Philip Grant makes FOI request to Brent Council to try to get to the bottom of Rokesby Place tenure change

 Philip Grant, a frequent independent contributor to this blog, has submitted a Freedom of Information request on the tenure of the two new houses in Rokesby Place, following last night's Brent Planning Committee.

 Dear Mr Ansell and Brent FoI team,

I am addressing this email directly to you, as well as to Brent FoI, as you have been delegated the authority to make changes to yesterday evening's Planning Committee decision on application 22/1400 (Rokesby Place), including authority to vary conditions. I would request that you do not issue a consent letter on that application until this Freedom of Information Act request has been fully dealt with, as the answers to it may require an amendment to Condition 3, Affordable Housing.

The reason for this request is my concern about the change made to the type of affordable housing tenure for the two new four-bedroom homes at Rokesby Place, and how this came about, as there does not appear to be any justification for it in the documents for this application published on Brent's planning website.

The application form for 22/1400, submitted by Maddox Associates on 13 April 2022, clearly states for each of the two new homes:

 
'Tenure: Social Rent'.

 

The Planning Statement for this application, published on Brent's website on 19 April 2022, when describing the Proposed Development, states:

 
'Tenure
3.4 The houses are all proposed for social rent.'

 

Despite this, the proposed Condition 3 in the Officer Report to Planning Committee on 17 August was as follows:

 
'3. The residential dwellings hereby approved shall be provided as affordable housing in perpetuity, and shall be delivered as London Affordable rent units ....'

 

Freedom of Information Act Request: 

In order to establish why the tenure of the two houses was changed from Social Rent to London Affordable Rent, please let me have the following information and documents (in pdf format, please) in respect of the Rokesby Place planning application 22/1400, covering the period from 13 April 2022 to 17 August 2022:

1. On what dates in that period were there any communications (other than the Application Form and Planning Statement referred to above), in either direction, between the applicant (or its representatives) and Brent Planning Officers about the type of affordable housing tenure for the two proposed new homes at Rokesby Place?

2. Please let me have copies of all of the communications in 1 above.

3. If any of the copy communications requested under 2 above have names redacted, please provide details of the status, employer and job title of each person whose name has been redacted, if this is not shown on the copy where the name itself has been redacted.

4. If there are no communications of the type requested in 1 above, please explain when, how and why, and on whose authority, the proposed Social Rent tenure (shown in the April 2022 application documents for application 22/1400) was changed to the London Affordable Rent tenure proposed in Condition 3 of the Officer Report in August 2022.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email and FoI request. I look forward to receiving your full response to it at an early date. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Brent's Head of Planning has replied, saying: 'We will of course look at the questions you raise and respond shortly.'

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.

Loss of green space and tenure change are issues in Rokesby Place application that Planning Committee must discuss

 

Two 4-bedroom houses are planned for this site (Site A)

Many issues have arisen over Brent Council's plans for infill housing in its council estates but the two main ones have been loss of green space and trees to the detriment of existing residents and the proposed tenure of the new developments.  

The Brent Planning Committee will consider the Brent Council planning application on Wednesday August 17th at 6pm. I understand that are likely to be representations from residents and a local councillor. The webcast can be viewed live HERE.

Both issues are involved in the proposal for infill  at Rokesbury Place in Harrow where two four-bedroom houses are proposed on the site above at the end of a dead-end street. The tenure of the houses has been changed from the Social Rent originally proposed to London Affordable Rent.

The proposal would remove three mature trees and reduce the green space, used for leisure, and parking.

