Dear Brent Council – Council Housing and Common Sense

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An entry from Brent Council’s latest Forward Plan

 

Dear Brent Council,

 

I think that you’ve become too complicated in the way you seek to provide the new Council homes that many local people need. 

 

Take, for example, your decision (at last November’s Cabinet meeting) to buy a block of flats at the former Alperton Bus Garage site. The developer, Telford Homes, was given planning permission to build three tower blocks there, on condition that one of them, block C - containing 155 of the 461 flats proposed in their application, would be as “affordable housing”. 

 

South-west elevation drawing from the planning application documents (block B outlined at the back)

 

Normally, when a private developer agrees a large-scale affordable housing offer, they do so in partnership with a housing association which will provide those homes. But here, it is Brent Council who have stepped in to acquire them. And the Council is not buying them direct from Telford Homes. It is proposed that they will be acquired from an Asset Special Purpose Vehicle (“ASPV”). Who or what is an ASPV?

 

That would be explained in the report that Cabinet members made their decision on, wouldn’t it? If it was, the explanation was in one of the (now all too common) exempt appendices. Looking at the minutes of the meeting, all the Lead Member for Resources, Cllr. McLennan, said about the ASPV was simply a repeat of the Officer’s report :

 

Opening section of the November 2021 Cabinet Report

 

The report to the meeting was not from the Director of Housing, but the Director of Finance. No questions were asked about why the Council was not buying the flats direct from the developer, who the beneficial owner of the intermediary ASVP was, and why it would not be a straight 999-year lease. Cabinet members seemed more intent on congratulating the Council, its finance team (and themselves?) for the proposal they were about to “rubber stamp”:

 

‘In expressing their support for the proposal, Cabinet highlighted the opportunity the scheme provided to further increase the supply of affordable social housing within the borough based on a leasing model which was felt to represent good value for money.  Officers were thanked for their efforts in securing the necessary terms ….’

 

But how ‘good value’ was this ‘leasing model’? The Council would be taking an initial 50-year lease on 155 homes in a 26-storey tower block (55 x 1-bed, 49 x 2-bed, 46 x 3-bed [5 person] and 5 x 4-bed [6 person] flats). The report from the Director of Finance said:

 

‘Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home.’

 

The report then goes on to say:

 

‘The target average development cost under the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP) is £280K per home. As such, the leasing model represents good value for money.’

 

It appears from this that the cost per home for the leasehold flats at the Alperton Bus Garage site would be no better than the development cost for freehold homes on one of Brent Council’s own housing projects, over which the Council would have much better control. 

 

And the £280k per home figure is dependent on the deal to buy leasehold flats from an ASVP (which only has an option to acquire them from the developer) qualifying for a £4.3m grant from the GLA, and that the Council would qualify for 100% Stamp Duty Land Tax relief on its leasehold purchase, which is not certain:

 

‘These assumptions will need to be fully tested along with the Council’s tax advisors and HMRC. Failure to secure the SDLT exemption noted above would increase the cost of the scheme by circa £1.9M.’

 

Why is Brent Council getting into such a complex and potentially risky deal? If it has £48m available to spend on new Council homes, why not spend it on building those homes on a vacant site it already owns, and for which it has had full planning consent since February 2021?

 

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme. (From an April 2021 Council document)

 

I am referring to the Cecil Avenue site, part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone, which I have been writing about since August 2021. As can be seen from the image above, this development is not a tower block (maximum height 9-storeys), it will have an internal garden square and includes family-sized maisonettes with their own private gardens. Surely that would provide better new Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

At the moment, following a Cabinet decision six months ago, it is proposed that 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue (including 20 family-sized homes) would be for a developer partner to sell at a profit. In an article last month, I asked why Senior Council Officers and a small number of Cabinet members (with the rest not questioning it) were appearing to favour developers over Brent residents in need of a decent Council home? We are all still waiting for an answer!

