Hereford House/Exeter Court at Planning Committee on Wednesday offers fewer social homes than at present.

 

Existing Hereford House and Exeter Court

 The planned new buildings

The long awaited plans for the South Kilburn Hereford House and Exeter Court site in South Kilburn, where Brent Council is the developer, come to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday. The number of social units is lower thatn previously provided and intermediate units have been converted to rpivate as a result of the viability assessment.

The development proposes the demolition of the existing Hereford House and Exeter Court buildings and the construction of four new residential buildings ranging from 3-13 storeys, the provision of flexible non-residential floorspace at ground floor of Block C1, a new public urban park and new access road along the western side of the site, cycle and blue badge car parking and associated infrastructure. An overview of each area is summarised below:

Block A:

A six storey mansion block fronting Granville Road. The building contains a total of 42 social rent homes (8 x 1 bed, 11 x 2 bed, 15 x 3 bed and 8 x 4 bed). The building has rear balconies and access to the rear private communal courtyard shared with Blocks B and C. A residential lobby, refuse stores and cycle stores are provided at ground floor.

Block B:

A six storey mansion block fronting Carlton Vale. The building contains a total of 68 market homes ( 34 x 1 bed, 22 x 2 bed and 12 x 3 bed). The building has rear balconies and access to the private communal courtyard shared with Blocks A and C. A residential lobby, refuse stores are provided at ground floor

Block C:

Block C consists of two blocks C1 (13 storeys) and C2 (nine storeys) connected by a one storey ground floor that fills the footprint and bridges the two block. The building fronts the public park. The building contains a total of 124 homes. C1 contains all market homes (45 x 1 bed and 28 x 2 bed) while C2 contains 51 social rent homes (29 x 1 bed, 20 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed). The ground floor contains a large glazed shared lobby which divides into a market residential lobby and social rent lobby, a commercial unit of 135 sqm, refuse stores and cycle stores. A basement would be constructed to provide addition cycle storage for Blocks A, B and C. The building has balconies on each corner of the block and has access to the private communal courtyard shared with Blocks A and B.

Block D

A row of three storey terraced houses with fourth storey pop-up elements. The building fronts the access route on Granville Road. Block D creates 16 social rent homes (8 x 4 bed and 8 x 5 bed). Each house has a front and rear garden with separate refuse and cycle storage.

The plans have been revised as a result of fire regulation changes, demand changes and the viability assessment (my highlighting):

A number of amendments were made to the scheme as a result of comments raised by officers and the GLA/ TfL during the course of the consultation exercise as well as updates to Fire Safety Regulation and changes in viability.

The main changes to the scheme when compared to the initially submitted scheme are a result of updates to Fire Safety Regulation Standards and London Plan Guidance. This effected the internal and external arrangement of Blocks A, B and C. The alterations also alter the housing layouts on the residential floors of the proposed blocks and changes at ground floor level to communal and ancillary spaces in order to accommodate the different core geometry.

The housing tenure and unit mix was also reviewed. The South Kilburn Housing Need Assessment review identified that a larger number of smaller units are required to facilitate the decant of residents from future phases of the masterplan. The Hereford and Exeter project continued to face significant viability issues. The intermediate affordable units have been removed from the scheme in lieu of private tenure units. The provision of social rent affordable housing has therefore been maximised for those most in need and assists the viability position for the scheme.

As a result of these amendments a number of updates were required to the scheme:

· The change in unit numbers, size and tenure mean that there is a slight reduction in child yield and therefore the required play space provision

· The increase in the footprint of the buildings to accommodate fire safety requirements has resulted in a reduction to the soft landscaping measures within the private courtyard and Urban Greening Factor score

· A slight reduction in size of the Public Open Space provided at 2,400 sqm

· Increase in quantum of cycle parking spaces

· The daylight, sunlight and overshadowing assessment has been updated to reflect the alterations to the massing

· The commercial and residential refuse arrangements have been changed to reflect the new layouts

The number of social homes on the site is reduced from 150 to 109 (from 90% to 44%)

Officers justify the changes:

Of the existing 167 residential units, 150 are affordable dwellings (100% social rent). These will be replaced with 250 dwellings of which there will be 109 affordable dwellings (All social rent). Although there would be 41 less affordable dwellings than existing, there is a significant increase in the provision of family sized dwellings and an increase in floorspace. 

