Disquiet over developers could become election issue in May 2018

Looking back on  2017 it is clear that regeneration, particularly in the Wembley area, has been the most controversial issue reported on Wembley Matters.

Planning applications from Quintain have come thick and fast, sometimes several complex, multi-million schemes, have been submitted for one sitting of the Planning Committee. The Committee itself was weakened by the absence of Cllr Sarah Marquis on maternity leave. Her lawyerly independence as chair gave the Committee some much needed credibility but in her absence many far-reaching controversial decisions have been made on the casting vote of the current chair Cllr Agha.

Time and time again, despite opposition from residents, schemes have been approved that do not comply with the Council's own guidelines on  issues such as height and light. Officers give excuses such as good design makes up for the height or that students do not need as much light in their rooms as long-term residents. But most importantly the amount of affordable housing has been less than that advocated by Brent Council and the GLA, and the definition of 'affordable' has been manipulated to an extent that makes the term meaningless.

Rather than providing homes for families, Quintain has switched to all inclusive 'life-style' private rental schemes boasting super broadband access aimed at high income single people or couples without children. Meanwhile Brent's housing list becomes longer.

Given all this it is no wonder that residents were suspicious of Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt's unrecorded meetings with developers revealed in the response to Andrew Linnie's FoI response.  His claim  that the initial FoI response had got dates wrong did not dispel the suspicions and WM will be watching developments closely in 2018.

Similarly the meetings that Butt along with other councillors, including members of the Planning Committee, had with Tottenham Hotspur FC and the Football Association left residents feeling that decisions were being made, if not secretly, without their active involvement LINK. The increase in the number of events at the Stadium and higher capacity, continues to have a negative impact on residents.

The long-running saga of Brent Council's pay-off to former Head of Resources, Cara Davani, who had been found guilty of racial discrimination and bullying by an Employment Tribunal, was the subject of an objection to the the Council's accounts by a group of local residents, led by ex-tax inspector Philip Grant. The auditor eventually found in favour of the Council in a pretty unsatisfactory report LINK.  Philip is to be congratulated on the thorough case he painstakingly put together and a fair reading of his post on the issue suggests that the Council's case is far from convincing.

One of the interesting sidelights on the case is that part of the employment tribunal case against Cara Davani was that Rosemary Clarke, a black woman, had been treated unfairly compared with how Clive Heaphy a white man and former Brent Head of Finance had been treated in his case which involved a handsome pay-off of 140,508 as 'compensation for loss of office'.  The auditor's report reveals that the Clive Heaphy case was cited by Cara Davani to support her threat that if she did not receive a pay-off she would take action alleging that she had been sexually discriminated against  by the Council in comparison with Heaphy. She herself had been involved in the compensation package put together for Heaphy! As Philip Grant points out this all went back to the earlier conflict between Cllr Butt and Gareth Daniel where in an exchange of emails between Heaphy and Davani it was said, 'Mo owes us one' in an apparent reference to bringing in former Ofsted colleague Christine Gilbert as CEO.

Given all this how secure is Muhammed Butt in his role as leader going into the May 2018 local elections?   The thorn in Butt's side in 2017 was undoubtedly Cllr John Duffy who challenged the Labour Cabinet and officers over what he saw as mismanagement of the Council's waste services and the ill-fated outsourcing of enforcement of a littering strategy via fixed penalty notices. He made the case that the Council had failed to both provide an effective service and provide best financial value.

Duffy failed to be selected to fight his ward in 2018 following a vote of Kilburn ward party members which I was told was not at Butt's behest but an independent decision. Butt was apparently pleased with the de-selection but when Duffy continued to challenge the Cabinet and built support for his claims, the party turned to disciplinary action against him based on allegations of bullying. The party removed the Labour whip from Duffy.  There have been calls from the public for him to stand as an independent in May but that appears to be unlikely.