 

I’ve set out the question and the evidence behind it. Now here is my advice. Avoid the ASPV! Ditch the developer! Get on and use the money you were willing to spend on 155 homes in a leasehold tower block in Alperton, and instead build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue (including the 152 you planned to “give away” to a developer) as affordable rented Council homes. You know that is good, plain common sense.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

P.S. My consultancy fee for this sound advice is the same as usual - £zero!

Family in flooded Brent Council accommodation in despair after multiple repairs failures and lack of response to complaints

Look carefully and you can see the water leaking through the walls and from the  water-blocked roof ceiling

 

Guest post by ‘Distraught Brent Council Tenants’ who contacted Wembley Matters who hope that publicising this issue will lead to action by Brent Council.

 

The above images depict the consequences we have had to suffer because of Brent Council Repairs team's negligence and apathy towards their loyal tenants at no fault of ours. Despite numerous complaints since 2013, Brent Council has failed to solve the disrepairs, for which they are solely accountable. Having never had rent arrears and never withheld rent for the past 14 years, the repair team’s inactivity and profound failure to meet their responsibilities has caused us financial loss, distress, and inconvenience, forcing us to attempt to treat the aftermaths of flooding and leakages ourselves. Despite having clearly identified and communicated the source of these issues, the large amount of debris/dead leaves falling from a nearby tree onto the roof in the Autumn season causes blockage of rainfall, the voices of my family have repeatedly been silenced.

 

Having exhausted all complaint procedures including liaising with Brent’s MP and contacting the Ombudsman and Councillors, with complaints of endless leakages into the property leading to 2 major floods, one of which the Fire Brigade was called to immediately clear 10 inches of contaminated blocked roof water, no genuine action has been taken by the Repairs Team. Upon clearing of roof water due to the Flooding in the premises in October 2020, the firefighter on the scene mentioned that the "roof requires restructuring as gutter channels are too small in width to allow enough water through the pipe” (surprised that such a small opening would provide access for water across such a large area to flow through). An electrician assigned by Brent Council attended 10 full hours after the incident occurred leaving us exposed to the heightened health and safety risk of electrocution that the flooding had caused. Even more appalling is that a contractor, assigned by Brent Council to clear the roof water, arrived 12 full hours after the incident (with no access to the roof to do the works)!

 

Since October 2020, we have had no lighting to the living room and hallway and the Council has yet communicated a concrete solution or timeframe to this disrepair. The council, leaving this matter unresolved, has further exacerbated recurring internal property damages as winter/rainfall season approaches also disregarding the financial loss and personal expense costs, costing thousands of pounds related to the redecoration with mould treatment, re-furnishing, disposal, and replacement of contaminated goods alongside increased heating and electricity costs. Putting the heating on and dehumidifying for prolonged periods to dry wet walls due to excess moisture has forced us to see at least 4 fold increases in our bills as a direct result.

 

Numerous complaints have also been constantly raised regarding chronic cold conditions and penetrating damp growth as a direct result of leaking water from the roof exacerbating existing health conditions my family have had to cope with over the years. Mould exposure and a musty, unpleasant odour sourced from the flooding and unbearably cold temperatures have made our home a misery and unsafe to live in. With damaged goods, flooring and furniture being disposed of because of the floods, the Council has not acknowledged this and shamelessly continues to turn a blind eye.

 

Endless chains of complaints between surveyors, the Repairs Department, and the Chief Executive as a result of the Council's inactivity and poor communication between surveyors and those holding managerial positions within the Service department have caused us concern and worry about our health and safety within the property.

 

Inspections and Surveyors

The council neglected to communicate the next steps after a 2-hour long inspection involving evidence being taken by a surveyor in the form of numerous reports and pictures. With Brent Council’s tenancy agreement specifying that:

 

"Within five working days of this appointment the surveyor will decide what work needs to be done, raise the necessary works orders and write to you with confirmation of the timescale within which this work will be carried out."(p16 of https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16412335/tenancy-guide-final.pdf),

 

this has never happened to be the case. Neither of these aspects had been relayed after inspections - deeming it a complete waste of time.

