Cllr Muhammed Butt has appointed Cllr Teo Benea who represents Sudbury ward, alomng with Lib Dem leader Paul Lorber, to the Cabinet as lead member for Regeneration. Planning and Property. This is a slight variation on Shama Tatler's portfolio that has been held by Cllr Butt for some months. Presumably 'Property' refers to Brent Council property which is currently under review to achieve maximum market rates.
In a message to fellow Labour councillors, Cllr Benea wrote:
I just wanted to let you know that I am delighted to have been appointed Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Property and I am looking forward to working with colleagues, officers and residents to support regeneration and planning projects that benefit all residents across the borough
Brent Labour's website gives details of her background including working at a consultancy on planning and regeneration:
Teo has lived in Brent for several years,
she has long been the champion for closer relations with our European
neighbours. As a first-generation migrant herself, she is also
particularly passionate about supporting under-represented groups to
vote – including EU and Commonwealth Citizens. She currently works in a
public-affairs consultancy in the planning and regeneration sector. When
the war started in Ukraine, Teo coordinated the collection of donations
and organised the logistics for these to be delivered at the border
between Romania and Ukraine in partnership with other Romanian
organisations and partners. Teo and the then Sudbury councillors managed
the donations that came in at St Andrew’s Church in Sudbury over 4
days. Donations were collected from all locations across London and 5
trucks of goods were loaded and sent to Ukraine.
Teo has a strong track record in
campaigning and working hard for local residents and has a background as
an Organiser for the Labour Party and also previously worked for a
Labour MP in Westminster. In council Teo advocates for Sudbury to get
its fair share of investment – including more new roads and pavements,
cleaner streets and improved green spaces in Barham Park, Vale Farm and
elsewhere. Another priority is to ensure that the Eastern European
communities have a voice on the council, building community cohesion
among the diverse communities that live in Brent.
I popped into the exhibition this afternoon as I am not sure if I can make the talk tomorrow afternoon. The exhibition goes back as far as the slum clearances of the 1950s and tells the story of a strong community engaged in resistance to plans for their area which again and again have been imposed often with negative results.
1959 Willesden Corporations ets conditions for rehousing after slum clearance
1985 challenging the Council's public relations leaflet. If it wasn't for the typewritten copy printed on a Roneo or Gestetner printer the tenant's reply could have been written yesterday.
Leaflet against the infamous ballot on regeneration
In the middle of it all has been Granville Community Kitchen fighting for and recording the loss of community assets. Empowering people through food!
The community spirit that refused to be silenced is clear in a range of photographs and event advertising.
EXHIBITION DETAILS
Location: Metroland Studios, 91 Kilburn Sq, London NW6 6PS (Behind Kilburn Market) off Kilburn High Road
Go down the alley next to Argos and you will see us across the square. Ring the bell to get in.
Saturday | 25 January 2025 Community Soup Session: 1-5pm
Talk: Regeneration History of South Kilburn: 12-3pm
Sunday | 26 January 2025 Workshop: Weaving Our South Kilburn: 2-3:30pm
CNWL Dudden Hill Phase 1 development building heights in storeys
As stated in yesterday's article on the College of North West London (CNWL) Wembley Park site that and the CNWL Dudden Hill site are separate items on the December 11th Planning Committee Agenda they are conjoined as both site sales contribute to the cost of the new CNWL building in Wembley Park that will eventually house both campuses.
The Dudden Hill site currently consists of a variety of buildings that are claimed to be no longer fit for purpose. They do, of course ,sit on a large site which is a redevelopment gold mine.
Bottom left College Green at the junction of Dudden Hill and Denzil Road. Above it is the College site and to the right, either side of the railway line is a SINC (Site of importance for nature conservation). Originally the plan was to build on the Green but its improvement is now part of the plan.
The development of the site will take place in 2 phases.
Phase 1 is to the right (East) of the red dotted line. To the extreme left of the image is an estate of two storey houses on Selbie Road that (at the moment) are not part of the redevelopment zone.