Other Labour group members who had been critical of Butt have been quiet, with Cllr Pavey, who had challenged him for the leadership previously, adopting a low profile.  Stonebridge councillor Zaffar Van Kalwala, an earlier casualty of his leader's displeasure, has operated in a sort of limbo. He will not be standing in May but has put a lot of energy into community initiatives with young people in St Rapahel's and Stonebridge. Kalwala's fellow Stonebridge councillor, the ambitious Sabina Khan, has decided her ambitions lie elsewhere and has hardly attended any local meetings for months.

Elsewhere Cllr Jumbo Chan has impressed with his work on the Joint Teachers Consultative Panel in developing a Brent Teachers' Fair Workload Charter and in leading opposition to the academisation of The Village School.

Unlike Haringey, the surge in Labour Party membership and support for Momentum made little impact on candidate selections for the local elections and the slate for next year does not promise any radical move to the left. There is at least one Momentum candidate who is likely to get elected but that is one out of 63 and it could be a rather lonely and potentially vulnerable position unless rank and file members get behind her.

Brent Green Party has a new and young leadership and is likely to mount an effective challenge in a few target wards and it is crucial that there is some quality opposition on the largely one party council. The rival Tory groups have come together ahead of the local elections but won't be helped by the state of the Tory government. Lib Dems won't be helped by their lone councillor's decision  to go independent but they may target wards where they have a relatively firm base in the community.

Most intriguing is the prospect, raised in comments on this blog and some Brent Facebook accounts of the possibility of some independent candidates emerging from the various campaigns that have taken place over the last two years. If they are based on residents' associations they could be in with a chance - watch this space.

London Mayor torpedoes Barnet's Grahame Park regeneration citing loss of affordable homes

From Construction News LINK

Sadiq Khan has rejected plans for a housing estate regeneration project in north London on the basis that affordable homes will be lost.

The mayor of London said the scheme in Barnet is “a classic example of how not to do estate regeneration”.

The project at the 1970s Grahame Park estate in Colindale includes plans to demolish 692 homes available at social rent and replace them with 1,083 units.

But only 435 of the new homes will be available for social tenants within what is Barnet’s largest housing estate.

Barnet Council approved the scheme, which is being developed by Genesis Housing Association, last month.

However, Mr Khan said after considering the evidence, the council must now work with City Hall planners to redesign the project.

It is the second time this year the mayor has intervened in Barnet, having called in the council’s decision to refuse Barratt permission for 462 homes in May.

The mayor said: “I fully support improving social housing on this estate and across the capital, but this scheme falls far short of what I expect of London boroughs.”

Mr Khan pointed to his London Plan, published last month, which said estate regeneration projects must replace homes for social rent on a like-for-like basis.

He added: “Londoners so urgently need more high-quality housing, not less, which makes this scheme completely unacceptable in its current form.”

Housing estate regeneration is a major issue in the capital, with Haringey Council facing fierce opposition to its £2bn plans to regenerate part of Wood Green in north London.

A Barnet Council spokesperson said: “We are clearly disappointed by this decision. We will now be reviewing this with our development partner to agree the next steps.”

A Genesis spokesperson said: “We are very disappointed to hear this decision and are in close dialogue with Barnet Council and the mayor’s office to review next steps.”

NOTE

Genesis Housing Association is associated with the Brent House development where only 30% of units are 'affordable' (ie unaffordable to most local families at up to 80% market rent) and the controversial Minavil House development where  'affordable' is 60% of market rent but only 13% of the units.  It is also facing a campaign by tenants over the merger with Notting Hill Housing Trust and its move away from its original remit of providing housing at social rent.

It will be interesting to see how Mr Khan treats applications from Brent which don't offer Londoners more high quality homes at social rent.

Wembley Park: The Money Under Our Feet

There have been many postings on this website about Quintain's Wembley Park 'regeneration' and even more comments, particularly as the development has accelerated recently eating up warehouse and industrial units and apparently squeezing tower blocks into any spare space. In this guest posting Dilan Tulsiani stands back and considers the implications for local people as well as the locality itself.
 