 

In addition, inspection reports have been reported missing with surveyors suggesting they have no access to previous reports. A high turnover rate of surveyors has also meant newly appointed surveyors have no previous understanding of the case since 2013 resulting in a vicious cycle of visits and missed reports. Having different surveyors enter the property for "inspections" and making verbal expressions of supposedly "reporting and following up" of reports have proved unsupported by genuine action causing us to believe this as a threat to our personal safety.

 

●      In January 2018, CEO stated "On December 2017 an inspection was requested from our contractor to look at your overflow pipe...Although this inspection was requested I have to report that it has not been carried out"

●      Project Manager in Sep 2018 stated: "Surveyor, attended your home...however left shortly thereafter and did not supply the information which you have explained were discussed”

 

There have been many occasions whereby surveyors have randomly shown up whilst others failed to attend within their booked slots. However, as would any other resident, we are not obliged to allow access into the property for a random show of surveyors without pre-scheduled appointments in agreement with the tenant. This, once again, indicates the lack of transparency and communication between the Repairs Team, surveyors and tenants.

 

Comments from Contractors

 

●      October 2020: Roofer attended property with no access to the roof as council did not provide key and  said he would not be able to attend roof physically “due to health and safety reasons” despite being a roofer. Said it was “mostly paperwork” and would hear from the Council soon. It has been more than a year since and this has not been the case.

●      We overheard a contractor asking the other whether he knew the resident he initially spoke to from within the property was a "black lady” before knocking on the door. Is Brent tolerating such poor standards by paying thousands to partner with contractors who seem to be endorsing such comments? These events certainly seem to conflict with Brent Council’s Equality Strategy 2019-2023 whereby they are committed to:

 

“ensure consistency in the delivery of equality across the council. Contractors [are]...to comply with equality duties set out in the Equality Act 2010” (https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16415181/equality-strategy-2019-23.pdf )

 

Lack of communication and no responses from Repairs Team/MPs/Councillors

●      We have been complaining about the inactivity of repair works more recently but since June 2021 have had no response, email or communications from the council.

●      An email sent 2nd of June 2021 to Housing Councillor requesting that she put pressure on the repairs team to escalate the case has not been responded to since.

●      Email sent to Brent’s MP on Nov 10 2021, no response received since

 

Each and every Repairs staff member, contractor & MP/Councillor has failed us profoundly. It is a complete disgrace and altogether unacceptable that my family and I must suffer at the expense of the failures of Brent Council’s Repairs team for an excruciating period, who are being directly reimbursed for their inactivity by each taxpayer. Each resident should be able to enjoy a “habitable” home, be entitled to the basic repairs service they deserve and not have to experience the outcome of poor communication between and standards of contractors and senior members of the repairs team!

 

 

Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects: Gauntlett Court, Sudbury. 'Airspace' explained

 Guest post, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Entrance to the Gauntlett Court estate, Harrow Road, Sudbury, February 2015.

 

At the end of August, I wrote an article about Brent Council’s “secret” plans for adding more homes to some of its existing housing estates. That guest blog was mainly about estates in Fryent Ward, but I did also mention that Gauntlett Court in Sudbury was shown as a project ‘not yet in public domain’. This was on a map prepared for a Cabinet meeting in July, with a figure of 120 new homes shown beside it.

 

Two weeks ago, Martin published the response I’d received to that article from Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. She said that everything shown in that map ‘is not a secret’ (although Brent has done nothing to publicise it!). One of the main themes of my article was that ‘the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account.’ Commenting on that Cllr. Southwood also said:

 

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects,’ and, 

 

‘I agree that working with residents is key and this will continue to be a core part of developing any proposals for new housing, balanced with the needs of residents who are currently homeless and the requirements of planning policy.’

 

You can judge for yourself how far Brent Council is living up to those words, from this further information which has reached me about Gauntlett Court from various sources. I am grateful to Paul Lorber, for letting me see a reply he received from Brent’s Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, which I will quote from below.

