likely that costs will increase:

Despite a lengthy recruitment exercise, the ability of the Shared Service to recruit appropriately skilled and experienced staff into a number of vacancies has proved to be challenging. The poor recruitment results are thought to be in the main due to the salaries on offer being £5k below the market average together with a buoyant London jobs market for those individuals.

The regeneration/development area is significantly under-resourced. Although the Shared Service has flexed some resources to support this area. This is barely adequate and not sustainable in the long term. Consideration therefore needs to be given to interim resource(s) to support Capital projects (funded by the Capital programme) over and above the business as usual resourcing requirement.

The report states that for the Shared Serviced to meet these short-comings there would need to be a Head of Procurement dedicated to Brent and a rise of approximately £5k for each of the non-management grades totalling an additional annual contribution of £150,000.

The report is notably vague about the costs of leaving the Shared Service:

Should Brent leave the Shared Service the financial implications would need to be developed as the new organisational structure is designed. Initial  estimates however envisage that it would be of similar magnitude to remaining in the Shared Service.

Any increase in budget will have to be offset by a saving elsewhere in the department, the Council (sic) including greater achievement of procurement savings.

If the original proposal to enter a Shared Service lacked clarity then it appears that the proposal to leave has similar shortcomings, particularly on the financial implications. Can the Cabinet make a decision on the basis of this flawed report?

Brent Council to instigate recording of legal advice & (some) meetings with developers in response to criticism

The Audit Advisory Committee is not the most high profile of Brent Council committees but is has an important role, not least in these times of controversy.  The Committee has a fairly independent membership so it is to be hoped they give matters a good airing.

Next Wednesday's meeting has three items relating to stories published on Wembley Matters where officers seek, in two of them, to respond to some of the criticisms.

Firstly there are recommendations made by the auditor following his consideration of the objections to Brent Council accounts regarding the payment made to Cara Davani, former Head of Human Resources LINK. Despite not finding for the objectors he did suggest some actions in areas highlighted in their evidence.

Click to enlarge

The report puts on record Brent Council's  view of the initial case in which Cara Davani was found guily by a Watford Employment Tribunal of racial dscrimination and bullying of Rosemarie Clarke:

It remains the Council’s position that the sequence of events resulting in the unfair dismissal of Rosemarie Clarke reflect poorly on the organisation as it then was, and caused harm to the Council’s former employee. Lessons have been learned and new procedures have been implemented and the Council hopes that with this report the long-standing matter may now be brought to a close.

Another controversial issue has been Cllr Butt's meetings with developers, the lack of a note of what took place at the meetings and absence of any officers at these meetings LINK.

The Committee will consider proposed changes to the Brent Planning Code of Practice and will need to ensure that the changes are sufficiently robust as to restore public confidence in the planning process before they go to the Cabinet for approval.

The report states: 

There is a new section on ‘Discussions between members and meetings with developers or their representatives’. This in part incorporates into the code ad hoc advice issued by the Monitoring Officer to Members in the recent past and in part strengthens the Council’s commitment to being seen to be promoting good practice. The requirements aim to strike a proper balance between promoting public confidence in the integrity of the planning process and the legitimate reality of local government life. Of particular note is the requirement that pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications between Members and developers (or their representatives), are arranged, attended and documented by an officer.

This is the full section:*

Provided Members comply with the practical requirements  if this code and the Members Code of Conduct, there is no legal rule against Members, whether of the same group or not, discussing strategic planning issues, general policy issues or even future decisions.

Similarly, joint working, both formal and infornal, and dialogue between members of the Planning Commitee and members of the Cabinet is recognised as a legitinate reality of local government life. Members of the Planning Commitee need to ensure that when making planning decisions, they make up their own mind and on the planning merits.

Relevant members of the Cabinet are entitled to meet with developers or their representatives and other relevant stakeholders as part of their role to promote Brent and the regeneration, development and other commercial opportunities available in the borough.  In doing so Members of the Cabinet must always act in the best interests of the council and ultimately in the public interest, and in accordance with the high standards of conduct expected of Members, to ensure that the integrity of the planning process is not undermined and the council is not brought into disrepute.

Reasonable care and judgement should be exercised in relation to such meetings, taking into account the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the issues to be discussed and the timing.  In appropriate circumstances, exercising proper judgement may include ensuring a record is kept of the meeting. Cabinet members should make sure it is understood that their participation in marketing events or commercial discussions is separate from the adminstrative and regulaltory role of Members of the Planning Committee.

Although members of the Cabinet are entitled to express support or opposition to development proposed in the borough, they cannot use their position as a Member improperly to confer on or secure for any person an advantage or disadvantage.

As pre-application discussions or discussions about undecided applications require particular care, the following additional rules apply. An officer must make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. The meeting arrangements must include agreeing an agenda in advance. (my emphasis)

* The report on the Committee Agenda is a 'tracked changes' Word document converted into a PDF and very hard to read, particularly for anyone not versed in Word. Without a 'clean copy' I find it hard to see how it could receive proper scrutiny. See it HERE  It's ironic that a document trying to increase accountability and transparency is itself not readily accessible.

The last item is controversial and will remain so as Brent Council has restricted public access to the information. There is an update on the issues surrounding the asbestos contamination in Paddington Cemetery, first raised by Cllr John Duffy on this blog LINK but the update is not publicly available and the public will be excluded from the discussion about it.   No glimmer of light here.