On the 29^th of August 2017, Quintain, a property investment and development business, announced via its website that it was ‘spending £1m a day on construction making Wembley Park one of the UK’s biggest construction sites’. According to Quintain, there will be over 8,500 jobs created, with a further 3,000 homes under construction ‘delivered at a pace not seen at any other London development site’. The construction framework consists of six contractors, the notables being: McLaren, Wates, Sisk and Carillion. Quintain have recently shifted their construction policy from ‘build to buy’ to ‘build to rent’. They aim to build over 7,000 new homes, with 5,000 labelled as ‘build to rent’, and a further 2,300 as “affordable”.

 

Quintain and Brent Council have both resisted using the term ‘gentrification’ to describe their partnership in transforming the area. Instead, you’ll see ‘regeneration’ on practically every website or poster promoting the ongoing process. This is understandable, as the critics of any form of gentrification, are quick to label the selective description by property developers as deceptive and dishonest. Technically speaking, regeneration is embedded within the process of gentrification. The Cambridge Dictionary defines regeneration: ‘to improve a place or system, especially by making it more active or successful’. Gentrification is defined as: ‘the process by which a place, especially part of a city, changes from a being poor to being a richer one, where people from a higher social class live’. Wembley Park’s ‘regeneration’ process factually falls under both definitions (for the remainder of this article I will use the term ‘gentrification’ instead of ‘regeneration’, as it is more accurate to my subject matter). Although, to prevent an ethical breakdown, new tenants would probably cling to ‘regeneration’ as an ontological justification for staying in Wembley.

 

Residents who have lived in Brent for more than a decade will remember the industrial abyss that used to exist just a short walk from the station. In this sense, the gleaming metallic towers, illusory designer outlet and newly placed pavement are well relished. However, there are a few fundamental concerns that have simply been swept aside. Firstly, the effect on the surrounding areas. There is no surprise, that most, if not all the flats in Wembley are not “affordable”. In fact, that term is usually used to provoke a narrative of relativity concerning financial status. Quintain has invested £900 million into Wembley Park, without careful consideration and evaluation from the residents of Brent, this could lead to some serious socio-economic disparities. David Fell, a research analyst at Hamptons International states that property prices in HA9 “have risen by 14% in the last year [2016], compared to a London average of 10%.” Just down the road from Wembley Park, a two-bedroom flat is valued around £335,000. A flat of the same size, less than 10 minutes’ walk away, is valued at £450,000 - £500,000. Recently, Alto has sold two-bedroom flats in Wembley Park for £800,000.

 

A similar problem was highlighted in 2014 during gentrification processes in South Kilburn, where a member of the Residents’ Association claimed: “Those who have been living in the area are essentially being driven out. This all amounts to a social cleansing of South Kilburn.” Moreover, Alpha, Gorefield and Canterbury Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations emphasised that the residents who have lived in South Kilburn for generations could no longer afford to live in their homes. These are not trivial or isolated matters. They’re simply the effects of gentrification. Wealth concentrated in one single area in this manner, will have drastic consequences. The surrounding populations will be allowed to use facilities, shops and walk the newly paved streets, but there is a cap on their indulgence of this ideology. Consider what the residents of Chalkhill think when their homes are (literally and metaphorically) overshadowed by the new apartment towers. When they, like so many other communities, have a lack of funding within their own neighbourhoods, along with other serious social issues. To name one, in Brent and Hounslow 34 high-rise buildings failed fire cladding tests issued after the horrendous disaster at Grenfell Tower. In contrast, I think it would be perfectly safe to assume that the newly built apartments in Wembley Park have some of the best fire safety systems available.