The tallest buildings (C,D and E) are alongside the railway line, mid-height (11 to 17 storeys) in the centre of the Phase 1 development. The lowest (4 or 5 storeys) are along Denzil Road with a small park separating them from Phase 1 and opening on to Denzil Road. There are courtyards within each cluster in both phases.
It is Phase 1 in detail that is going to Planning Committee and Phase 2 is in outline and subject to change.
The timetable covers 10 years from this Planning Committee Meeting:
May 2025 Phase 1 college buildings are vacated and staff and activities decanted to Phase 2 buildings.
Summer 2025 Demolition of Phase 1 collrge buildings and construction begins
2027-2032 Phase 1 housing completed
September 2028 completion of new CNWL facility on Olympic Way
September 2028 vacant possession of Phase 2 buildings secured as staff and students move to Olympic Way.
September 2028 demolitionof Phase 2 buildings and new build commences
November 2034 Phase 2 completed
Hill Group in their planning statement say:
Phase 1 comprises 1,076
homes across 11 buildings/blocks ranging from 4 to 28 storeys. These are:
• Building C is 24 storeys
with a 20-storey shoulder and provides 187 apartments for traditional
sale/rent;
• Building D is 28 storeys
with a 24-storey shoulder and provides 223 build-to-rent apartments;
• Building E is 22 storeys
with 18 and 10-storey shoulders and provides 196 build-to- rent apartments;
• Buildings F and G are 11
storeys each and provide 162 apartments for traditional sale/rent;
• Buildings H, J and K are
15, 17 and 11 storeys respectively and provide 239 apartments for traditional
sale/rent; and
• Buildings V, W, and Y are
4-5 storeys and provide 69 affordable apartments all of which (100%) are
offered at social rent.
Phase 1 has been designed to
be the focus of the commercial uses at ground floor where the majority of homes
and taller buildings are located. This part of the development is the most likely arrival point from
Dollis Hill station, bus stops, and Willesden town centre, and it is prominently
located with regards to passing trade along Dudden Hill Lane.
Accordingly, a precise and tailored
commercial offering is proposed for Phase 1. Key elements of this include the
anchor facilities of a food store and food & beverage premises located
either side of the main gateway to the Site from Dudden Hill Lane. Flexible
retail units (which could be small shops, restaurants, or cafes) are positioned
a little deeper into the development along the east-west route, and on the
corner of the neighbourhood park/Denzil Road; where they will still benefit
from a good level of passing trade
They are at pains to point out that these shops are a local offer and not designed to compete with high street retail.
A nursery is proposed that if no provider came forward could be replaced by a community facility:
The nursery size and
location is also robustly secured in the Development Specification and
Parameter plans. It is proposed to be located at the lower density part of the development on the
corner of Denzil Road and Selbie Avenue, where it has the opportunity of taking
some of the available defensible green space as a private garden for play. In the event that a
commercial nursery operator cannot be found, this unit would instead come
forward as an alternative form of social/community infrastructure e.g. opticians, dentist, post-office etc within Use Class E or
F. It is worth noting that in the likely event that a nursery operator is
forthcoming, these other forms of social/community infrastructure could still
and likely will come forward within the other flexible Class E floorspace
across either base.
The financial viability assessment (FVA) concluded that the overall development would make and this would mean no affordable housing. However an 18% 'affordable' element was negotiated but only a small proportion is council housing and the intermediate level shared ownership:
As a general principle,
Phase 2 includes a higher proportion of family housing than Phase 1. This
reflects the typology of buildings within the respective phases and the
locations most suitable for family homes.
Phase 1 includes the taller buildings along the trainline, together with the
majority of the retail, commerce, and workspace. It will create the densest and
most vibrant part of the new neighbourhood. Phase 2 comprises lower-scale
buildings set amongst generous green space that better lends itself for a
greater quantum of family homes (and indeed the nursery and community centre).