In addition, the scheme includes the provision of 16 four-bed homes and 8 five-bedroom homes that have the capacity to house larger families which is a benefit given the existing site does not have any provision.

Locals familiar with flooding problems on the estate will be interested in the section on flooding:

In terms of infiltration techniques, surface water runs off from paved surfaces within the site towards landscape planting, rain gardens, tree pits and permeable pavements. In day-to-day rainfall, the absorption, evaporation and infiltration of surface water through the Sustainable Drainage System features will fully drain paved areas within the site. However, owing to the typically poor permeability of the site’s geology (made ground on London Clay), the infiltration rate of the ground beneath the SuDS features would not be sufficient to drain the site in severe storm events. Gullies and slot drains are therefore also utilized to supplement the SuDS features. The attenuation of rainwater in ponds or open water features was not considered to be feasible for the development. Surface water overflows from SuDS features will drain into the below ground drainage system and attenuated in tanks for gradual release to the sewer system. There are no watercourses suitably located within vicinity of the site to receive run off. The local sewer network is combined. It is proposed that surface water is continued to discharge to the existing combined water network in the vicinity of the site.

 

Image from the Design Statement

 

 

Cllr Tatler taken to task on regeneration issues

 Tuesday's Resources and Public Realm Committee was the swan song of the Committee as it was the last one of the municipal year and it may well have new members and chair after the Council AGM.

I may put the kibosh on the present committee if I say that in my opinion this would be a pity as it has developed its skills over the last year and Cllr Rita Conneely has proved a formidable chair. It takes time for councillors to undergo training and increase their confidence at holding lead members to account.

Cllr Shama Tatler, with the regeneration and planning brief, was in the hot seat on Tuesday and faced some tough questions.

The issue of the viability of both private and public developments was a major theme in the light of the post-Truss financial situation with its high interest rates and reduction in confidence, inflation, shortage of labour post-Brexit and supply-chain problems. In addition the post-Grenfell need (rightly) for second staircases in tall buildings has meant that developments have had to be reviewed.

Cllr Tatler explained how as a result the amount of units for sale might have to be increased and affordable housing reduced, tenure cmay be hanged to include more 'intermediate# housing (often shared ownership) or alternative sources of funding sought.

A note of realism was introduced early in the meeting when Pete Firmin, a South Kilburn resident, spoke about the problems with the regeneration of the South Kilburn estate including poor quality new housing, scaffolding up around relatively new blocks and problems of incursions into blocks where tenants had been decanted. His contribution and Cllr Tatler's response can be seen in the video at the top of the page along with some of the other exchanges reported here.

Cllr Anton Georgiou brought up tenure on the new South Kilburn blocks. saying that he had been told that they were not at social rent as Cllr Tatler claimed but at the higher London Affordable Rent. He promised to produce evidence to this effect.

Improvements in infrastructure was an issue in Alperton regeneration as it lagged behind the building of new blocks. He gave the example of improvements to Alperton Station needed by the new residents in car-free developments.

Cllr Tatler said it was often difficult to get the improvements in place because of the need to work with partners such as TfL, regarding the station and the NHS regarding the promised medical centre on South Kilburn, and things moved slowly.

She pointed out that it was pivate housing that yielded Strategic Community Infrastructure levy in regeneration areas - Council housing did not qualify.

The need for more affordable social housing was another major themes. Committee chair Cllr Rita Conneely said, 'That is what we want as a committee, what backbenchers want and what residents want.'

She urged Cllr Tatler and the Regeneration Department to challenge developers more ('Let's say no, let's start saying no!' ) and for London councils to get together a common front to stop developers' divide and rule. 'Whatever you bring back to use, we will want more.'

 Cllr Tatler had said, 'We can't say no to developers', but Gerry Ansell who earlier had said, 'we can't walk away from  developers' pointed out that the Planning Committee could say no and reject applications. That as we know happens seldom and Planning Committee members are reminded of the need for housing at the start of each meeting and are also warned that an Appeal by a developer would cost the council money.

Shama Tatler pointed out that there was already a London-wide body in the form of the GLA and that as Local Plans began to more closely mirror the London Plan there would be more consistency across London.