 

 Attached to this disparity of wealth is the subsequent problem of crime. There is no doubt that the new properties will have a well-maintained police presence, due to the proximity of the stadium, along with security guards for each building. Due to the disparity, crimes in the surrounding areas may increase. Let’s take some of surrounding areas as examples (take these as approximate averages): From January - August 2017, Alperton has had the average total crime rate of 118/month, Dollis Hill’s average total crime rate was 137/month, and Tokyngton stands at an average of 188/month. Tokyngton is the closest of the three areas to Wembley Park, and in recent years it has had a subsequent increase in total crimes committed. If the investment in selective industries and areas remains or increases in the next decade, there should be no surprise at the increase in crime. This correlation was well represented in gentrification processes in New York, especially Harlem. As living standards get higher, the price of property increases, more people will forcibly turn to crime – both petty and serious. The socio-cultural divide will only widen.

 

One last fundamental issue is an assessment by The FA (for those like myself who are not sport literate: The Football Association). In May 2016, The FA complained that Brent Council was considering those who visit the stadium “an afterthought”. The recent constructions sites, which appear directly outside the stadium, could present potential hazards to fans, according to the FA. In fact, these new apartments would present the highest, and thus the most expensive flats, with their own personalised view of the games below them. Wembley is already set to be overcrowded, yet with ongoing construction, and busy venues/rush hour, there should be an effective policy by the council to counter this.

 

Ultimately, I see no realistic counter-movement to what seems to be an unchecked gentrification process at Wembley. In the next decade, Wembley, just as many other towns in Greater London, will be injected with huge sums of money, none of which will aid ingrained social issues, but will make these issues less noticeable for those living in the newly ‘regenerated’ areas. In the meanwhile, surrounding populations will attempt to readjust and comfort themselves from their high price of living with the luxurious shopping outlets built on the borders between their areas and the ‘newly regenerated Wembley Park’.

 

Check the record of Laing O'Rourke winner of £700m Brent Cross pre-construction contract

--> It was announced today that Laing O’Rouke has been appointed under a pre-construction agreement as part of a two stage tender process for the main construction work of the Brent Cross  regeneration with an overall value of £700m.
Laing O’Rourke will work with Hammerson and Standard Life Investments to finalise the design and procurement in order to enable a start on site in 2018. 

The regeneration of Brent Cross London will double the size of the existing centre to 2 million sq ft of retail and leisure space. This will include up to 150 new retail stores and 50 new restaurants, a leisure and cinema offer, hotel accommodation and, it is claimed, improved public spaces including a new town square. The plans also include a relocated and enlarged bus station as well as, it is claimed, improved transport and highways infrastructure.

The regeneration has been opposed by residents in both Barnet and Brent concerned with over-development and and a significant increase in traffic. See Coalition for A Sustainable Brent Cross

O’Rourke hit problems earlier this year when it posted a £245m loss as a result of a PFI contract in Montreal. LINK

Earlier in October this year  two subsidaries of the company were fined a total of £3.8m after a worker was crushed by an 11 tonne concrete panelin Worksop in 2014. LINK

HSE inspector Stuart Pilkington said after the hearing: “This tragic incident led to the avoidable death of a young man, whose death could easily have been prevented if the companies had acted following previous warnings to identify and manage the risks involved, maintain the equipment, and put a safe system of work in place.”

Laing O’Rourke was fined £800,000 in March of this year over an incident in which, again in 2014, a worker crushed his own brother to death while driving a dumper at a building site for a multi-storey car park at Heathrow Terminal 2. LINK

Is the consultation about the future of Alperton's 'The Boat' a secret?

The regeneration proposals for Minavil House and the former Midland Bank/The Plough pub sites at Alperton have attracted opposition  LINK so that may explain why a consultation about the future of The Boat (formerly The Pleasure Boat) 346 Ealing Road has been very low profile to say the least.

Rumour has it that this site is destined to be more flats and it is unclear whether like The Plough developers will want to retain some kind of public house or community facility.  Few would deny that the pub is run down at present (see below) but it has historic interest as the starting point for pleasure cruises along the Grand Union Canal in the 1850s.