Taller, thinner buildings are naturally more suited to smaller units orientated
around a central core, whilst lower, wider and longer buildings lend themselves
more easily to larger family homes.
In addition, Phase 1 is the
first phase of a regeneration scheme for which first-time buyers are the target
market initially (given the very high demand). The cost of a smaller 1 or 2
bedroom unit is more attractive and affordable to this market. Phase 1 also
includes build-to-rent tenures (which lend themselves to young professionals
and new families) are proposed in the taller blocks. This approach is supported
by London Plan policy H10 acknowledges that a higher proportion of one and two
bed units are generally more appropriate in more urban locations closer to
stations and town centres. The proposed mix for Phase 1 assists with the viability
and deliverability of an important regeneration scheme and ability to
facilitate the relocation of the CNWL.
All of the affordable
housing proposed for Phase 1 is provided as either shared ownership or social
rent, which is understood to have a greater local need than Discount Market
Rent products. The Applicant has
undertaken initial discussions with potential Registered Providers to ensure
there is strong interest and the product and building align with market
expectations. The location and product of the Affordable Housing has been
carefully considered to ensure its suitable and desirable by the eventual
Registered Provider.
So families needing social housing will have to wait for the second phase that starts in 2028 and is completed in 2034 - market conditions and financial viability may change the tenure. As in the Wembley Park officers' report, affordability is measured by habital room, rather than housing unit. The gives a higher percentage figure for larger properties.
It has proved to find amongst the documents any image of the whole development but the screen grabs below should give you some idea:
Lower rise buildings along Denzil Road
Buildings at the back of College Green (junction of Denzil Road and Dudden Hill Lane)
Junction of Cooper Road and Dudden Hill
Tall building E and lower building F looking west along Cooper Road
Looking south from the petrol station across the railway line - the new flats on the ex-plant nursery site appear to be missing.
Visible from a slightly different angle
View from arrival square along the new east - west route
Hill Group summarise their case:
Social
✓
Delivery of approximately 1,934 high quality new homes across this Site (c.
1,627) and Crescent House, Wembley (307), akin to 84% of LBB’s annual London
Plan requirement.
✓
Provision of 20% (by habitable room) affordable housing across the two Sites,
significantly exceeding the maximum viable amount.
✓
Provision of the following at College Green alone:
o Circa 1,627 homes.
o Circa 236 family homes,
including 4-bed properties.
o 18% affordable housing (by
habitable room), up to 50% (123 units) of which are affordable family homes.
o A wide variety of sizes
and tenures, all of which are high quality homes that balance fire regulations,
dual aspect, outlook, daylight, and thermal comfort and efficiency.
✓
Delivery of a multi-use community centre suitable for indoor sports, leisure
activities and community events.
✓
Provision for a new nursery and/or similar social infrastructure.
✓
Provision of local amenities including convenience store, food and beverage
premises, gym, and Build to Rent lounges.
✓
Provision of flexible workspace with potential for ‘maker space’.
✓
At least 1.45 hectares of new and enhanced green space, including:
o c. 0.29 hectare of
retained and enhanced public open space (on Selbie Avenue and Dudden Hill
Lane).
o c. 0.38 hectare new
publicly-accessible neighbourhood park.
o c. 0.78 hectare of
communal courtyards and podium/roof terraces for tenants.
✓
Fully policy-compliant play space provision on Site for all ages.
Environmental
✓ Landscape design ethos around women
and children’s (physical and perceived) safety, achieving safer pedestrian
connections and through-routes.
✓ Landscape-led development with
integrated sustainable drainage strategy, planting of over 350 new trees,
achieving an exceptionally high Urban Greening Factor score of 0.57. This is almost
50% over the policy target and would be one of if not the greenest developments
proposed in Brent to date.
✓ A sensitive landscape response to the
adjacent railway SINC.
✓ Hill to act as long term stewards of
the development, managing the landscape and public realm to a high standard.
