Brent Council Cabinet agrees Budget and Borough Plan

This morning's Brent Council Cabinet agreed the Budget which now goers forward for ratification at the Council Meeting on February 22nd.

The far-reaching Borough Plan was approved without any discussion other than an introduction.  This will also go to Full Council on February 22nd.

The Draft Borough Plan is below (click bottom right for full page version):

 

 

UPDATED WITH LATEST CHANGES Brent Cabinet changes see Cllrs Agha, Miller and Hirani replaced by Stephens, Knight and Nerva

Brent Council has updated its website with new Cabinet appointments.

Cllr Neil Nerva replaces Cllr Hirani as Lead Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure. Cllr Hirani is the Labour Brent and Harrow Constituency candidate for the May 2021 GLA Election (deferred from May 2020). Hirani lost little time in publishing a video congratulating himself on his performance in the Cabinet, which served the twin purpose of promoting his GLA campaign. LINK

Cllr Promise Knight replaces Cllr Tom Miller as Lead Member for Community Safety and Engagement

Cllr Thomas Stephens replaces Cllr Agha as Lead Member for  Schools, Employment and Skills.  Cllr Stephens was the main author of the recent report on democracy which was criticised as not going far enough by Cllr Gill LINK









The other Cabinet positions that remain unchanged according to the website are:

Cllr Muhammed Butt (Leader)
Cllr Margaret McLennan (Deputy Leader and Member for Resources)
Cllr Harbi Farah (Lead Member for Adult Social Care)
Cllr Mili Patel (Lead Member for Children's Safeguarding, Early Help and  Social)
Cllr Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment)
Cllr Eleanor Southwood (Lead Member for Housing and Welfare Reform)
Cllr Shama Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration, Property and Planning)

I understand that Cllr Roxanne Mashari becomes  Chair of Resources and Public Realm Committee following the decision to have male and female chairs. Cllr Ketan Sheth continues as Chair of Communitu and Wellbeing Scrutiny.

Cllr Matt Kelcher leaves Scrutiny to become Chair of Planning and Cllr James Denselow takes on the lesser role of Chair of Licensing.

At last a response to Brent Scrutiny's recommendations on air quality

Readers will recall that there was some disquiet that Scrutiny Committee reports are merely noted by the Brent Cabinet rather than responded to in detail with action points. This was particularly true of Scrutiny's recommendations on Air Quality which were made after painstaking investogation and consultation with local organisations.

Now 5 months after the initial report Cabinet is to discuss an Executive reponse at Monday's virtual meeting (4pm).

The report is below - comments welcome. Click bottom right corner for full page version:

The Green Party's by-election candidates are standing to end Brent Council's democratic deficit

To borrow from Shakespeare, 'There is something rotten in the state of Brent', a fact confirmed to residents and campaign groups when they encounter the reality of the Labour Council's intractability whether on the closure of Strathcona school, regeneration projects , bulk waste chargesor the cutting down of street trees.

The Council is well entrenched with a massive majority which is reinforced by a structure that centralises power in a small group of councillors in the Cabinet and General Purposes Committee. The personnel are almost identical:

CABINET

 GENERAL PURPOSES COMMITTEE

The Cabinet are all Labour and there is just one opposition member on the General Purposes Committee. Similarly there is only one Conservative member on the Planning Committee. Membership of committees reflects the proportion of seats won by the parties in the Council elections but I would argue that the Conservatives have failed to offer any rigorous challenge in their diminished role as the official opposition.

So what about some rigorous scrutiny of the Cabinet cabal's decisions by Labour backbenchers (up until the recent resignations there were 52 non-Cabinet members)? Well many have positions on various committees which attracts additional allowances and that may limit any public criticism, but those who do raise their voices find themselves at the mercy of the Labour Whip and the ire of Cllr Butt, the Labour leader.