The consultation is at Peppermint Point (previously Middlesex House) which is between Sainsbury's and the canal.

Wednesday September 20th 2.30pm-8pm at Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point

Thursday September 21st  3.30pm-8pmat Brent Play Association, Peppermint Point

MAP

This is what the website InsideTrack had to say about The Boat in 2014:

-->

The area around Alperton Station is fairly industrial, with lots of small factory type units on the surrounding roads. The Pleasure Boat is a short walk along Ealing Road. If you head towards the big green tower block, you can’t miss it!

I think perhaps the best way to describe The Pleasure Boat is forlorn. The interior of the pub is rather non-descript and bleak, with little or no decorations on the white walls where the paint has started to peel and discolour in places. The seating is also suitably basic and weathered.  The pub was empty when we arrived, adding to the air of desolation. It only opens three days a week, Thursdays to Saturdays from 6pm onwards,  further suggesting this is not a pub in the best of health.

It also advertises a garden beside the Grand Union canal. Surrounded by broken tables and with weeds threatening to invade the patio area, this too has seen better days. Oddly enough, an area of it now seems to have been given over to a hand car wash – a business you assume is open more frequently than the pub.

At the front of the pub there is another outside seating area, so we chose to go there. It backs onto a rather busy road so it isn’t the nicest spot either. There was no ale available so from the limited selection available, I went for a Budweiser.  A few people had arrived by the time we left so it wasn’t completely deserted, it still didn’t suggest the Disco, which was starting at 8pm, would be busy in any way.

With its limited opening hours and small clientele, I wouldn’t bet on the Pleasure Boat still being open by the time I finish this blog.  And while it pains me to see any pub close, this is clearly one that has run aground and in need of some fresh ideas and direction. Sadly its position on the edge of a main road and surrounded by industrial parks makes me feel there won’t be a queue of people lining up to take it on.

But maybe there is a queue of developers...

Cllr Tatler challenged on Wembley Regeneration's alleged benefits

 

Brent Council 2002

I have received the following Anonymous guest blog in reaction to the lead members' Q&As published earlier LINK:

I read your blog about the forthcoming Full Council Meeting with intrigue, particularly the question  “1. Question from Mr Wadhwani to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills:”  and the fantastical answer given by Councillor Tatler. I have added a few follow up questions that should now be asked. 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Council takes a plan-led approach to the regeneration of the borough, in order to prevent development schemes coming forward in an ad hoc, unplanned fashion.”

Additional Questions:  The public consensus is that they have failed miserably in their task, even the Daily Mail agree.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Wembley has a comprehensive planning framework, including the dedicated Wembley Area Action Plan (adopted 2015), which sets out how development of the area will progress”.

Additional Questions: That may be true, but it is a shame it has produced such an unqualified mess, just ask residents and the Daily Mail. The planning process has created a shambolic development becoming know as Rent City where there is no community, just a never ending churn of unknowns.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The ongoing regeneration provides and plans for infrastructure and facilities to support current and future residents across the Wembley area, including:  A 7 hectare public park”.

Additional Questions: Where is this then? Not another paved concourse with token raised planters and a few sapling trees, I hope.

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “New 3 form entry primary school, including a 2 form entry nursery school, plus 2 additional forms of nursery provision”.

Additional Questions: Where abouts are these then?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Primary health care facility (1500m minimum)”.

Additional Questions:  According to the Brent Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) at a recent meeting in public, this facility was turned down by the Council and is now used as a Gym.  If untrue, where is the Primary Health Care Facility?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “ Contributions towards secondary education in the wider area”.

Additional Questions:  Details please?  How much?  Aren’t all Brent Secondary Schools academies? Aren’t academies funded directly by the DoE!!!

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “6-lane 25m swimming pool available at local authority facility rates”.

Additional Questions: Where is this located then??

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “Significant investment in and improvement to the main rail and underground - stations to improve capacity and the environment”.

