UPDATE: Is the proposal to build 60 social rent infill homes on garage sites on Chalkhill Estate what it seems?

 

 

Is a Cabinet Report LINK about delivering 60 homes for Social Rent at Chalkhill what it seems?

Item 11 on the agenda for the Cabinet Meeting on 11 March is headed: ‘Proposal to deliver 60 homes for Social Rent on the Chalk Hill (sic) Estate.’ That’s great news, surely? But you have to read the Report to find out what it really means.

Social Rent is the most affordable of the “genuinely affordable” rent levels. It is the rent level at which the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report recommended the Council should build as many homes as possible, because most local people in housing need could not afford anything more expensive. And the Council has, so far, failed to build new homes for this rent level, unless they are existing tenants being moved from homes to be demolished.

But, hang on, does Brent own the Chalkhill Estate? Well, no. In the Report’s “Background” information section, it confirms that Brent Council transferred it to Metropolitan Housing Trust in 1996.

[It also claims that ‘Chalkhill was one of the major estates constructed in the borough by the Greater London Council in the 1960’s.’ Either current Council staff don’t know their local history, or they are trying to rewrite history, to distance themselves from the problems that led to the late 1960s “Bison” blocks being demolished only 30 years after they were built!]

In fact, it is now owned by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (“MTVH”), and it is their scheme which the Cabinet Report is considering. Cllr. Promise Knight’s “Cabinet Member Foreword” still maintains that: ‘we committed to deliver 5,000 affordable homes in the borough and are on track to achieve this.’

Her Foreword goes on to say: ‘This report sets out an opportunity to work closely with one of our strategic partners MTVH Housing to unlock 60 new social homes for residents by repurposing garage sites.’ [Note that these are now ‘social homes’, no longer ‘homes for Social Rent.’]

So, it is another infill scheme (something which Brent has not been particularly successful with so far - see my October 2023 guest post: Council housing – Does Brent know what it is doing?). But this time it is a Housing Association infill scheme, so why is Brent Council involved?

The part of the Chalkhill Estate involved in this scheme is the low-rise brick-built “Scientists” area at the eastern side of the 1960s estate. The land that MTVH want to build on ‘is subject to several outstanding third-party interests’.

It is Brent Council which has the statutory powers to over-ride these “third-party interests”, using compulsory purchase orders and stopping-up orders. As the Report puts it: ‘the scheme will be delivered by MTVH but the Council’s support will be necessary to enable delivery.’

If the proposed infill scheme does go ahead, it may produce ‘around sixty’ new homes. Although these will not be Brent Council homes, the Report does say ‘it is proposed all new homes delivered as part of the regeneration proposal on the Chalkhill Estate will comprise social housing, and the Council will hold nomination rights.’ Possibly some good news for the future.

 

UPDATE:

 This, from the Council's website, is what was decided at Cabinet on March 11th:

'Cabinet RESOLVED:

(1) To approve in principle the Council working with Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association (MTVH) to support the development objective of delivering new social housing within the Chalkhill Estate.

(2) To approve in principle to make Compulsory Purchase Orders of land interests within the Chalkhill Estate as identified on Plan 1 under Planning or Housing legislation to bring forward the development objectives, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each order.

(3) To agree advancing the preliminary stages of the compulsory purchase process on the Chalkhill Estate, including, but not limited to, land referencing, issuing section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 notices (section 16 notices), engaging, consulting and negotiating with landowners, and preparation of documentation and undertake all matters that the Council might need to undertake to inform a further report to Cabinet to make, confirm and implement the CPO, if required.

(4) To approve in principle to appropriate, subject to planning,the land identified on Plan 1 under section 203 of the 2016 Housing and Planning Act, subject to a further specific resolution of Cabinet in respect of the making of each appropriation.

(5) To approve in principle to make stopping up orders using planning or highways legislation for any land identified on Plan 1 and comprising public highway.

(6) To note the potential for the delivery of new social housing illustrated by MTVH’s current design proposals and that the current proposal will be subject to further consultation, design refinement and following that be subject of an application for planning permission to the Local Planning Authority.

(7) To delegate authority to the Corporate Director of Resident Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters Security to enter into an indemnity agreement with MTVH to indemnify the Council for all costs associated with the compulsory purchase process on Chalkhill Estate.'