Wembley Matters has covered Duffy's raising of issues such as asbestos in Paddington Cemetery, deficiencies in the Veolia waste contract and the Kingdom littering contract. He had the Labour whip removed and was not selected for the last Council election. LINK LINK

Cllr Zaffar van Kalwala fell out with Cllr Butt over personal issues but also over his championing of Stonebridge Adventure Playground which Butt succeeded in closing to the lasting detriment of the local community. There were allegations that Butt engineered the moving of a Full Council meeting  date to trap Kalwala via the non-attendance rules. Kalwala did not stand at the last Council election. LINK

Cllr Abdi Abdirazak fought back, without success, when Cllr Butt allegedly removed him from the Planning Committee for not voting for the planning application for a new Ark primary academy on the York House site in Wembley LINK

Cllr Sarah Marquis announced she would not stand again as  chair of Planning Committee after she had exercised her independence on several applications including voting against the Twin Towers on the Chesterfield House site and rigorously questioned planners over affordable housing. LINK
Marquis has resigned from the Council citing family reasons.

Cllr Michael Pavey eventually resigned from the Brent Cabinet saying he did not share Butt's approach to running the Council but had angered the leader over his support for a rise in Council Tax and the sanitising of his report into racism in Brent's Human Relations department. LINK LINK He has also resigned for family reasons.

Cllr Jumbo Chan currently stands out as a Labour councillor willing to question Council policy, most notably over academisation and the Strathcona closure but also more recently over street tree policy. Veteran councillor Janice Long also has her moments but has lost influence with the subsuming of what had been a separate Housing Scrutiny Committee, which she chaired, into a main Scrutiny Committee.

The two Scrutiny Committees do some useful working, particularly in task groups, but are handicapped when it comes to Cabinet decisions. They have the power to call-in such decisions and can make recommendations but these go back to the Cabinet which decides whether to accept them or not.

The Cabinet system centralises power in the hands of just 10 councillors, gives considerable power via appointments to the leader; diminishes the role of the backbencher in questioning decisions via the whipping system and limits them to mainly dealing with casework as the go-between between residents and council departments.  Councillors who disagree with decisions are reduced to deliberately  missing Full Council meetings or popping to the lavatory when key votes are taken so as not to be on record as defying the whip.

Something 'rotten'  indeed. In the absence of an effective opposition this blog has attempted to inform the public on some of the issues including fake consultations, too close relationship between the leader of the Council and developers and the scandalous decision to, in essence, return £15.8m Community Infrastructure Levy monies back to  Quintain for 'improvements' to Olympic Way including the cosmetic replacement of the Pedway by steps.

Some councils are rejecting the Cabinet system as undemocratic and returning to a modified form of the Committee system, often maintaining one or more Scrutiny Committees, which actively involves many more councillors in local government and this could be a medium term aim for Brent. Some form of proportional representation in local government in the longer term would ensure a wider spread of councillors and a broader democratic representation.

Meanwhile for an effective opposition unhampered by a whipping system and the leader's patronage I urge you to vote Green if you happen to be in one of the affected wards:

Alperton: Andrew Linnie
Barnhill: Martin Francis and Peter Murry
Wembley Central: William Relton

TONIGHT: Support Roe Green Strathcona School's fight against Brent's closure decision - 4.30pm Brent Civic Centre

Tonight staff, parents, pupils and supporters from the community will converge on Brent Civic Centre in Wembley to demonstrate solidarity with Roe Green Strathcona School's spirited fight against Brent Council's decision to close the school. There will be a demonstration outside the Civic Centre from  4.30pm and then people will attend the 6pm Scrutiny Committee which is hearing the call-in of the Cabinet's decision made by eight Labour councillors.

A broad range of speakers are expected to argue that the closure decision was based on inaccurate information with the Council failing to properly consider the strength of local feeling and the alternative proposals put forward by the school.

The closure decision is important as it sets a precedent for other potential moves to close, shrink or amalgamate schools as a result of falling pupil numbers. The National Education Union will be keen to protect their members, who now include support staff as well as teachers, from compulsory redundancy. Most Brent primary schools still come under Brent Council oversight and the Council is the ultimate employer.