Additional Questions:  Details please? or is this the £17million of CIL the Council are going to spend to improve the Quintain Development Area? This includes Olympic Way? where the Stadium ramps will be replaced by stairs (no doubt to fit another tower block or two? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Community facility fund of £1.4m plus to spend on community projects”.

Additional Questions:  Isn’t this money being spent across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Physical transport improvements e.g. the Triangle, Wembley High Road”.

Additional Questions:  Example please? The roads around the Triangle are normally at a standstill which delays the buses and other vehicles alike. Queues regularly form all the way back to Forty Lane.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and elsewhere, together with significant developer contributions to Transport for London (TfL) for public transport, including buses”.

Additional Questions:  What are these?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “Developers have additionally contributed a significant cash sum of Community Infrastructure Levy”.

Additional Questions:  What are the council spending this money on? How much money excluding the CIL spent on items above?  How much is in this cash pot? 

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “part of which will be spent on neighbourhood projects”

Additional Questions:  This money is not being spent in the Regeneration/Development areas, it is being spread across the Borough so has nothing to do with the question asked.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “and the remainder on strategic infrastructure needs to support growth in the immediate Wembley area and wider Brent Borough”.

Additional Questions:  What is it going to be? Does the Council have any idea?

Cllr. Tatler Response:   “The Local Plan and in particular the Wembley Area Action Plan sets out the regeneration and development strategy for the Wembley area”.

Additional Questions:  You wouldn’t have known it, is the current public consensus.

Cllr. Tatler Response:  “The Local Plan is now to be refreshed and to examine how the whole Borough will develop over the next 15-20 years” .

Additional Questions:  15-20 years? The powers that be cannot construct reliable plans for the short

term, so what hope have they in planning for the next 15-20 years? Is this new plan as advised by officers implying Metroland developments with their large gardens are being targeted for redeveloped into high density housing?

Cllr. Tatler Response:  "Everyone is invited to get involved in this exercise and various public sessions are being held across the Borough throughout September for people to come along and contribute" .

Additional Questions:  The Council CONSULT but do not LISTEN , and they certainly DON'T consider the views of residents or any criticism from these groups. How will this be different?

Brent Council approve £26m contracts for primary school expansions

Amar Dave, Strategic Director Regeneration and Environment, will use his delegated authority to approve  Stage 2 Design and Build contracts for Phase 3 of Brent's Primary School Expansion with the next few days.

The plans have been controversial for varying reasons, not least because doubts have been raised about whether the extra places are needed in the light of of unfilled places in some of our local schools and the potential impact of Brexit on the number of EU families in Brent.  Aditionally there are issues around 'mega primaries' being inappropriate for young children and the impact of expanded schools on suburban locations. In the case of Stonebridge Primary the expansion proposals (and associated house building) led to the demolition of the much valued Stonebridge Adventure Playground.

The cost of the expansion and whether contractors could deliver the Council's specifications at the stated costs became an issue but the public were unable to access information on this as the details were deemed commercially sensitive.

The figures have now been revealed:

Byron Court Primary School £11,872,271. (Graham Construction)
Stonebridge Primary School £7,222,848. (Mid Contracting and Consulting Limited)
Uxendon Manor Primary School £6,784,437 (Lakehouse Contracts Limited)

Total:  £25,879,556.

The Council will be required to use £1.7m of its programme contingency.

Quintain is creating a speculative mess in Wembley Park - the evidence

New billboard images of Quintain's development at Wembley Park reveal the haphazard result of its speculative development rather than the promised boulevards and green spaces initially promised.

The image, looking towards Wembley Stadium station and the high road,  shows what it will look like when present work in progress is completed.  Brent Civic Centre will be hemmed in by new tower blocks next door and on the former Power League site (goodbye to those views of the Stadium councillors currently enjoy from the Civic Centre), the proposed (but not needed LINK) new Ark primary school is wedged between York House and the main road. In the distance are the tower blocks being built along the Chiltern railway line.