✓ Local townscape and streetscape
benefits (and no heritage harm).
✓ All electric energy strategy, with
glazing optimised to balance daylight with overheating.
✓ Operational carbon reduction of over
80% beyond Part L 2021; far surpassing the policy minimum target of 35 % and
reflects the detailed consideration to sustainability in the project design.
This will minimise energy bills for residents with 25% achieved through lean
measures that reduce actual energy use.
✓ Non-residential units to meet BREEAM
‘Excellent’.
✓ Responsible sourcing of construction
materials.
✓ Car-free development, except
blue-badge parking and car-club spaces. Overall net reduction in parking and
vehicle trips compared to existing college, bringing air quality and transport network
benefits.
✓ Upgraded Dudden Hill Lane / Cooper
Road junction including new pedestrian and cycle crossing point, improving
access to Dollis Hill Station.
✓ Pavement widening on Denzil Road.
✓ Air Quality Positive development.
Thjere are only two resident comments on the Brent Council Planning Portal - both neutral.
Looking at the overall context it is worth remembering the scheme for Neasden Goods Yard, not far away, where most of the proposed towers are higher than the highest on the CNWL site at 30, 40, 42, 43 and 51 storeys. LINK
It had been suggested that Cllr Muhammed Butt has taken on Cllr Shama Tatler's portfolio only temporarily until a new Cabinet member was appointed. However, in an updated Full Council Agenda yesterday it appears that this is permanent arrangement.
Cllr Butt has granted himself direct power over Regeneration, Planning and Growth in addition to Housing which he took over when Cllr Promise Knight went on maternity leave.
Given the number of controversial developments and planning decisions in Brent this might be seen as too much power and influence for one person. Cllr Butt hs been pro-active in early meetings with developers before applications get to Planning Committee but now has a formal role. What price the independence of Brent Planning Commitee?
Other changes were notified on the Agenda following the resignation from Committee positions of ex-Deputy Mayor Cllr Diana Collymore:
Full Council – 18 November 2024
Agenda Item 5 – Appointments to Committees & Outside Bodies Standing Order 30(g) states that, if necessary, Full Council is required to agree appointments to committees and outside bodies. In addition to the changes listed Council is being asked to confirm the appointment of an Independent Person.
Such appointments are set out below:
Cabinet Membership
Council is asked to note that effective from 8 November 2024 the Leader of the Council has incorporated the role of Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Growth within his remit following Councillor Shama Tatler having stood down from her role as a Cabinet Member.
Committee Appointments:
1. Audit & Standards Advisory Committee and Audit & Standards Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Teo Benea as a full member.
2. Community & Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee – Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member
3. Corporate Parenting Committee – Councillor Lesley Smith to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a full member.
4. Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee - Councillor Teo Benea to replace Councillor Diana Collymore as a substitute member
Cllr Shama Tatler attended her last Brent Cabinet today to make a presentation on the next stage of the South Kilburn regeneration.
Cllr Tatler earned the nickname 'Towerblock Tatler' for her unapologetic support for highrise developments and densification in Brent housing projects.
From tomorrow she starts a new role at Head of the Labour Office at the Local Government Association.
Cllr Tatler will step down as the Cabinet lead for Regeneration, Planning and Growth but says she will continue to support Brent Labour from the back benches.
She wrote on LinkIn:
Thank
you to all my Cabinet colleagues, past and present and I wish my
successor all the best in continuing to deliver progressive Regeneration
and Planning for Brent's residents.
The map shows how many sites are still to be developed 20 years after the 2004 Masterplan.
The South Kilburn Regeneration began as a concept in the late 1990s, with the New Deal for Communities adopted in 2001.
The first South Kilburn Masterplan was approved on the 12th July 2004 so the project has been going for 20 years and completion may take at least another ten.
The Minutes of the 12th July Executive Meeting show that non-Executive members were concerned that the Masterplan had not gone to the Scrutiny Committee. LINK
Tomorrow's Cabinet starts at 10am and South Kilburn is Item 12 out of 15 items LINK. The meeting will be livestreamed HERE.