The last time falling school rolls hit the primary sector was in the middle and late 1970s resulting in considerable disruption and despondency. With Brent primary schools currently  performing well against national standards it is essential that parents and staff have confidence in the fairness and effectiveness of the local authority.

At a national policy level falling rolls present an opportunity to reduce class sizes in the state sector to begin to match those of private schools.

Strathcona closure decision called in for further scrutiny

The faces of parents, staff and pupils in my photograph above says it all about how they feel about the proposed closure of their much-loved school.

Now there is a little chink of light as a group of Labour councillors have called in the Cabinet's closure decision for further scrutiny.

Cllr Butt addressing a teacher and parent lob by in June

I attended the Cabinet meeting and it was clear that concerns about flaws in the officer's report were not addressed and the Lead Member in responding did no more than read out passages from the report. Cllr Butt's justification of the closure was rambling, incoherent and often irrelevant. LINK

This is an opportunity to move away from mere rubber-stamping and explore the issues involved in depth.

Barry Gardiner's trenchant views on Brent Council's proposal to close Strathcona School

Roe Green Strathcona staff, parents & pupils protest at Brent Civic Centre

 The Brent Council Cabinet is likely to make a decision on the future of Roe Green Strathcona School at its September Meeting. The formal consultation closed last night.  It is worth reading the detailed letter that Brent North MP, Barry Gardiner, wrote to the June Cabinet which made the decision to move to formal consultation.

Meanwhile there is speculation about the possible plans that Brent Council may have for the Strathcona site including possible sell-off to a developer or provision for the Islamia Primary School which is short of space at its present site LINK.

Barry Gardiner wrote: 

I write to you prior to the cabinet decision to be taken on Monday 17^th June 2019 in relation to the future of Roe Green Strathcona Primary School.

You will be aware that it is very rare that I comment upon what I recognise to be the proper functions of the council. That I do so now is because I am deeply concerned by the proposal to move to a formal consultation on the closure of the school which I believe to be flawed on every level.

On the evening of the 6^th of June, 120 people attended a public meeting at the school to voice their protest against the Council, the substance of the proposal and the process by which the council has conducted its dealings with the school.

The officers report for the meeting of the council where the informal consultation was set out, presented what can only be described as an extremely partial view of the history of the school. In particular it failed to explain the discrepancies between the current reasons for the proposed closure and the original reasons for opening the school in 2014 and for confirming it with permanent status in 2016.

Brent Council’s stated rationale for closing the School is in response to an estimated surplus of pupil places in the borough’s “Primary Planning Area 2” at reception level, which has been predicted in Brent Council’s 2019-23 School Place Planning Strategy. The Council have also said that other high quality schools in the area have capacity to provide education to those pupils who would need to be relocated. It has also been suggested that the school receives an additional amount of funding for operating on a split site and closure would therefore save scarce resources.

However, this rationale is in stark contrast to the decision made at Cabinet only three years ago on 11 April 2016 to permanently increase the age range and expand Roe Green Infant School on a split site. At that time councillors were explicitly informed that whilst there was a shortage of places predicted up to 2019/20, thereafter there was expected to be a surplus of places. Councillors in 2016 were advised that this would enable Brent to meet the guideline of a 5% surplus which was deemed necessary to give appropriate parental choice. The current figure was then only 2.2% and was deemed insufficient. It is simply untrue therefore to claim that the current surplus was unforeseen and that the council are having now to respond to a new set of circumstances.

One of the key reasons put forward in 2016 in favour of making Strathcona permanent was that it would save the council £500,000 and it is therefore a matter of concern that councillors are now being told that the £200,000 split-site funding is a reason to close the school. I trust the cabinet will want to examine very carefully the basis upon which the original cost saving was predicated and why it no longer appears to be the case.