Meanwhile Brent Council is asking residents to contribute to 'shaping' the borough.  Too late...

The image below shows a closer view of the proposed primary school in the car park of York House with the London Designer Outlet.

Locals challenge Brent Council's 'vision' for South Kilburn regeneration

The Brent Cabinet of June 19th, starting at the earlier time of 6pm, has a full agenda with several items relating to the controversial South Kilburn regeneration. The main item is adoption of a revised South Kilburn Supplementary Planning document. I receommed a full reading of the Officers' responses to representations made by local people (report embedded below) and others but here is a taster:

Leslie Barson and Dee Woods representing users of Granvill Plus Centre and the Carlton Centre

The vision is not the vision of the people of South Kilburn. It is an imposed vision whose prime purpose is to maximize housing. This has no long term benefits for the people of South Kilburn nor does it address the council’s own aims such as “improved public realm” (Masterplan Consultation Website) building for health and happiness. In fact it feels that the views are used to justify the decisions the Council wants with those decisions not necessarily in the interests of those who live and work in South Kilburn. They may coincide but they may not. The document has so many inaccuracies that it is hard to believe the people writing it really knew or were interested in South Kilburn. Its platitudes and disingenuous statements skew the reader to the decision the Council would like to see but don’t show the full picture. Brent Council should sign up to Community Engagement Principles as defined in the National Standards for Community Engagement (http://www.scdc.org.uk/what/national-standards/) putting these into action in South Kilburn to make some recompense for the years of bad practice. 

Officer response

The vision is an update of the original South Kilburn SPD, informed by the New Deal for Communities work. It has been subject to extensive engagement and reflects the opportunities that the area provides taking account of the area’s social, environmental and economic assets within the wider macro context that exists; particularly the need for viable delivery of new social rent dwellings, greater tenure diversity in the area, update of and additional provision of social infrastructure, increased opportunity for residents plus updated London planning policy which requires the efficient use of land.
Identifying that the masterplan has no long-term benefits for the people of South Kilburn is clearly inconsistent with the evidence of what has been achieved so far, including feedback from tenants who have moved into new dwellings, or accessed new/updated facilities. It also ignores the external validation of the work achieved for example by the Mayor of London. The Council recognises that regeneration is more than just a physical process ‘done’ to the local community; it complicated and requires engagement/support/participation and covers a multiplicity of issues. The Council has sought to follow good principles of regeneration wherever it can and for the vast majority of resident’s/local community groups, this is evidenced by a positive feedback. Inaccuracies have not been identified by the respondent and their response contains the type of sweeping generalisations it identifies the Council exhibit in the SPD. The masterplan process since 2005 and regeneration of the estate has quite rightly given the proposed level of change exhibited substantial levels of sustained engagement.

South Kilburn Trust

There is a risk of creating a divided community – on the one hand of people in social housing, set against private housing - very expensive to buy, or at high rents on short tenancies. There are a huge swathe of people in between - people who are working, and can’t get into social housing, but increasingly can’t afford to live in South Kilburn, let alone buy or rent a space big enough for their family. Different tenures and opportunities needs to seriously be considered so as not to end up with community of, bluntly speaking, rich and poor. And so it needs to be considered whether making the most amount of money out of a site is the best thing to do for the regeneration of an area.

Officer response

This scenario is one which officers are well aware of and is recognised in the SPD. The SPD identifies that ideally a wider range of tenures should be provided in the area. Nevertheless, it also identifies that firstly that the Council must make good on its promise to replace the number of existing social rented homes lost to the regeneration.
Unfortunately in the financial climate within the public sector currently, without grant/additional external funds opportunities for provision of alternative tenure types will be very limited. Social rent properties are extremely expensive to subsidise. The only other alternative would be to increase density to create greater subsidy. The Council is not using South Kilburn as a money making exercise; all proceeds are recycled within the regeneration of the area. The Council takes a whole life view of its assets and functions balancing up commercial property values with its role as a wider supporter of the community a significant number of which are reliant on many of the services it provides. 