Cabinet will be asked to approve a new chapter with the council seeking a single developer rather than a multiplicity of developers for the sites that remain. They include
Queens
Park & Cullen House, William Dunbar House and William Saville House,
Masefield House, Wordsworth House and Dickens House, Craik Court, Crone Court
and Zangwill House, Hereford House and Exeter Court, Austin House and Blake
Court and John Radcliffe House.
The Cabinet are told that Early Pre-market Engagement has indicated interest from several companies to take on the very large task with attendant risks in the current climate. Economies of scale are cited as an advantage but there are still risks regarding viability
The regeneration programme is based on the cross-subsidy model where the
receipts from market housing funds the delivery of affordable housing, social
and public infrastructure. It is however notable that the programme has up
until now benefitted from rapidly rising sales values as regeneration improved
the area, but the sales values are now flattening out.
Meanwhile construction
cost inflation has risen steeply and continues to remain high, this alongside
the recent regulatory changes, specifically the second staircase, is putting
viability under extreme pressures. Also, interest rate rises have affected both
development market and purchaser demand. Affordability of the programme is
expected to remain challenging and will need to be carefully monitored and
robustly managed.
There are still tenants waiting to be rehoused on the estate in line with the Landlord Promise made by the Council that they would be rehoused on the estate. It appears that 164 will have to wait until after 2028:
933 tenants have been permanently rehoused in a new home in South
Kilburn. Approximately 200 tenants have been permanently rehoused outside South
Kilburn in a new build or an existing home around the borough in areas such as
Harlesden, Willesden, Cricklewood, Willesden Green, Kensal Rise, Kensal Green,
Brondesbury and Kilburn.
At time of writing there are 284 tenants across Austin, Blake, Dickens, Craik,
Crone, Zangwill, John Radcliffe, William Dunbar and William Saville remaining to
be rehoused. 120 of the 284 will have the opportunity to be rehoused between
2025 and 2028 in the developments under construction at NWCC, C&G and Peel.
The rehousing team is working with tenants at Austin, Blake and Dickens as a
priority for the next phase of rehousing as these blocks are in the poorest condition.
The report is franker that previously about the difficulties encountered, partly in support of the single developer proposal:
In a small number of developments however residents have experienced disruptive
build quality issues. At Granville New Homes, Franklin, Chase and Hollister
House, there have been issues with water leakage, supply of hot water and
heating, poor workmanship and use of poor-quality material. Elsewhere, at Merle
Court and George and Swift House fire safety issues with cladding has required
significant remediation works.
Multiplicity of landlords
and managing agents arising from the site-by-site development model is also
reflected in the inconsistent and variable standards of management and
maintenance of the public realm across the neighbourhood and sometimes on
opposite sides of the street. This inconsistent approach has marred the
community's experience of living, working and visiting South Kilburn.
Parts of South Kilburn
have a concentration of sites at various stages of redevelopment - sites which
are hoarded up and under construction, sites which are part or fully vacant.
There areas have been experiencing increased levels of anti-social behaviour,
fly-tipping and squatting. Alongside this is the noise, dust, vibration, and
traffic disruption arising from the construction itself.
Whilst these
are the inevitable consequences of large-scale, long-term regeneration
programmes, it presents significant disruption to the day-to-day experience of
residents and erodes their sense of safety, community and ownership.
The delivery programme as set out in the 2016 Masterplan review has been
delayed due to economic and viability challenges and recent regulatory changes
requiring extensive design amendments. Beyond the sites which are currently
under construction there is no future pipeline of new homes. For residents (tenants
and leaseholders) remaining in the existing blocks the uncertainty of not knowing
when and where they are going to move is frustrating, particularly for residents
living in overcrowded and poor quality homes.
For viability there will be an increase in the private homes quota as well as an increase in densification.