Cemetery asbestos exposure being dealt with 'seriously and properly' by Brent Council

Carolyn Downs, Brent Council Chief Executive, has responded to Clrr Duffy's call for an independent investigation into the asbestos waste exposure at Paddington Cemetery. LINK

Ms Downs wrote:

The letter to you from Chris Whyte intended to make clear that we will ask internal audit to undertake an initial investigation and that dependent upon their findings we will consider whether to pass the matter to an independent investigator, the police or any other relevant body or whether there is no evidence to support a claim of wrong doing. Pre-judging the outcome of this initial investigation, or any speculation at this stage about who is to blame, is not appropriate or helpful in my view. Internal audit will be able to pull together the relevant documentation, take a view on the matter and make recommendations. If we do proceed to an external review or some other action then this work will be very helpful to the third party involved at that point.

It is unfortunate that you believe residents will take the view that our colleagues in internal audit, who bring to bear their experience and specialist skills to investigate serious internal and external allegations all the time, which in appropriate cases have resulted in many successful prosecutions, would engage themselves in a “cover up”. I disagree. I am very clear that they will investigate this matter properly and thoroughly and this is entirely the right way for the Council to proceed. Even though any proposed follow [up] action which is an executive function will need to be formally reported to Cabinet, reports from internal audit are within the remit of the Audit Advisory Committee which reports to the Council and not the Cabinet. I do hope that you will feel reassured and able to make clear to any residents that the matter is being dealt with seriously and properly by the Council.

Please also note that the attached report is in the public domain already which covers the health risks related to this serious matter. LINK

Rest assured that the council already has been and will continue to be open and transparent about this matter and is mindful of the need to ensure appropriate scrutiny and accountability.

Brent Council to proceed with fire safety measures for all its blocks over 12 storeys high

The Brent Cabinet will be asked to approve a fire safety strategy LINK  for its housing stock at its next meeting which will centre on a five year programme of fire safety measures, with a particular emphasis on sprinkers, for all its blocks that are 12 storeys or higher. Standard 4 Fire Risk Assessments would be carried out as part of the programme.

These are the blocks (click on image to enlarge or see LINK):

The programme will be at a rate of 3 per year to be completed in 5 years and will be done alongside other improvement works.

The Council is faced with some uncertainty over financing of such improvements as well as what will eventually be recommended by the post-Grenfell Public Inquiry.

The report states:
 

The Chief Executive wrote to Department for Communities and Local government (DCLG) to request Government provide direct financial support to meet the costs that will be incurred. The current position in response to that request is that government will neither fund the additional works, nor change the policy on 1% decrease in rents up to 2020, nor increase the HRA borrowing cap as alternative ways to fund these additional works. However, there have been suggestions that there may be further announcements in the November 2017 Budget. 


This means that the £10m costs will need to be financed from the Housing Revenue Account which will  entail cuts in the  Capital Programme of at least £4.5m in 2018-19 and £3.9m in 2019-20 - unless the Chancellor comes up with some proposals in his budget.

As can be seen from the table above leaseholders in the blocks will be expected to contribute towards the costs of the improvement measures. This would raise £0.8m for the 14 blocks of over 12 storeys and £2.8m for all 37 Brent blocks. Average cost per leaseholder would be approximately £6,000.

'Delay South Kilburn Masterplan until community has reviewed it,' request Granville and Carlton users

Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods, representing the users of South Kilburn's Granville and Carlton Centres are unable to attend tonight's Cabinet meeting which will consider the Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document. They have submitted the following comments for consideration by the Cabinet and a request that the Cabinet delay acceptance of the plan to enable the community to review what should be their plan.

The South Kilburn Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) is over 180 pages long over 3 sections. The people from South Kilburn were given 6 weeks to comment on this document which lays out the plans for their homes, parks, health, education, small businesses, and community services in the area for the next 10 -15 years. Each site is given 2 A4 pages in the document. The first half of the page gives the details about where the property is with the second half of the same page incorporating a short paragraph about each of these three issues: ‘Description’, ‘Justification’ and ‘Design Principles’. The second page gives a vague shadow drawing of a huge block or blocks in the place of the current buildings. 

1.   Firstly this is not an adequate amount of time or information for the community to read, understand , digest  and examine the implications of such a massive plan. This can be seen by the small number of community responses to the SPD. Surely changes of this magnitude cannot be accepted on the basis of numbers of responses  in double figures when there are over 8000 people living in the area?

2.   Secondly, all the buildings in the chapter called ‘Site Specific Principles’  are to be replaced with new buildings.  Much of the plans arguments for this demolition are simplistic and debatable such as there is a lack of clarity about what is the front or the back of the property” (Crane and Zangwill) or the property “is currently in a prominent gateway position and the current development does not capitalise on this” (William Dunbar and William Saville Houses). This needs to be properly examined, each building on its own merit, before lives are disrupted for years and changed forever.

3.   Thirdly, you are deciding on Monday 19 June 2017 that this SPD replaces the one was developed over some years WITH the South Kilburn Community and then voted on. How can a plan created by the Council and its consultants replace a plan voted on by residents? The 2005 SPD may need updating with changes to law occurring since the first was voted on but the scale and magnitude of the changes make this SPD beyond all recognition of the SK residents plan

                                                                                                             

Therefore I ask the Cabinet to please delay the acceptance of this plan and help support the community  to review THEIR 2005 Masterplan in a long term in-depth manner as befits a document of this size and importance and with such huge ramification for the residents of South Kilburn.

Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods representing the Users of Granville and Carlton