These trees are to be removed:

Birch

Cherry

 

 

Lime

 

Planning Officers have recommended approval of the proposal and say: 

Whilst it is noted that there is a part loss of the existing grassed space, (next to 34 Rokesby Place) the scheme would provide a new communal amenity space next to the new homes and enhancement to the remaining space within site B (next to 31 Rokesby Place) including new drying facilities. The benefits of the scheme to provide two new affordable family sized homes would be considered to outweigh the harm of any loss of existing green space as discussed within para 67-69 below (see report)

 

An area of approximately 160 sqm of green space is proposed to be changed to hard surfacing to accommodate the enhanced turning head and the parking spaces within site B. Site A has landscaped areas at either end of the car park, with a total area of approximately 145 sqm. These will be removed, but a new communal landscaped area of approximately 80 sqm will be re-provided. It is acknowledged that it is possible that some residents may be currently using some of the grassed area for recreational functions, and that this may have some local value despite not falling within the boundaries of a designated public open space. (My emphasis)

 

Policy DMP1 seeks to retain existing green infrastructure including open space, high amenity trees and landscape features, and providing appropriate additional or enhancements where possible. Where the loss of open space is proposed, this would be required to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal. While the loss of the green space is acknowledged, the scheme would deliver the provision of two affordable family sized homes within the Borough for which there is an identified need. This is considered to outweigh the harm, particularly given the proximity to Barham Park which provides a large area of open space in very close proximity and access to this park would remain unrestricted for nearby residents. On balance, the loss of this green space is outweighed by the benefits of the scheme as a whole, including the delivery of two affordable family sized homes.

  A objector from Copland Avenue points out:

On the previous application in 2015, the Tree Officer appraised the two trees to the rear of the site (Bird Cherry T2 and Lime T3) and provided root protection recommendations (in fact the cherry is a prunus lusitanica, a tree with an Award of Garden Merit which produces food for pollinators and berries for birds). That report stated ..." the retention of trees identified as T2 and T3 is recommended as this will enhance the screening between the new houses and the adjacent gardens. The retention of existing groups of trees will be beneficial in maintaining the character and appearance of the site and locality as well". Additionally, in the final report of the 2015 application it stated, "One tree would be lost as a result of the proposal, however, a Bird Cherry and Lime which provide a valuable food source and attract various wildlife would remain on site". There doesn't appear to be a tree officer's report for this application, just a report by the developer which is not going to be impartial. These two valuable trees, plus a nice silver birch, are all to be sacrificed, it seems - heartbreaking! We strongly object to this. Surely Brent should adhere to its previous recommendation to retain these trees. We would also request a BAT survey has they are in our garden every summer.

 This is the overall plan for the Rokesby Place:

 

The applicant claims that when surveyed only one car was using the car park which appears to be disproved by this photograph from a resident:

Incidentally the building behind the car park, an extension to a Crawford Avenue house, is not shown in the application plans.

 

Work will also go on at the green space adjacent to 31 Rokesby Place. This is currently a green space with a washing drying area where residents have carried out planting. Cars are morked next to it but the council say this is a turning area. They claim 5 'new' car parking spaces are provided in the new design but this does not take account of the loss of spaces on the northern site or the spaces needed by the new houses. Objectors dismiss claims that residents could park on nearby streets.

 

 

Visiting this morning it was clear that this small, peaceful community really care for their estate as can be seen from the planting that has taken place outside the terrace of houses:

The second issue, previously high-lighted on Wembley Matters, and of particular significance to Watling Gardens, is the never-ending ambiguity around Brent Council's definition (or lack of it) of 'affordable housing.

The Brent Poverty Commission in the report adopted by Brent Council was clear:

The application form clearly stated that the tenure for these 4 bedroom  houses would be for Social Rent. LINK.

 

But Scedule B of the Officers' Report going to Planning Committee as the Letter of Approval states that tenure is London Affordable Rent  LINK :

 

However, the Planning Statement, prepared by Maddox Planning for Brent Council as the applicant, clearly states a proposed Social Rent LINK:
 

 

The justification for the harm this application will do to the existing residents of Rokesby Place is the benefit that two new four-bedroom Council homes will provide.

On the application form it was said that these new large family homes would be for Social Rent.

Social Rent was identified by the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report as the only genuinely affordable housing which the majority of families in housing need could afford, and the rent level which Brent Council should be aiming to provide its Council housing programme at.

But the proposed Condition 3, which the Officer Report recommends the Planning Committee should approve, has changed the tenure of these two homes to London Affordable Rent, which  is not what the application offered, and would not be affordable to most families on the Council's waiting list.