According to the 2016 Masterplan, the remaining sites can provide a
further 1,400 homes. An initial review of the Masterplan has indicated that
there are opportunities for optimisation, densification to deliver more housing
The remainder of programme will include a higher percentage of private housing
to re- balance the overall distribution of housing tenure and front loading of
affordable homes provision in the earlier phases of the programme. The level of
private housing will be critical to the viability of future phases.
There is never much discussion, and certainly
not debate, at Cabinet - that is all done in private with officers at a
private pre-Cabinet meeting, so this complex and risky proposal is
likely to go through in a few minutes. It is important that Scrutiny
Commitee (unlike in 2005) considers it at the appropriate time.
We have a regular commenter on Wembley Matters who champions the Labour Council and s/he is so over the top that it often appears to be satire, actually serving to undermine the council. At other times it has been suggested it is written using an Artificial Intelligence program.
The latest missive is in response to Philip Grant's series of exchanges regarding what he sees as a political foreward by Cllr Shama Tatler to Cabinet report about the Wembley Housing Zone development.
Out of curiosity I resorted to Artifical Intelligence and asked CHATGPT to:
Write in praise of Councillor Tatler's (London Borough of Brent) of the
Labour Party efforts at regeneration calling into question Philip
Grant's criticisms of her schemes and her alleged politicisation of the
issue. Question Philip Grant's political neutrality and condemn his
actions as enabling support for the Conservative Party
Here are the two pieces of writing. Can you identify similarities?
ARTICLE ONE
Councillor Tatler's
tireless efforts in the regeneration of the London Borough of Brent stand as a
beacon of progress and community empowerment. With steadfast dedication, she
has spearheaded initiatives aimed at revitalizing neighbourhoods, improving
infrastructure, and enhancing the quality of life for residents. Her vision
extends beyond mere development; it encompasses inclusivity, sustainability,
and social cohesion.
Despite her commendable endeavours,
Councillor Tatler has faced unwarranted criticism from individuals like Philip
Grant, whose motives seem questionable at best. Grant's disparaging remarks and
attempts to politicise the issue not only undermine the genuine progress being
made but also reveal a disturbing lack of concern for the welfare of Brent's
diverse populace.
Grant's purported
neutrality crumbles under scrutiny, as his actions appear more aligned with
partisan agendas than with the genuine interests of the community. By echoing
critiques that serve to benefit the Conservative Party, he betrays a disregard
for the fundamental principles of impartiality and integrity.
In contrast, Councillor
Tatler's approach remains resolutely focused on the betterment of Brent,
transcending party lines in pursuit of meaningful change. Her leadership
exemplifies a commitment to serving the people above all else, fostering a
sense of pride and optimism among constituents.
As we navigate the
complexities of urban renewal, let us rally behind leaders like Councillor
Tatler, whose passion, integrity, and unwavering dedication illuminate the path
toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all residents of Brent. Grant's
politicisation of the issue only serves to hinder progress and perpetuate
divisiveness, making it imperative that we reject such divisive tactics and
unite in support of genuine, community-driven regeneration efforts.
ARTICLE TWO
As a passionate Labour supporter and an avid
follower of Councillor Tatler's tireless dedication to our community, I must
express my wholehearted support for her invaluable contributions to Brent
Council.
It's disheartening to see Philip Grant's attempts to undermine the vital role
Councillor Tatler plays in providing clarity and context through their Cabinet
Member Forewords.
Grant's narrow focus on political content overlooks the broader picture of
Councillor Tatler's commitment to transparency, accountability, and inclusive
governance. The Cabinet Member Forewords serve as a crucial bridge between
policy decisions and the community, shedding light on the Labour Party's vision
for a fairer, more equitable society.
Grant's insistence on dissecting every word of these forewords in search of
supposed political bias misses the mark entirely. It's abundantly clear that
Councillor Tatler's motivations lie in championing the interests of all Brent
residents, regardless of political affiliation. Her unwavering dedication to
serving the public interest is evident in every aspect of her work.