Residents will be concerned about another proposal on the Agenda which  'appropriates' the green space to enable the redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court to go ahead. A 'quality' replacement is promised:

-->

The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site consists of:

·      The demolition of 209 residential units and garages contained within the Gloucester House and Durham Court site 


·      Erection of 236 new residential units - market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) 


·      Relocation and improvement of the public open space and play area at the north of the Site 


·      New public realm and improved routes through the Site 


·      Landscaped private and shared gardens 


·      Basement car park providing 91 spaces 


·      Space for an energy centre for the South Kilburn District Energy System. 


·      Market and affordable dwellings including a range of 1 to 4 bed flats and 3 
and 4 bed duplex family units 


·       

The appropriation includes open space with a public children’s play area, however a new replacement play area will be provided. The Planning Committee Report of 20 August 2014 identified that in order to justify the proposed redevelopment it is important that the replacement facility is of a significantly improved quality. The report found that overall, the proposals appear to be of sufficient quality to justify the redevelopment of the existing play area and inconvenience that will be caused during construction when no play area will be provided. 


It should also be noted that Paddington Recreation Ground is around 330m away, South Kilburn Urban Park approximately 400m away and in May 2016 the new Woodhouse Urban Park in South Kilburn opened which is just over 500m away. 


Parents pledge to fight for retention of Granville Plus Nursery School

Extract from Ofsted Report July 2015

Parents of children at Granville Plus Nursery School in South Kilburn are petitioning Brent Council over plans for the redevelopment of the site on which the nursery, including a recent purpose built extension, is located LINK.  So far there have been no clear reassurances from the Council about the future of the popular and much needed nursery school and is special provision.

This is the parents' introduction to the petition (edited):

Brent Council have decided to redevelop the site in which  the Granville Plus Nursery is currently located and have omitted its existence in both of its two options for redevelopment.

We, the parents and carers of children who currently attend this nursery, as well as past users and members of the local community, strongly object to its closure and the loss of the range of valuable services provided.

The nursery has been serving the community since the late 1970s and 75% of the children currently attending are from NW6 with a further 14% from NW10.  8% of its places are for children in need, usually with social care needs, including child protection. Currently 17% of its children have a significant special educational need or disability (SEND) which includes 11 in their specialist horizon provision and an additional 8 places for children with significant specialist needs, including physical disabilities and medical needs.

The child with SEN are fully integrated within the mainstream nursery environment and the provisions in place, which include autism provision, were recently judged to be Outstanding in the latest Ofsted report.

51% of its place are being used for babies and 2-3 year olds with nearly all of them funded by the 'vulnerable 2 year olds' NEG2 funding.

Many of its current children have parents who themselves attended this provision and who have placed their children in its care to enable them to return to work as the nursery school offers places to young babies all the way through to school age and is open from 8am to 6pm, 48 years of the year.  It is staffed by highly experienced early years experts, some qualified to Masters level, with all teams led by a qualified teacher.

The loss of this provision would undoubtedly impact on these parents, some of whom may have no other choice than to give up their education or work if no alternative child care provider could be found offering the same provision as Granville Plus Nursery School within the local area and with similar flexible fee structures.

In addition to this the Granville Plus Nursery School also employs several people from the local community by providing placements for NVQ Level 3 students and they have a partnership with the Institute of Education training staff to be qualified teachers.

In addition to this this Granville annually run a highly respected evidence based parenting programme, Strengthening Communities, which has successfully helped raise parenting confidence and improved social cohesion.

The nursery garden is also an integral part of the Early Years curriculum and often a huge surprise for those people who first encounter it as it is truly an oasis within a highly urbanised environment. It provides a place in which children, who otherwise would have no access to a safe outside space, to play and discover.

We feel that the loss of our Nursery School will have an immediate and dramatic impact to us, the users at present, and to future generations within our community.

We intend to fight to keep these vital services available in our community.