Parking chaos in Kings Drive will worsen when new bungalows replace garages

Kings Drive is a pleasant council estate in Wembley with a mixture of blocks of flats, town houses and terraced houses. It has many mature trees and grass verges. Apart from Kings Drive itself (a dead-end road) it consists of cul-de-sacs including one which at present is for car parking only, but where four bungalows are due to be built.

Parking problems have increased recently with more tenants having cars. The curtailment of the estate's already unreliable 206 bus route on the increased number of Wembley event days has unfortunately served an incentive to car ownership.  Residents argue that the removal of parking spaces and the addition of 4 bungalows when the garage site off King's Drive is redeveloped LINK will mean more parking problems.

Padlocks have appeared on the garages that are presently on the site and residents have been told it will be cleared ready for demolition by March 22nd.

When the planning application to demolish the garages currently occupying the car park site and build bungalows instead was made, the Council argued that the garages were under-used. Residents responded that they had been deliberately run-down and not let.  The Council argued that spaces on Greenhill Way, off Kings Drive, could be used for parking but that is some distance from the estate and is often full of cars, partly by council workers who park there to avoid parking charges and walk to Brent Civic Centre.

At present residents in Saltcroft Close suffer frequent missed waste collections because the bin lorries are unable to access the close because of parked cars.  Grass verges have been turned into mud when cars mount it to gain access or to actually park their cars when no other spaces are available.

King's Drive resident Dawn Condouriodise has protested to Brent Council CEO Carolyn Downs and councillors about the issue:

Dear Ms. Downs,

Despite a petition signed by 100+ concerned residents against losing our garages and car park, and confirmation that Kings Drive was/is indeed full to capacity by parking surveys carried out by Brent Housing Partnership/Council, during the planning process, planning permission was still granted to eliminate our garages and car park and replace them with 4 bungalows with gardens and parking spaces.

Kings Drive is lined with cars head to tail every day and after 6.00 the small car parks throughout the estate are packed with cars, double parked, treble parked and in desperation, on the grass.

We all know about the increase in knife and gun crime around London and Wembley is no different. Only recently a man was found shot dead in his car in Greenhill Way, a distance away from our estate, and the police have now placed signs ‘Criminals Beware’, on the very street that Brent council suggested residents park after our car park is demolished.

Is that where I should look for a car space at 9.00 every night when I return from visiting my mother in a nursing home? That’s if there is a space after all the cars that line the car park every night are forced out onto the road. If not, how far from my safe zone will I have to go.

As well as many young families, there is an ageing community up here and we’ve always felt safe in the confines of our estate until now, with the prospect of being forced out to roam the streets for a parking place.

Is Brent Council really willing to put the safety of residents, some who have lived here for over 50 years at risk, in their quest to build these 4 bungalows, that we were lead to believe were affordable housing, but which we discovered were not, as confirmed when my neighbour requested being put on the waiting list for one, and was told by Brent Housing Partnership at an estate meeting, that they were to be private and she couldn’t afford it.

Use London Transport? This is a no through road with a bus stop at the bottom of one side of the steep hill we live on, where 2 elderly women were recently mugged in daylight and another bus stop at the bottom of Kings Drive where gangs congregate at night and mugged my neighbour as he was walking up the road and incidentally also where my mother was mugged years ago twice, in broad daylight. Would you want your mother or daughter to walk up from there? or to be searching there for a car space after dark?

We all know about the need for more housing to accommodate the increasing influx of people to our area and around Wembley Stadium thousands of homes are being built continuously.  Isn’t that enough without destroying our safe area.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought Brent Council was responsible for the safety and welfare of its residents, or is empire building their only concern now, whatever the consequences.

The worrying question is what is more important to Brent Council, the safety of its residents or 4 bungalows ? I fear the latter.

I can only hope I am proved wrong for the sake of my safety, the safety of all the anxious families involved with that petition and everyone in this area who use the car park.

Brent Council's Operational Director of Housing, Hakeem Osinaike  replied:

Thank you for your email of 19 February, which has been passed to me for a response. I am very sorry to hear about your concerns and hope that the contents of this email will go some way to allay some of your concerns.