 

The Strategic Director’s report to Cabinet in July 2021, about Brent’s New Affordable Homes Programme, did include Gauntlett Court in a list of sites undergoing feasibility assessment. This showed the number of predicted new homes there as 5. He has recently apologised, saying that this was an old figure, which should have been updated.

 

The five new homes were bungalows, proposed to be built where there are currently garages. At least until recently, this was the only “infill” housing project at Gauntlett Court which one of the backbench Sudbury Ward councillors was aware of. Martin has let me have a photograph of a similar project underway at the Council flats in Kings Drive [readers of a similar age to me may remember Pete Seeger’s 1963 song “Little Boxes”].

 

New Brent Council bungalows under construction at Kings Drive, Wembley Park.

 

The Strategic Director has now clarified the position, saying that for Gauntlett Court: 

 

‘the current feasibility relates to a potential 120 units on the same site as the existing Gauntlett Court. The Council is considering a mix of airspace (building over existing blocks) and infill development in and around that site.’

 

He made it clear that: ‘feasibility assessments for sites under consideration.  In other words, they are early assessments of what might be possible, these numbers change as projects do or don’t progress.’ Yet they are there in the report to Cabinet, as predictions of what the Council’s Housing Supply and Partnerships (“HSP”) team expects to be able to deliver.

 

“Airspace” may be a new term to you (it was to me!). The July report to Cabinet said that one of the methods by which the HSP team would deliver 700 new homes by 2026 (using funding from the Mayor of London’s Affordable Homes Programme) was: ‘Airspace development using an offsite Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) solution.’ This appears to mean using modules built in a specialist factory, then delivered to the site on the back of a lorry and lowered into place by crane.

 

 

A factory building housing modules, and a module being lowered by crane. (Images from the internet)

 

The term “Modern Methods of Construction” covers a variety of pre-prepared materials delivered to building sites (such as panels used to clad the walls of buildings constructed on wooden, steel or concrete frames). Lowering new home units onto supports placed across the flat roofs of existing blocks appears to be the one which they have in mind for Gauntlett Court (and probably also for Campbell and Elvin Courts in Fryent Ward). 

 

I’m amused that this is considered a modern method of construction. It is what was being used to supply temporary factory-made bungalows, or “prefabs”, after the Second World War! If you’d like to discover more about local prefab homes, you can see the slides from an illustrated talk that I gave at Kingsbury Library, a couple of years ago, here.

 

 

Section of a prefab home being lowered into place by crane, 1946. (Image from the internet)

 

As well as “airspace” homes on the roofs of the existing 1950s brick-built three and four storey blocks, Brent’s HSP team are also looking to add “infill” homes. This would have to be on land that is currently grassy open space, with mature trees, or areas currently used for parking residents’ cars, or both.

 

What do the residents think?  Gauntlett Court has its own Residents’ Association, which meets regularly with local councillors and the Council’s housing management officers. One of the Association’s committee members said, as of two weeks ago, they had not been informed of or consulted about the HSP team’s proposals. Yet, a few days later, the Strategic Director wrote:

 

‘As I said above, these are early assessments, they will evolve as costs, site considerations and planning issues emerge.   All of this work will be done with local residents and councillors.’

 

I don’t think that it is right for such schemes to be kept “secret” until Council Officers have decided what they propose to do, in terms of method and numbers, on existing Council-owned estates. If they are to prepare plans that ‘work for everyone’ (to quote Cllr. Southwood’s promise to residents objecting to the plans for Kilburn Square), they need to discuss what could be acceptable at Gauntlett Court, or any other estate they are considering, from a very early stage. Surely they can see that, from the storm they caused at Kilburn Square, when they ploughed on with unacceptable plans for nearly a year before being willing to listen to what residents were telling them!

 

 

Harrow Road blocks on the Gauntlett Court estate, with a central green space beyond, February 2015.