By making these two homes for London Affordable Rent, rather than Social Rent, it undermines the benefit which is supposed to justify this application. If Planning Committee is minded to accept the application, it should insist that Condition 3 be changed, so that the affordable housing is delivered as two Social Rent units, as originally set out in application 22/1400.

This is particularly important as these 4-bedroom houses are clearl meant for large families so rent level wil be particularly important for them - as the Poverty Commission recognised. 

Back in 2018 the Scrutiny New Developments Task Group on Affordable Housing LINK said:

Brent’s future housing strategy should be explicit about the need for social rent. It is not acceptable for the viability process to lead to a lack of social rented accommodation, but significant proportions of “affordable rent” and intermediate products such as shared ownership, when we know these simply are not genuinely affordable options for residents of the borough in housing need.

That is even truer today.

Watling Gardens – what happened next?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

Last month, Martin wrote that there was more to the Watling Gardens new homes than the Council was letting on, in its press statement claiming that it was providing 125 new homes for local families. This followed on from a guest post I had written about the rushed and incorrect report on Watling Gardens which was going to the Cabinet Meeting on 20 June.

 

Brent wanted to reduce the number of London Affordable Rent homes at the last minute, and replace 24 of those with Shared Ownership instead. In order to go ahead with awarding a construction contract on that basis, they needed to change the “Affordable Housing” condition in the planning consent they’d received for the project in April this year.

 

Opening section of application letter from Jones Lang LaSalle on 14 July 2022.

 

Variations to planning consents are covered by two sections of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Section 73 is for “material” amendments, while Section 96A covers “non-material” amendments. An application on behalf of Brent Council (as developer) was submitted to Brent Council (as Local Planning Authority) on 14 July, on the basis that what was being sought was a non-material amendment.

 

Unlike Section 73, applications under Section 96A do not have to be put out for consultation, and are usually dealt with by Planning Officers under “delegated authority” within 28 days. However, they do appear on the Council’s planning website, so I read the supporting documents for the new application, 22/2519. 

 

Planning agents are paid good money to present their client’s case in the best light, but I felt that the “spin” in JLL’s letter might be considered misleading on a couple of points. One of these was the claim that ‘there will be no change to the amount of affordable housing being provided’. I have been keen for some time to remind Council Officers and Cabinet members (and now agents acting on their behalf) of the truth about different types of “affordable housing”.

 

The rest of this “guest post” is the “neutral” comment on application 22/2519 which I submitted online on 25 July (although I have added some relevant illustrations to break up the text):-

 

‘This application seeks to amend condition 3 of Brent Council’s application 21/2473 (“the main application”), which was approved as recently as three months ago.

 

1) In the Affordable Housing Statement, prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle (“JLL”) and submitted as part of the supporting documents for the main application, this was the paragraph on viability:

 

A paragraph from the Affordable Housing Statement on application 21/2473.

 

‘Viability

A separate Viability Assessment Report has been prepared by Savills under separate cover and demonstrates that Brent Council are providing in excess of the maximum viable amount of affordable housing. Notwithstanding this, Brent Council are fully committed to delivering these much-needed new affordable homes.’

 

In this application, 22/2519, JLL’s covering letter says:

 

‘Brent Council seeks to alter the wording of Condition 3 of planning permission ref:21/2473 to vary the tenure mix of the affordable homes at the Watling Gardens Estate in order to improve the overall financial viability of the scheme.’

 

The earlier statement acknowledged that the amount of affordable housing proposed in the main application was more than would be financially viable, but said that, despite this, Brent Council were fully committed to delivering the affordable homes set out in that application.

 

Now, the applicant is seeking to go back on that commitment. 

 

But JLL, on behalf of Brent Council, have not submitted any updated viability data to justify the proposed amendment. Shouldn’t such additional information be a requirement?

 

An elevation drawing showing two views of Block B at Watling Gardens, from application 21/2473.