When doing so councillors will no doubt also consider that their decision in 2016 to make the school permanent also means that those teachers’ contracts which had originally been temporary, were at that point made permanent. A decision now to close the school would therefore also lead to serious redundancy costs which appear not to have been quantified in the earlier officers’ report.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue relating to the estimated surplus of places however, is that the council gave approval for a major expansion of places at Byron Court Primary and the creation of a new primary school at East Lane Primary AFTER the decision had been taken to make Strathcona permanent. The development at Byron Court was extensively opposed by local residents, and yet the council pressed ahead on the grounds that these places would be required. It seems perverse now to decide to close Strathcona when it was known at the time that the bulge in nursery admissions would decline by 2019/20.

The officers have suggested that other schools in the area would be able to provide places for the students who needed to transfer after any closure at Strathcona. This ignores the disruption to the education of those children who would be asked to change schools. Such disruption would be particularly acute for those children expected to go into year 6 at a new school just before they sit their SATS. The need to make new friends and settle into a different school routine would inevitably be damaging for those children’s achievement.

It is also right that the council consider whether their action has been fair on the whole school.

Roe Green Strathcona opened in 2014, in response to an emergency request from Brent Council. A large number of children were unable to be provided with a primary place. In fact many children had been out of mainstream education for as much as ten months. It was on this basis that Brent asked Roe Green Infants if they would set up a second site. Originally a site owned by Kingsbury High School was to be the location, but when that proved too costly the Council asked Roe Green to open the new site at Strathcona — some 1.6 miles away from their central site. This was an enormous challenge for the school, but it was a challenge Roe Green readily accepted.

The Governing Body of Roe Green Infant School agreed to manage a new provision of Students at the Strathcona site at a Governing Body meeting of 14 January 2014. Teachers and staff worked day and night for seven weeks in order to convert the dilapidated Strathcona buildings and meet the Council’s deadline for a fully operational School. This was achieved and the Roe Green Strathcona site successfully admitted its first pupils in two months later in March 2014.

In October 2014, the Cabinet approved the “School Place Planning Strategy 2014-2018”. A refresh of the strategy was subsequently considered and agreed by Members at the November 2015 Cabinet.

In this report, the Council recognised the need for school places, and also acknowledged that such places should be established through the expansion of existing schools.

In 2015, Roe Green Strathcona were informed by the Department of Education that their temporary status prevented the School from extending by more that two year groups. The School would be in breach of DoE rules, if a permanent school status was not formalised by the next academic year. It is important to understand that the Council officers did not approach the school to advise them of this. It was the DoE that notified them of this deadline. On 11 April 2016, a determination was reached by Cabinet, agreeing to expand and alter – on a permanent basis – the age-range of Roe Green Strathcona School, effective from September 2016 on the grounds I have set out above.

Despite all the significant work that the school has done and the cooperation it’s staff have given to help the council resolve the very serious problem they had with a lack of places, the council appears not to have reciprocated that good will. It has long been a matter of contention that Brent Council have continuously failed to ensure the school is properly advertised on the Council’s electronic enrolment system.

There have been significant difficulties experienced at the School with pupil admissions. Within the Cabinet Report of 11 April 2016, Brent Council acknowledge that pupil admission arrangements will be a big challenge for the School:

“Currently there is no mechanism for parents to select the Strathcona site. By making the provision permanent it enables the authority (as the admissions authority for Roe Green Infant School because it is a community school) to consult in winter 2016/17 upon admissions criteria for 2017/18 year that would enable parents to express a preference for the Strathcona provision.”

Despite this statement, the most recent Council report dated 17^th June 2019 now states that pupil admission arrangements at Roe Green Strathcona are “not considered to be sustainable”. This is hardly surprising when Roe Green Strathcona does not appear on the “drop down” list on the council’s website. It is unacceptable for the council to fail to ensure that parents are able to access information about the school on the electronic enrolment system and then accuse the school of not having “sustainable admissions”.

The effect is that parents are presently not able to choose Strathcona as a main option for primary provision on Brent Council’s website, and that the Strathcona School only ever appears as a subsidiary option of the Roe Green Infant School site. Indeed, councillors might be shocked to find that even when one uses the School’s postcode as a student’s residential address on Brent Council’s enrolment system, the Strathcona site is not offered. Only alternative local Schools are suggested in the search results. It is clear that there is a strong positive correlation between the decrease in pupil intake at the School, and the difficulty many parents have in registering their children onto the Strathcona roll.