She went on:

It is wrong to say we don't challenge developers. Mo (Cllr Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council) and I have conversations day in, day out, with developers about what our red lines are. This is why we get criticised for having too many high blocks. I will have high blocks if it means we are getting as much affordable housing in a scheme as possible.

The committee, following a point raised by Pete Firmin, said that community spaces in regeneration areas needed to be publicly owned rather than belong to the developer.

The meeting finished with Cllr Tatler agreeing to meet with concerned residents in regeneration areas.

 Note: It was a very long meeting. The full webcast is HERE

Following comments on this article here is a link to the latest ONS (Office of National Statistics) data on rent levels and house prices in Brent. Main findings in the image. For links to each go to: 

 https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/housingpriceslocal/E09000005/

 

The Green Party's Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter - applicable to Brent?

 We don't have council elections in Brent until 2025 but given the housing crisis and the debate over affordability I thought readers may be interested in Green Party policy on this issue which was publicised in the context of tomorro'w local elections eleswhere in the country.

Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said:

We need councillors and national government to work together to deliver the homes people need and can afford to rent and buy, where people need them. 

Today, speculators and developers are allowed to chase the biggest profits and ignore local needs. Too many villages and towns have seen large-scale developments take place without the community infrastructure expanded alongside, such as GP surgeries, bus services, cycling and walking networks and nurseries and schools.

What we need is local councils supported to build quality, affordable housing in the right places where people live and work, with the right supporting infrastructure and local facilities.

Our Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter will simultaneously protect valuable green space for communities, reduce climate emissions, tackle fuel poverty and provide genuinely affordable housing.

We’ve seen how Green councillors have made a difference in Mid Suffolk, where developers are now expected to provide EV points, not connect to the gas grid and provide heat pumps as standard.

The villages of Suffolk and Norfolk are facing the same problems as much of the rest of the country - developers being allowed to build houses local people often can’t afford and failing to ensure local services like buses and GP surgeries get the investment they need.

Developers are being allowed to ride roughshod over the needs of communities and the environment and this has got to stop.”

Co-leader Carla Denyer, who is a serving councillor and Parliamentary candidate in Bristol, said:

Up and down the country, people are experiencing the same problems as people here in Stowmarket - homes that are unaffordable to buy, unaffordable to rent and unaffordable to heat. There is a generation of people who are trapped in the private rental market by spiralling rents that bear no relationship to incomes.

To address this, in the short term, we would introduce an immediate rent freeze and eviction ban to prevent people being made homeless in the middle of this cost of living crisis, as the Scottish Greens have already done as part of the Scottish Government. 

In the longer term, we would give councils the power to bring in rent controls in areas where the housing market is overheated. We would also place much stricter controls on the type of new homes bein

Everyone deserves a place that they can call home. That is why our Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter will deliver the change we want to see across the housing sector and create fairer, greener communities.

The Greens’ Right Homes, Right Place, Right Price Charter would:

• End the housing crisis by creating enough affordable homes – including 100,000 new council homes a year built to the Passivhaus or equivalent standard

• Empower local authorities to bring empty homes back into use

• Transform the planning system to:

• Incentivise renovation and improvement of existing buildings to reduce the environmental impact of new construction

• Incentivise local authorities to spread small developments across their areas, where appropriate, rather than building huge new estates

• Protect valuable green space for communities

• Require new developments to be accompanied by the extra investment needed in local services, such as providing extra school and GP places and better bus services

• Transform building regulations to ensure: 

• all new private and public sector housing meets Passivhaus or equivalent standards

• house builders include solar panels and heat pumps on all new homes.

• Ensure all new developments will be located and designed to ensure that residents do not need cars to live a full life

• Introduce rent controls 

• End no-fault evictions

£1.32m boost for energy efficiency measures in 127 units of Brent's social housing

127 units of Brent Councils' most energy inefficient social housing stock are to benefit from a £1.32m grant from the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund for energy efficiency improvements. Bent Council say that the  project will help equip Brent to achieve its goal in reducing CO2 emissions from social housing and improve tenants’ comfort and wellbeing

The works will be managed by Brent’s long-term delivery partner, Wates, with project oversight from the Brent Major Works team.