 

2) At the end of the section of JLL’s covering letter which sets out their proposed new wording for Condition 3, the agent states:

 

‘The proposed amendment does not materially impact permission 21/2473 and will enable a financially viable scheme to be delivered.’

 

I believe that there WOULD be a material impact in substituting 24 shared ownership homes instead of what were to be 24 homes for London Affordable Rent. 

 

Extract from JLL’s covering letter of 14 July, with details of the proposed shared ownership flats.

 

Although shared ownership is technically an affordable housing tenure, it is not an affordable home for the vast majority of Brent residents in housing need. 

 

The 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report found that the only really affordable Council housing in the borough was homes at Social Rent level. London Affordable Rent levels were just about affordable for some families, if they could top up their incomes with Housing Benefit or Universal Credit. 

 

Shared ownership homes SHOULD NOT be treated as “affordable homes” for the purpose of affordable housing in Brent. 

 

To take away 24 London Affordable Rent homes from the mix in Condition 3 would effectively reduce the number of General Needs Housing homes available to residents on the housing waiting list, or in temporary accommodation, by more than 35% (from 67 down to 43).’

Philip Grant.

 

Deputation on Poverty Commission Housing Update – Brent finally responds!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Brent Council’s written response to my Deputation to the 9 March meeting of the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee was finally received on 9 May! 

 

Opening paragraph from the Housing section of the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

The response was meant to be from Cllr. Eleanor Southwood, then Lead Member for Housing, as my Deputation had sought proper scrutiny of the housing section in the Poverty Commission Update report to the 9 March meeting. The response has eventually come from a Council Officer, the Head of Affordable Housing and Partnerships.

 

The Brent Poverty Commission housing recommendation on which progress was meant to be reported.

 

Before you read the response below, I would invite you to read my Deputation of 9 March (it should not take more than five minutes – the time allowed for members of the public to present a deputation to a Council meeting).

 

This is the full text of the Brent Council written response, as sent to me on 9 May. I have simply added, in square brackets, the full name of two items where abbreviations were used:

 

‘In reply to the presentation made by Philip Grant to the Scrutiny Committee I wish to make the following comments on behalf of the Affordable Homes & Partnership Department.

 

Firstly, to answer the comments made on the 655 homes already delivered and their tenure, taking each development in the order Mr Grant listed them. 

 

•         Gloucester & Durham in South Kilburn forms part of the Council’s Regeneration Programme. The regeneration of South Kilburn is an ongoing total regeneration of the area as a whole and the homes are actually replacements homes for tenants whose homes where demolished to make way for the development. 

 

•         Knowles House was purpose built as temporary accommodation to meet homeless needs it is not for permanent Council Homes.

 

•         Grand Union in Alperton, includes 23 Shared Ownership and 92 London Affordable Rent 

 

The above is a snap shot of some of the ways the Council meets its statutory duties to provide a number of different homes and tenures to suit its different legal responsibilities. 

 

The Council received £65.6m in GLA [Greater London Authority] grant within its 2016 – 2021 programme to provide 817 homes at LAR [London Affordable Rent]. 

 

LAR was the recommended GLA rental advice for many years and provided by Brent in earlier developments, following research by Brent Council on level of rental affordability within the Borough, the decision taken by the Council was to provide as much Social rented housing as was possibly viable on all future developments. 

 

In 2021, following discussions with the GLA the council received £111m of GLA grant, this falls within the 2021 – 2028 programme and will allow the council to build 701 Social rented homes, which are currently in development and feasibility stages. 

 

Delivering social rented homes remains a major priority of the council.

 

However with raising build costs it may be the case that in the future to achieve as many Social rented homes as possible the Council will need look at other forms of tenure, to cross subsidise the social rented.’

 

I asked the Council Officer who sent this to me to confirm ‘that a copy of this response will be supplied to members of the new Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, once that has been appointed at the Council's Annual Meeting later this month, and before the next meeting of that Committee’. That has now been confirmed.

 

Please feel free to add any comments on this response below. These could include suggested points that members of the new Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee might like to raise, under matters arising from the minutes of the 9 March meeting (which have yet to be published).

Philip Grant.