Council officers have been alerted to this issue repeatedly but have never resolved the matter. It is also the case that in the past five years, up to 85% of pupil admissions at the Strathcona site have been during the middle of the academic year. I understand that Ms Sidhu, the headteacher, believes that in-year admission data has not been properly accounted for in any of the drafted Brent Council reports.

If council officers had actively been trying to prepare a case for the closure of the school, these are precisely the measures they might have taken. First ensure nobody knows about the place and even when they live next door, refer them to another school. In fact the head teacher has said that she has several reports of prospective parents who asked for their child to come to the school actually being told by council officers that the roll at Strathcona is full and they can take no more children. I would ask that the cabinet investigate these allegations which, if true, represent a serious breach of trust on the part of public officials.

Of course much of this might be more understandable were the school underperforming. In fact despite all the problems it has experienced, Roe Green Strathcona School is an excellent School, with their first cohort of Year 6 students achieving progress in the top 3% of Schools in England this academic year. This is particularly remarkable when one considers the extent of mid year admissions. In the public meeting held at Roe Green Strathcona on 6^th June 2019, which was attended by local councillors, many parents testified to the quality of teaching and the quality of pastoral care that the school provides.

Just 3 years ago Council officers made an urgent recommendation that Roe Green Strathcona School become permanent by September 2016. They are now trying to persuade councillors that the school is not viable. What was then a saving is now said to be a financial drain on the council. What was then required to cope with the primary admissions crisis is now said to be part of an unnecessary and unsustainable surplus. What was then said to provide parental choice into the future is now having its very existence airbrushed from the Council admissions website.

Teachers and staff at the Roe Green School are rightly proud of the progress that has been made since the creation of the Strathcona school five years ago. In a borough where children had been out of formal education for many months, the School has added significant value to the educational development of every child that has entered its classrooms. They have served the council well. If the cabinet were to rubber stamp the proposal to launch a formal consultation for the closure of the Strathcona School site. I believe they would be betraying that service and acting arbitrarily.

Thank you for considering the matters I have raised.

-->

Council restricts number of speakers at Monday's Cabinet meeting considering Scrutiny Report on Carlton-Granville proposals

The Scrutiny Committee's recommendations on the Carlton-Granville issue will be considered by the Cabinet on Monday April 15th. The controversial proposals inspired a record number of speakers from the community at Scrutiny but the Council has moved to restrict the number allowed at Cabinet.

In an email to applicants Brent Governance Services said:

Please be advised that due to the high number of requests to speak received so far, the number of speakers has had to be limited on a first come first served basis.

There have been two previous opportunities for members of the public to express their views on the Carlton and Granville Centre Sites proposal - one at the recently held Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny call-in meeting on 3rd April and one at the original Cabinet meeting on 11th March 2019.

A further representation will be made by the Chair of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Matt Kelcher, who will also be in attendance on Monday to relay the Committee’s stance on the proposals. For more details on the views expressed at the call-in meeting, you may wish to refer to the minutes of that meeting.*

In light of the above, therefore, your request to speak could not be accepted.

*Editor's note:Minutes of April 3rd Scrutiny Meeting can be found HERE

The Cabinet Meeting is at 4pm (when most people are working!) on Monday April 15th in Boardrooms 3-5 at Brent Civic Centre. The meeting is open to the press and public.

An alternative vision for Granville and Carlton. Response from Brent Council awaited.

This is the 'alternative vision for Carlton Granville' that was mentioned at the Scrutiny Committee hearing. Leslie and Deidre have certainly done their homework!

An alternative vision for Granville and Carlton

Introduction

Granville Community Kitchen and The Otherwise Club are proposing an alternative vision for the Granville/Carlton site. The site will be the central non-denominational community hub for South Kilburn, that meets the social, educational and wellbeing needs of residents, managed by an (alliance or consortium) of South Kilburn residents, groups and organisations.