Newland Court residents call on Kilburn Times to cover their concerns over Brent's infill proposals

 

Newland Court

 

The residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens have written to the editor of the Brent and Kilburn Times asking him report on their concerns over Brent Council's infill proposals:

Dear André Langlois,

 

I am sure you are aware of Brent Council's 'infill' programme to build as many properties as possible in existing estates within Brent at any cost, even the mental health and wellbeing of all the residents that these 'infill' proposals will affect. I would like to invite you or one of your newspapers' representatives to come to our estate and see for yourself why building 7 new townhouses at Newland Court just doesn't make sense on so many grounds including the fact that Brent Council are prepared to ignore their own Brent Council's Planning Guidance and go ahead with this proposal. This proposal also affects residents of Grendon Gardens whose gardens back onto the proposed site and whose trees will all either be damaged or destroyed and are all sited in a conservation area of Barnhill. 

 

We are all aware that there is a housing shortage especially for 3-4 bedroom family homes and that some families wait an average of 15 years. After all, I was one of them but this housing shortage has been a problem for over 40 years and Brent have been aware of this and have done nothing.  Suddenly because of pressure from the government to build new social homes and the fact that they may lose a certain amount of funding if they don't by a given date, they have decided to build in almost all their existing estates at any cost. Why??? because they have sold all or most of their plots of land to private developers to build unaffordable homes that are either bought or rented by foreign investors. You only have to see what has happened around Wembley Stadium as one example. 

 

Brent council moved their headquarters to the Civic Centre (at a cost of about £100 million but rumoured to be a lot more) from the former Brent Town Hall on Forty Avenue and sold the land which is now a private French School. That land could have been used to create 100's  of council homes. There are numerous little plots of open spaced land scattered across Brent that could be used for homes. There are lots of derelict homes that Brent could gain purchasing orders for and of course the former Unisys building on the corner of Harrow Road and the North Circular that has stood empty for 25 years in wasted legal disputes. Below is a link to Wembley Matters with a letter I wrote to Councillor Promise Knight and a few other Labour Councillors including MP Barry Gardiner regarding this issue.

 

So I hope you can write an article in your newspaper highlighting our issues and concerns regarding this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Marc Etukudo

On behalf of residents of Newland Court and Grendon Gardens. 

 

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/07/newland-court-residents-objection-to.html

 

https://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2022/08/newland-court-residents-put-question-to.html

 

Planning Committee dumps Brent Poverty Commission recommendations on social rent and leave disabled residents of Rokesby Place in the lurch

 

The recommendation accepted by Brent Cabinet in September 2020

The Planning Committee tonight failed to challenge the change of tenure from Social Rent to London Affordable Rent in the Rokesby Place planning application and the conditions tonight. 

I suspect that this may mean that London Affordable Rent (LAR) is becoming the default position on Brent's new council housing. As Alan Lunt did before, in another application, the planning officer presenting the report minimised the difference claiming that LAR was genuinely affordable. She first said that she hadn't got the numbers but LAR was 'very, very similar' to social rent. She was given time to get the figures and stated  that the difference was that LAR was 8% higher than social rent but did not mention that unlike social housing services, LAR services are not capped.  No councillor asked her to explain why the change had been made.  

Making light of an 8% plus increase on the original rent, particularly during a cost of living crisis on accommodation for large families, is not acceptable.

It seems that  Labour members of planning committee can see things that are wrong, ask a question, but then withdraw even when the answer provided is obviously inadequate.

They challenge but don't pursue all under the  emolliative chairing of Cllr Kelcher.

Similarly vague answers from Maddox, Brent Council's agents, were accepted and this included a claim that argued there was no requirement to take into account the disability adjustments needed for existing disabled residents as a result of the development, as well as the dismissing of LAR even though(not mentioned by councillors) their report stated that the development was for social rent. 

This followed a heart-felt presentation by a Rokesby Place resident on the impact of the changes on access of the proposed layout changes on access for those using a wheelchair. It was left to Conservative councillor Michael Maurice )Ken ton  ward)  to oppose the application on grounds of lack of disabled parking as well as parking for visiting carers and medical staff,  reduction of  amenity space for existing residents and an increase in density on a very small site. Cllr Rajan Seelan (Labour - Wembley Central) also voted against on vehicle access grounds but the application was passed 6-2.