You are right, the Council has granted planning permission for four bungalows on the site you refer to, following the statutory consultation process. This project is part of the Council’s new affordable home programme, in conjunction with the Mayor of London’ Building Council Homes for Londoners programme. The programme’s main objective is to increase the supply of good quality and affordable homes for the residents of Brent. 

London has a housing crisis and Brent has been hit hard by this. Currently in Brent, we have 3,397 households on the Waiting List who have been identified as being in priority need for housing and more gets added every day. From our current stock and supply from Housing Association partners, we currently let about 600 homes a year. It is therefore clear that we need to do something significant to address this issue, which is why we have started a programme to build over 800 new homes across the borough. Land as you may already know is in short supply in London and Brent in particular. Brent has therefore targeted sites which are under-utilised and in our ownership in the first instance, because this minimises the build costs and enables us to start work solving this crisis as soon as possible.

As part of the planning process, parking will always be part of the consideration for a new development and due regard will be given to the needs of current occupants and the households who will live in the new homes. Having said that, whilst we do not wish to trivialise the impact or give undue consideration to the problems caused by reduced parking, we have to consider a balance between parking and our ability to deliver solutions that go in some small way to solving the very real housing problems that people on low incomes are now facing.

I am sorry to hear that you feel frightened and unsafe in the area and I am truly sorry to hear about the bad experiences that you have had in the past. I would however suggest that should you be concerned about your safety in future, you should report this to the Police in the first instance.

I apologise if this is not the response you wanted to hear, however the need to supply more council homes is now a priority for the London Borough of Brent.

This is clearly a problem with no easy answers: we need more council housing but not at the expense of existing tenants, we need fewer cars on the road but must have viable and safe public transport alternatives, and the council should recognise that 'car-free developments' often result in transferring additional parking demand to nearby roads.

Commenting on this article, Michael Pavey, Labour councillor for Barnhill ward said:

"It is ludicrous to remove garages when the parking in an area is already overwhelmed. We absolutely need new homes in Brent, but this cannot be at the expense of our existing communities. Residents have been crystal clear in their opposition to this scheme from the very outset but sadly the Council has consistently ignored their concerns." 

Plans for bungalows on Kings Drive garage site to be decided on Wednesday

The trees behind the garages are in the gardens of Barnhill residents

The car park, eventual access to the bungalows

The 'poor quality' trees on the boundary

3D view of the development, note the absence of the Barnhill garden trees behind the bungalows

Ariel view. Expensive private Barnhill houses on left, Kings Dricve council estate on the right

Site at present with garages

Proposed site plan

I have to state an interest on this issue as I am a resident on the King's Drive/Pilgrims Way estate although not in the immediate vicinity of this planned development. The proposal to build four affordable bungalow homes on the current garage site is part of a Council strategy to find space for new homes on Brent estates on under-utilised or redundant areas. Details of schemes across the borough can be found HERE.

This scheme aroused a lot of opposition on the estate and hence the referral to Planning Committee for their consideration. The issue is one of balancing the need for new affordable homes with potential loss of amenity to current residents. In particular estate residents felt that the garages had been deliberately run down and not marketed for rent which enabled the Council to declare them not needed.  There was also concern at the potential loss of parking spaces and the loss of the trees. The garages form a sort of barrier between the expensive private houses of Barnhill and the council house blocks with the mature trees in the Barnhill gardens screening the view of the blocks.

There was no detailed survey of the Barnhill garden trees but the report, answering concerns about the trees overhanging the bungalows, says that under common law they can be cut back to the boundary.

A parking space will be provided for each bungalow and an additional 25 'communal' parking spaces will be provided. When I visited this evening there were 25 cars parked on the site.

A potential problem is difficulty of access. This is already a problem on the estate's cul-de-sac roads with parked vehicles blocking access to delivery lorries. Residents on Saltcroft Close suffer from many missed blue and grey bin collections because of this issue. They were not collected this week.

Full report HERE

Exhibition on King's Drive 'garages into homes' exhibition postponed

Brent Housing Partnership has postponed the Exhibition due to be held on May 9th about the proposal to build bungalows on the site of King's Drive garages. LINK

This is a result of Brent Council deciding that all public consultations on new developments should be postponed until after the General Election.