The development of such an organisation is more in line with the vision promoted in the Localities Act 2012. It is based on respect, equity and partnerships that is truly representative and inclusive of the community. An organisation where all the stakeholders have an equal say in what goes on and how the site is run through dialogue, democratic decision-making and mutual support. It is a vision where stakeholders have the commitment and determination to make it the best place to deliver all the services that South Kilburn needs and deserve, and to preserve the heritage of the buildings and provide a legacy.

A community consortium

A community led consortium consisting of all the site’s stakeholders, some local resident positions and other local organisations such as Global Skills Centre, Canvas Arts and other unconstituted groups would be responsible for the management of Granville/Carlton and service provision. This includes public liability, licences, maintenance, health and safety , marketing, accessibility and other areas of responsibility that go with running a public asset.

This would take financial pressure off the Council to maintain the site and to deliver services. Due to its diverse makeup it will be able to offer a range of services responsive to local needs. Given the densification of the area and the loss of community spaces locally, community space is even more vital. Granville/Carlton is unique in its size and ideally located and suited to deliver wraparound services as a community hub.The Granville/Carlton buildings were originally separate although side by side but now need to be considered as one site. 

The site has historically always been used for community, education and social welfare. These buildings have since their inception been used by the people of South Kilburn as places of refuge, first as a school and then as an adult education centre and community centres. It is envisaged that these would be the continued purpose of the site for the new organisation. The object of this proposition is to secure the Granville/Carlton site and attendant buildings for the people of South Kilburn for perpetuity. To do this we need to create a legal instrument, a new organisation that will be community-led, including current stakeholders to hold and manage the site and buildings. This organisation will develop a business plan that will enable it to run and maintain the site and buildings. We would establish a Granville Carlton Alliance run by the community to oversee these buildings for the community in perpetuity. This would be a self financing organisation which is viable, credible, transparent and accountable to the South Kilburn community.

Building use

The building will retained as existing and the largest spaces reinstated as community halls. During the Youth and Community Service time the building was self financing through rental of the halls.  This is the sustainable heart of the both financially and socially. Retaining and upgrading the buildings with suitable technologies is more environmentally sustainable than the present plans. The section of Granville built in 2005 that is still perfectly fit for purpose with happy tenants. We would not build housing on 2/3 of the Granville building and site going against cabinet promises made to safeguard Carlton and Granville in 2016. 

We would return the Granville hall to its rightful place as the centrepiece of these buildings. We would ensure the use of these buildings to support a community to feel proud about itself and glad to be a part of. To further the important work of the South Kilburn Trust they would move to The Carlton, Centre, a building much better suited architecturally, and a community cafe would be reinstated there.

This project will have an enormous beneficial impact on the local economy and community cohesion. Already it has provided a positive focus for residents. Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods are well known in the area. With their long term work, track record of community led project development and excellent connections in various parts of the community, in London and further afield are both well placed to carry this work forward.

Proposal summary

To make this possible local organisations will come together in a consortium. To do this we will secure professional help from consultants to:

1.   Support the development of a legal entity that puts local voices in the lead based in the community to drive the project forward and manage it once it is up and running.

2.   Develop a business plan to plan infrastructure funding and move forward toward securing the buildings on a permanent basis from the council.

3.   Develop a detailed strategy and financial plan for management of the site, including a reconfiguration of existing business and community hub provision.

4.   Provide forums and other mechanisms for meaningful involvement of the community on a long term basis. Identify barriers to participation and address them, such as childcare.

All of this is developed with meaningful participatory processes including the residents and local community at every stage.

Short to medium term future

The Granville hall is the heart of the site emotionally, and central to a viable financial plan. To reinstate its use as a grand hall again is a key part of the vision. Refurbishment with double glazing, air conditioning and sound insulation will be necessary to ensure that its use will not impact on residents living on Granville Road.

All the other GLA funded changes to the building would remain as is.

The basement would revert to community use including designated space for Global Skills a project central to South Kilburn education.