In her presentation resident Shahida Khan had said that the present car park that will be removed was the only place for a disabled person to get out of a car safely.  There was no evidence of an equality impact assessment for disabled people and she suggested that councillors get in a wheelchair themselves and tried to get in and out of a car. The process has not been fair and the disabled had not been considered. She wanted the application deferred for further consultation.

Residents voiced oncerns about the difficulty of access for fire tenders but officers argued that the new houses would be fitted with sprinklers so that rather than the requirement for a 45 metre hose distance from appliance to the house that a 70 metre distance would apply.

Cllr Ketan Sheth (Labour - Wembley Central) a former chair of planning committee, gave a 5 minute presentation opposing the application and supporting the residents' views. 

He said that while private amenity space and a shared amenity space had been provided for residents of the new houses, the plans took away well-used existing amenity space for current residents. What was now proposed was a scant replacement for what they would lose.

Residents' everyday experience of parking on the estate meant that they rejected the officers' assessment of parking needs. The suggestion that they park on nearby streets would put them in competition with existing use by staff from the post office sorting office, fire station,  police station and a nursing home.

He challenged the officers' view that it was unlikely that hedgehogs were present in the current green space by saying as well as residents' sighting, he had seen them for himself. The loss of mature trees was disappointing and would discourage wildlife.

Cllr Sheth was also concerned about the new development's impact on the privacy of residents. The new car park would mean that at night headlights would shine straight into bedrooms and the proximity of the amenity meant noise would disturb residents.

He drew attention to the discrepancy in the documents that referred to social rent  in the applciation and London Affordable Rent in Condition 3.  The Council's own Poverty Commssion had identified that LAR was not affordable to most Brent residents. He suggested that Condition 3 be changed back to social rent.

That was not to be.

BACKGROUND: Wembley Matters has raised some questions about the make up of the Planning Committee and its inter-relationships in a previous article Planning and Probity.

Brent Council to purchase leasehold on 155 units in Alperton Bus Garage development at average of £280k per home

 

The Brent Cabinet this morning is set to approve purchase of a 50 year lease on 155 out of the 461 units in the  Telford Homes Alperton Bus Garage development on the corner of Ealing Road and Bridgewater Road:

To finance the purchase of this block, the Council will take a lease of 50 years from the  Asset Special Putchase Vehicle (ASPV), with rents set a current day social rents and indexed at CPI plus 1%. Upon completion of the 50-year lease, a reversionary 949-year lease will be granted a nil rent or peppercorn. 

 

 

The developer will grant the Council a 50-year lease with a 949 reversion at a peppercorn rent on completion of the contract for the 155 affordable homes. The developer will continue to insure the premises during the construction and until completion of the contract. 

 

 

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

The Cabinet Meeting can be watched on-line at 10am this morning HERE

Questions are asked as Brent's key worker housing in Wembley Park opens for applications

 Still from Virtual Tour (see links below)

I've long been an advocate of key worker housing provision in the borough having seen young teachers forced to move out of Brent as soon as they start a family because they can't afford high local rents. I am sure the same applies to health workers police etc and the result is a loss of valuable staff and recruitment problems.

Developments in the borough did not include key worker housing and in the infamous Willesden Green Library case were marketed by agents (in Singapore!) with the selling point that buyers  DID NOT have to share with affordable or key worker tenants. LINK

I welcomed the news that Brent Council had purchased a block in the Wembley Park development from  Quintain for key worker housing despite a deal in which details were not readily available.  That housing is now open to applications.

However doubts have been expressed in emails to Wembley Matters about the affordability of the units to key workers as well as questions over inclusions and exclusions in the list of eligible workers. Why for example are some of the workers now seen as key in the face of the pandemic not included - refuse workers, delivery workers and those working in essential retail?

One correspondent pointed out a current Brent advertisement for Home Care Assistants well outside the income level needed. LINK

In order to assess the offer here are two tables for background:

Weekly council house rents under the current HRA budget proposals in consultation

 

London Mayor's definitions of affordable housing

The monthly rent for one bedroomed keyworker housing is £992 (including service charge) and the equivalent average council rent is £450. For two bedroomed keyworker housing the comparison is £1,122 and £519.30.