 

The residents at Gauntlett Court are not all Council tenants. One estimate I’ve seen puts the number of leaseholders at around 50%, as a result of “right to buy”. You probably think that this was a “Thatcher-years” policy from the 1980s, but Winston Churchill’s Conservative government introduced a similar scheme in the 1950s. The Borough of Wembley Municipal Housing Handbook for 1960 records that this ‘Sale of Council Houses” scheme had caused them to sell 318 homes since December 1952.

 

Will these leaseholders want their green space built over, or new Council homes put on their roofs (with the associated building work and potential effect on the value of their own property)? What if there are subsequently problems with defects to these new homes - will they be indemnified from having to meet a share of the costs of remediation work? Such defects problems are not unknown, as we’ve seen very recently! Or will Brent Council, as freeholder, just ignore their concerns, or over-ride their “third party rights”? I sincerely hope not. 

 

Brent Council’s HSP team should let all the residents at Gauntlet Court know, in writing and without delay, what their current thoughts are about how the estate might be altered to provide more of the Council homes which the borough undoubtedly needs. It should then begin meetings with them, to discuss those ideas, and listen to the thoughts and ideas of the residents, to seek a reasonable compromise about plans going forward.

 

That is only fair and reasonable. It is also what Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, and Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, appear to have said is the Council’s approach. The Council Officers actually dealing with these matters, day-to-day, need to put that “working with residents” approach into practice. 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

Greens reveal loss of 13,500 social and council homes, in London boroughs, including Brent, since 2003

In a report relevant to this afternoon's Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committe  a new report by Sian Berry, Green Party Assembly Member and Mayoral candidate  reveals London is set to have lost more than 13,500 social and council homes in estate redevelopment schemes since 2003 if currently approved projects are completed.

 

The report, Estate redevelopment in London, reveals that completed demolition schemes on sites with existing social housing have led to the net loss of 6,748 social and council homes since 2003. It also shows that a further 6,791 will be lost if currently approved schemes go ahead.

 

Estate redevelopment schemes funded by the Mayor now cannot involve demolition without residents approving schemes via a ballot. This is part of a new policy finally introduced by the Mayor in July 2018, after a long campaign from estate residents and Sian Berry.

Today’s report reveals that this policy has yet to take full effect. It also describes how the losses have been worsened by the Mayor quietly agreeing to fund dozens of schemes in the months ahead of the new ballot policy coming into force. This allowed many thousands of potential home demolitions to slip under the wire of new rules.

 

The new research found that 1,430 social rented homes will be demolished and not replaced in schemes given planning permission since April 2018 alone.

 

Sian Berry AM said:

 

London simply cannot afford to lose 13,539 council and housing association homes through demolition. Waiting lists of Londoners in urgent need of housing continue to grow and people are more squeezed than ever by the housing crisis.

 

My research today shows we have already lost thousands of social housing homes, and that thousands more are under imminent threat. Demolishing estates in this way not only reduces the amount of housing for families in need, it also breaks up communities at the heart of life in the city.

 

The Mayor’s decision to sign off on dozens of redevelopment schemes in 2018, allowing them to dodge incoming rules for resident ballots, has prolonged the damage to our city. I have found that the new ballot policy is not yet making a significant impact on schemes that have reached the planning stage as a result.

 

And now estates are under even more threat from the Government’s proposed new national planning rules. These would force councils to define whole areas for rapid or automatic planning approval and do not give a single mention to the rights of people already living in these areas to have a say.

 

Key findings from the report 'Estate Redevelopment in London: Have things improved under the current Mayor?, are shown in the tables below.

 

Total impact of London estate redevelopment schemes: -13,539.
A map showing boroughs' net loss of social housing in estate redevelopment schemes (all schemes on sites with existing social housing) granted planning permission since 2003, overall.

 

Total impact of completed schemes: -6,748.
A map showing boroughs' net loss of social rented housing in estate redevelopment schemes granted planning permission since 2003, where construction has been completed.