The kitchen would be upgraded to make it more suitable for its core use as a community kitchen providing education, training and food provision for those in household food insecurity.  This has been costed at £70,000.

The South Kilburn Trust would move into The Carlton Centre, which will be developed as an enterprise hub with more space for those activities and a café in the space on the ground floor.

The nursery would get more spaces into Carlton to be negotiated.

Finance

Development and management will be self funded through grants, donations, crowdfunding and income generation streams.

Costings for first stage development we have been quoted are

£5000 will provide an initial outline scoping study moving towards what is needed for the project£40000 to cover the cost of consultancy fees providing an in depth feasibility study with costs and action depending on the conclusions the study suggests.£80-100,000  will allow us to employ building professionals including engineers and quantity surveyors to develop refurbishment plans to maximise use of site  and provide a detailed business plan

Next Steps

We would seek council approval after presenting the feasibility study to move the project forward. Shared Assets, Locality and The Architectural Heritage Fund have all been approached and are able to support us us in developing a strategic plan and with organisational development.

With regard to participatory processes we are working with and have long term relationships with various universities. Open University, Centre for Agroecology and Water Resilience (CAWR) who have can support on participatory methodologies and University College London (UCL) on planning and architecture.  We have also worked with Glasshouse Community Led Design who specialise in community led processes and the built environment, Ubele who support African and Caribbean heritage communities and organisations around business and community development and action planning.

Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods

March 2019

 It would be good to hear the Council's response. I would be happy to publish it. MF

Granville - the South Kilburn community strikes back - Brent Cabinet urged to reject housing plans

Author Zadie Smith (Left) spoke up for the Granville in November 2016 LINK

These are interesting times in Brent as 'People Power' is exercised in Stonebridge/Bridge Park, St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn. This is the letter about the Granville Centre plans as featured in this week's Brent and Kilburn Times. LINK

To Brent Council Cabinet:

Please keep the Granville/Carlton site for use by the community and run by the community

The Granville Carlton buildings were built for the purpose of serving the South Kilburn community. The Carlton as a school in 1910, which later became an adult education centre and closed in Spring 2017. 

The Granville was built in 1888 as a community centre and place of refuge, respite and learning for the poor of the area.  The Granville had a strong arts direction from the 1980s. It was well used as part of Brent Youth and Community Service hosting over 800 children and young people a year in arts activities. This service was closed in March 2016.

The building was left to The Otherwise Club and The Granville Community Kitchen to steward. It was filled with community and educational activities, exercise classes, award winning food related activities and fun. In August 2017 the South Kilburn Trust took over responsibility for running the Granville.  After renovations,  the building re- opened in May 2018 as an enterprise hub and community centre.

South Kilburn itself is in the throes of major changes with huge building works with Gloucester site being built, the Peel site about to be started, the Winterlees site in consultation and work on the HS2 vent started. The new buildings do not have community meeting spaces in them as the buildings being demolished did. This leaves Granville/Carlton as the only non-denominational community buildings in the area.

There are 2400 plus new homes planned to be built in South Kilburn. Where are these people going to do an exercise class? Where will they hold their parents 50^th wedding anniversary party? Where can children and young people outside of school go to socialise and learn in a space that’s safe? Where will marginalised groups of people go to a place where they feel welcomed and not judged because they have been in prison, or mentally ill or because they are poor or hungry ? You can see the need for the community space.

The building already functions as a community hub offering social and welfare services which will be greatly affected or lost. 

In this new plan you are being asked to agree to there is a slight increase in square footage but that is a nod to new community space being built, with the 3 community spaces separated by some distance. Nor does it take into account the community hall lost in 2018. The housing aspect of this plan is said by the Regeneration team to be minimal (25-30 homes)and cannot be guaranteed to be social or even affordable housing as there are so few planned now. The cost of building may necessitate that they all be sold on the open market.