Furthermore, Grant's suggestion of reviewing the inclusion of Cabinet Member
Forewords reeks of political manoeuvring rather than genuine concern for good
governance. It's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the Labour Party's
influence and stifle progressive policies that aim to uplift the most
vulnerable members of our community.
Residents need to stand in solidarity with Councillor Tatler and reject
attempts to discredit their invaluable contributions. We must continue to champion
transparency, accountability, and social justice in Brent Council, with
Councillor Tatler leading the charge towards a brighter, more inclusive future
for all. This is a really important year for Labour and you are either with us
or Tory enablers.
In August last year, South Kilburn residents received issue 1 of South Kilburn Regeneration News. A welcome sign that we might be kept informed of progress, despite the fact that `issue 1' came after regeneration has been going on for nearly 20 years, and in those preceding years there has been no attempt to let us know what is happening.
Rumours abound that the regeneration has hit the rocks and is stalling. Nothing seems to have happened with the Carlton Vale Boulevard scheme.. The medical centre promised for 2015 has yet to materialise, and in the meantime the building in which the Kilburn Park surgery was based has been declared unfit for use and then sold off. Rumours say the new medical centre will be opened early next year, but no information has been circulated, no explanation for the lateness or whether this medical centre will actually be up to the standard originally promised. A further rumour is that developers are pushing for an even smaller proportion of social housing than in earlier stages, with a preference for expensive market flats, would, if true, mean that any idea that this addresses the housing crisis is a bad joke.
Wembley Matters has carried several reports on the disgusting state of some of the blocks which tenants have been decanted to while waiting for new flats. Word has it that the stalling of regeneration means that many who have been promised new flats in South Kilburn will not be able to move into them for years.
South Kilburn regeneration has been plagued with problems throughout, with new blocks having to have scaffold up for years while cladding is removed, heating and mould issues in many new blocks and, most notorious of all, Granville New Homes blocks costing more to put right than the original cost. And the company that botched Granville New Homes given new contracts by Brent Council! On top of which many moved into new blocks find their rents and especially their service charges rising considerably. Many of the problems associated with new blocks have been denied by Brent, and there certainly haven't been issues of Regeneration News to tell us what is going on.
No-one attempts to give South Kilburn residents a truthful account of what is happening. Raising these issues at Brent Connects doesn't get any answers, let alone a commitment to inform residents. South Kilburn Trust, supposedly overseeing the regeneration of the Carlton/Granville site never reaches out to South Kilburn residents and appears to be totally unaccountable, despite claiming to represent the interests of South Kilburn residents.. Even those few who have time and ability to trawl through - often impenetrable - Council documents are often none the wiser.
Having endured 20 years of living in a building site, compounded by Brent Council persuading HS2 to build their vent shaft in the middle of the estate (with the support of South Kilburn Trust) rather than on a empty car park near Queens Park station, and facing probably another 15 years on a building site, residents really do have a right to clear, truthful information.
Pete Firmin, chair of Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants and Residents Association, South Kilburn
The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:
Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters.
Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school
and all but who are we to complain?
A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:
I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation.
The fact that only 52 of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered.
Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements. LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:
There are currently 534 void
properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either
been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been
bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising
hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of
South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):
Of the 534 voids, 52 have
been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition
and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in
John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically,
those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included
in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing
temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move
outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other
commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the
ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report
recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This
implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with
the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.
The rational[e] for the promise
not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these
households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households
have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these
households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way
those involved with the ballot.
This proposal does create a
risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely
away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be
two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for
the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced
by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households
out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save
the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the
average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the
Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall
wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having
to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and
work.
There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:
To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord
Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to
amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires
consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult
and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant
consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.
The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court. LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?
This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration. A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK
There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK
A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:
If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.
Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.
There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.
But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.
There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.
But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.
I wonder if Osbornes Law will be interested in the new proposals?