Total impact of schemes in the pipeline: -6,791.
A map of boroughs set to lose social rented homes in estate redevelopment schemes granted planning permission since 2003, for which construction has not started, or has begun and not yet been completed:

 

 

FULL REPORT

Brent's Council estate cleaning to be brought in-house

Officers are recommending that Brent Council brings the cleaning contract for its council estates, currently held by Wettons, in-house.  The contract covers the cleaning of communal areas in purpose built flats, windows and hard-standing areas. Veolia cut the grass and maintain (chainsaw) shrubbery.

 

Veolia's handiwork

The report to Cabinet outlines feedback from an analysis of complaints to Wettons and Brent Housing Management that includes a slow response to cleaning issues associated with environmental anti-social behaviour such as removal of litter from communal areas, lack of compliance with the cleaning visits schedule and over-spilling of residual waste in surrounding bin areas,

The GMB union is currently in dispute with Wettons despite winning a minimum wage legal claim in Autumn 2018:

Employees at Wettons, are to finally receive the minimum wage after a legal claim supported by their union the GMB. The union announced the victory on their website:

GMB were made aware, by their members, that Wettons Cleaning Services Limited, who hold the contract for cleaning on housing estates, from Brent Council, were using their London Weighting Allowance, in calculating the minimum wage. Recent Employment Tribunal cases make this practice illegal.

When originally challenged on this Wettons refused to budge, but when the GMB solicitors started proceedings at the County Court and Employment Tribunal, Wettons finally backed down and agreed to settle the three test cases brought by the union. Following this, Wettons have now agreed to settle all outstanding claims for the rest of the workforce and they will be receiving back payment of up to six years this month.

Despite Brent Council being a registered London Living Wage employer (as defined by the Living Wage Foundation), and one of the first to develop a scheme promoting all businesses in the borough becoming Living Wage employers, the cleaning company chosen as their contracted partners were found to not be paying even the minimum wage themselves.
Despite this victory the GMB remain in dispute with Wettons who have refused to enter into discussions on a reasonable pay claim submitted by the union for nearly six months.

The union called on Brent Council to either put pressure on Wettons to comply with Brent's London Living Wage policy or bring the cleaning service in-house.

There are two options before the Council 1) in-sourcing 2) going out to competitive re-tendering. Both would requite payment of the London Living Wage. Option1 would set pay at Scale 4 of the GLPC pay scheme.


The report criticise the procurement process undertaken by Brent Housing Partnership, the arms length organisation that previously managed Brent council housing:

A review of the service, which is discussed later in this report, has uncovered that the procurement did not appear to have fully taken residents’ needs into consideration, as the specified standard of service and their inspections are not fit for purpose. It appears that the procurement was focused on reducing costs to residents without fully engaging them to understand their needs and adequately taking into account their expectations about the quality of service. This has led to a misalignment between residents’ expectations of the service and the cleaning specification Wettons are contracted to deliver. 


In addition, the contract was not well managed under BHP and there was insufficient investment made to the service by Wettons, which led to a deterioration in the quality of service. This manifested itself through high levels of complaints from residents, members’ enquiries and high numbers of corrective actions identified by the estate services team. Improving the estate cleaning service therefore became a key improvement priority when the Housing Management Service came back in-house. 

The report notes: 

The operational interface between Wettons and Veolia have also played a major role in poor service delivery. This is driven largely by lack of collective ownership by both contractors for the delivery of the overall estate standards. In addition, poor communication in agreed responsive solutions to the operational issues such as the handling of fly-tipping/bulk items, missed refuse collections and management of refuse bins were identified as key challenges during the review.

 The current contract is worth almost £2m annually and officers estimate that Option 1 would add costs of £0.8m. It is fully funded from service charges paid by tenants and lease holders. Officers envisage future savings on the contract  as a result of integration with other council services,  the removal of the profit requirement of out-sourcing, a better motivated workforce with more direct control by the Council and other 'efficiencies'.

I imagine if these factors  do not reduce costs there may be increases in service charges, albeit for a better service. Krissy O'Hagan, GMB London  Region organiser, told gWembley Matters, 'GMB Trade Union welcomes Brent Council's decision to discuss bringin this service back in-house and we hope that the council make the right decision and that the service is returned to Brent Council.'