How will these two necessary but incompatible uses of these spaces play out into the future? Already South Kilburn Trust, who manage The Granville, have had numerous complaints from residents of Granville New Homes on Granville Road about the noise from the community centre. The community activities had to quieten down as the residents have priority now. Do you believe  the needs of community groups using community spaces on the site will be prioritised above the needs of home owners?

We see this site as a place for community activities only and exclusively. In fact we argue that given the number of new people moving into the area and the loss of community rooms this community space is even more vital.

This housing is likely to be the beginning of the end of community use on the site. If you agree to this plan you are going against a decision you took in December 2016 only two years ago when you voted to save Granville/Carlton as spaces used for the community. 

The Granville/Carlton site must be kept solely for the community in perpetuity. For this reason we would like to present a different scenario for the Granville/Carlton site.

We would like to ask that the Cabinet support the local community and community groups to establish a Granville/ Carlton Alliance run by the community and stakeholders in South Kilburn to oversee these buildings for the community in perpetuity. This would be a self financing organisation which is viable, credible, transparent and accountable to the South Kilburn community. There is precedent for this in other communities.

We would not tear down the wing of Granville built in 2005 that is still perfectly viable with happy tenants. We would not build housing on 2/3 of the Granville building going against cabinet promises made to safeguard Carlton and Granville in 2016. We would return the Granville hall to its rightful place as the centre piece of both these buildings. We would ensure the use of these buildings will support a community to feel proud about itself and glad to be a part of.

We ask you to please reject this plan and work with the communities of South Kilburn towards a long lasting legacy, by preserving the Granville/Carlton site as the heart of the South Kilburn Community.

Yours sincerely,

Leslie Barson The Otherwise Club and Granville Community Kitchen

Deirdre Woods The Otherwise Club and Granville Community Kitchen

Cllr A Abdi , Kilburn, Brent

Sara Callaway, BAME officer, Hampstead & Kilburn CLP

Pete Firmin, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenant’s and Residents Association.

David Kaye , Chair  Kilburn (Brent) Branch Labour Party

These are the options being considered by Cabinet on Monday. Option 3 is recommended by officers.

Carlton & Granville Centres Site – South Kilburn Development Options 1-4

1.0 Option 1

53 units provided meeting a mixture of housing tenure to meet a section of the community which may not be catered for in the existing South Kilburn programme this would include:

9 Family Homes. Affordable Housing for medium to large families


18 units for the New Accommodation for Independent living initiative for those who have extra care or support needs, arranged in 3 co-living clusters.


15 Move-On Homes for single people who are homeless or on the housing waiting list
 

 11 Down-size/accessible homes aimed at elderly residents already in South Kilburn wishing to down-size.

2.0 Option 2

53 units provided all of one tenure.

Having met with the Operational Director for Adult Social Care to discuss the NAIL programme in further detail this site could be ideally suited to accommodate the biggest demand in this service from older people needing extra care.

This NAIL programme is still to deliver 400 of the required homes in a bid to provide a replacement for residential care. This is known to be the biggest revenue savings programme at Brent Council, and something we could accommodate on this site.

External community activity is an excellent fit for these residents and there would be an excellent blend of services in the activities already happening in The Granville for older people and the day time services sought by this section of the community. Benefits may also be found between this and the children’s services on site.

The minimum number of units this scheme would need to provide is 40 plus accommodation for care staff to cover the night time care required.

3.0 Option 3 (Recommended)

Approximately 23 units delivered in response to some of the consultation responses. This option endorses the principle of a less dense scheme whilst still achieving the benefits housing provides on a site, specifically community safety with 24 hours passive surveillance of the outdoor spaces below.

A reduction in housing presented on this option will responds to the community concerns on scale of development and residential impact on this community site. It also resolves technical issues regarding the build and management of the space and should provide a more acceptable level of development as the taller housing element is removed from this option

It should be recognised that viability will have to be worked through and some private housing may be required however the preference is for affordable units.

4.0 Option 4

No housing delivered as part of the longer term plans this option would still require refurbishment of the existing buildings for community and enterprise use. Financial impacts would need to be further considered.

FULL REPORT TO CABINET HERE

-->