The London Housing Allowance (To calculate Housing benefit and the gap between that and local rents can be accessed here - just type in you post code) LINK

The Key Worker offer from Brent Council website LINK

 

Brent Council’s wholly owned housing company, i4B, has negotiated the purchase of a brand new apartment block in Wembley Park which will provide much-needed affordable accommodation for key workers across the borough and beyond. 

 

The building is due to open in January, and applications are now open for our 1- and 2-bed apartments for those that are eligible. 

 

Virtual tours

Please see the links below to go on a virtual tour of the apartments. These are best opened in Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge. Please note that not all apartments are the same layout or size.

• Take a tour of the one-bedroom apartment
• Take a tour of the two-bedroom apartment

 

Rent levels 

Monthly rent levels will be £992 for a 1-bed apartment and £1,122 for a 2-bed apartment. This includes service charge, but does not include bills such as electricity, broadband or water usage.

 

Eligibility criteria 

 

As part of the process, supporting information will need to be submitted to confirm the eligibly of tenants on the below areas. We will be carrying out independent verification and referencing checks to confirm the information provided. 

 

Key Worker Status 

 

At least one member of a household must be in a key worker post, and at least one eligible key worker must remain on the tenancy at all times.

 

The nomination policy, agreed by the Council and the i4B board, identifies two tiers of key worker roles. Tier 1 roles are the key worker roles that are most in demand for recruitment and retention. Tier two roles are key worker roles that are still in demand, but not to the same degree as tier one roles.

 

Applications from people in Tier 1 roles will be prioritised. However, if you are in a Tier 2 role you should still apply. 

 

Details of eligible key worker roles are below, the roles are listed in no particular order. 

 

 Tier 1

• Qualified Social Worker (excluding ASYE)
• Occupational Therapist
• Educational Psychologist
• Planner
• Commissioning Employee (Adult Social Care)
• Surveyor
• IT Architect
• Public Health Specialist
• Specialist IT Engineer
• Health Visitor
• Nurses – Bands 5 and 6
• Midwives at Band 6
• Physiotherapist
• Occupational Therapist
• Speech and Language Therapist
• Doctors in the following specialties:
• Acute Medicine
• Haematology
• Pathology
• Anaesthetics / Critical Care
• Dermatology
• Cardiology
• Care of Elderly
• Respiratory
• Medicine

Tier 2

• Armed Forces
• Council/Government Staff
• Fire Officers and Retained Fire Fighters
• NHS Staff
• Police Officers
• Prison Service and Probation Service Staff
• Social Worker
• Teachers in schools, further education or sixth form colleges
• Any other worker agreed in writing by the Council (this will be reviewed yearly to reflect the needs of the Council and the list will be published online) 

 

Contract Status

The key worker in the household must be employed on a permanent contract or be employed on a fixed term contract where:

• They are due to remain in employment for a further 6 months from the date the tenancy is due to commence and;
• The initial term of their contract was at least 12 months. 

 

Household Income 

 

The Key Worker Housing scheme is designed to provide accommodation to households who may otherwise have difficulties affording to rent in London. Therefore, household income limits have been set. Please note that this is based on household income i.e. the total annual income of all household members over 18, not the key workers annual income. 

• To be eligible for a one bedroom property household income must not exceed £65k a year.
• To be eligible for a two bedroom property household income must not exceed £90k a year.
• Household income must also be a minimum of £31k. 

 

Citizenship 

 

All household members must be either a British or EU/EEA citizen with a Settled Status by December 2020 or have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. 

 

Property Ownership

 

No household member can own or part own a property.

One eligible key worker must remain on the tenancy at all times

• View the nominations policy for further information 

 

Before applying 

 

Make sure you have the below documents to hand as you will not be able to complete an application without them. 

 

You will also need to collect all of the below information for any household members who are over the age of 18:

• Passport or documents proving an indefinite right to remain in the UK
• You last 3 months payslip
• Contract of Employment
• Contact details for current landlord (if applicable)
• Birth certificates for children under 18 

 

Please read the above information carefully on the eligibility criteria for the scheme and have the supporting documentation ready before starting your application.  

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Sian Berry AM said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

FULL REPORT