(Lack of) affordable homes at Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue development – Cllr. Tatler’s response, and a consequent challenge to councillors

Guest post from Philip Grant

As Martin reported last month, Cllr. Shama Tatler missed the Full Council meeting on 22 November, so was not there to answer my supplementary question about the (lack of) affordable Council housing proposed for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development, on the vacant former Copland School site. I had not been satisfied with the original answer to my Public Question on the subject.

 

A written answer from the Lead Member for regeneration was promised, but a subsequent Member’s Question (from the Leader of the opposition), on whether the written response to me would be circulated to all members of the Council, did not appear to receive an answer. 

 

I have now received that written response (I will ask Martin to attach a copy below), and to ensure that all councillors do have the chance to consider it, I have circulated the document to them with the following email. I am sharing that email publicly, so that any Brent resident can ask their local councillors how they have responded to the points raised by my question, and Cllr. Tatler’s “answer” to it:-

Cllr. Tatler’s response to question on affordable Council housing at Cecil Avenue

Dear Brent Council Members,

 

At the Full Council meeting on 22 November, your colleague Cllr. Shama Tatler was not available to answer my supplementary Public Question about affordable Council housing at Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue development (on the vacant, Council-owned, former Copland School site in Wembley). 

 

I received her written response on 7 December, and as it is unclear whether this has been circulated to all members of the Council, I am sending you a copy now. I believe that this matter raises important points, and you may wish to share your views on them with the Lead Member for Regeneration.

 

As well as the response, it is best that you know the question that she was meant to be answering (because I do not think that they key points have been answered). This was my supplementary question: 

 

‘Brent urgently needs more affordable Council homes, and it could be building 250 of these at Cecil Avenue now.

 

 

But only 37 of the 250 in your plans will be for affordable rent, while 152 will be for private sale by a developer.

 

Some of the £111million GLA grant could be used to provide social rent housing there.

Instead, you plan to use it for infill schemes on existing Council estates, which may be years away.

 

What justification will you give for these plans, when asked by families who’ll have to wait much longer for a decent home, and existing residents who’ll lose the green spaces on their estates?’

 

In an article published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 18 November your colleague, Cllr. Ketan Sheth, wrote:

 

'The value and cost of land in London is at an all time high: therefore, building on land already owned by the council means the building costs are lower and all of the new homes can be let at genuinely affordable rents.'

 

But under the proposals for Cecil Avenue, approved by Cabinet on 16 August, and for which Cllr. Tatler is the Lead Member, only 37 of the 250 homes will be for London Affordable Rent, and none will be for Social Rent (which the Brent Poverty Commission Report in 2020 said should be the Council’s priority for genuinely affordable homes).

 

The attached response from Cllr. Tatler makes a similar point about the importance of using Council-owned land to provide affordable homes:

 

‘Many of the current and planned future developments containing affordable housing will be on ‘re-purposed’ council owned sites that mean there is no acquisition cost and that because of ownership, schemes can be developed at pace.’

 

The ‘council owned site’ at Cecil Avenue is vacant, and full planning consent for the 250-home project was granted in February 2021. The scheme there could ‘be developed at pace’ for affordable Council homes, but under Brent’s current proposals 152 of the new homes there will be for private sale by a “developer partner”.

 

This is how I (and, I suspect, many other Brent residents) see the Council’s current proposals for the Cecil Avenue development:-

 

This image is a parody of the Council’s publicity photographs for its “New Council Homes in Brent” programme, but the point it is making is a serious one.

 

Do you want the citizens of our borough to see the hypocrisy that the Council’s current proposals display? Perhaps ask yourself the question which I put to Cllr. Tatler:

 

‘What justification will you give for these plans, when asked by families who’ll have to wait much longer for a decent home, and existing residents who’ll lose the green spaces on their estates?’

 

If you agree that the current proposals for the Cecil Avenue site don’t seem right, please share your views on them with the Lead Member and the Strategic Director for Regeneration. Thank you. Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant
(a long-time Brent resident, with no party-political allegiance)

 

 

LETTER: Proposal for a non partitioned second regeneration ballot of all South Kilburn households in 2022

Brent Council's Estate Ballot Video

 

Dear Editor, 

 

South Kilburn's partitioned first Brent regeneration ballot in 2019 included only 1,000 scattered selected households, while excluding the other 3,516 households in the South Kilburn Growth Area from any ballot vote say at all in the new tall building zone (TBZ) plan. This is proving to be an unsustainable social injustice and human rights abuse i.e. the entire community complex land has become surplus brownfield land for the coloniser market.

 

I count as one of these 3,516 households in South Kilburn neighbourhood excluded entirely from Brent's ballot of South Kilburn 2019.  The Brent neighbourhood masterplan for South Kilburn vote in 2004 had allowed a vote say to every household in this zone regarding a future land uses neighbourhood regeneration plan (a plan which was unilaterally Brent cancelled in 2017).

 

Why this harsh and exclusionary change of landlord neighbourhood governance policy in SK for 2019 and harsh denial of the right to a democratic say regarding the vague new South Kilburn TBZ future towards 2041? Brent now only boasts and taunts the South Kilburn massive household majority excluded from the ballot vote about its partitioned and excluding ballot of 2019 - "And in South Kilburn where we are regenerating, we had the biggest estate regeneration resident ballot in London with a 72% turnout and 84% of people voting in favour" - this refers only to the 1000 households allowed a vote. Ignored are the 3,516 South Kilburn households excluded entirely from a ballot vote say regarding the developer-led TBZ new plan.

 

With the community-led neighbourhood partnership regeneration masterplan balloted 2004 unilaterally cancelled by Brent five days after the Grenfell fire in 2017, surely Brent landlords new unilateral land use TBZ plan should be put to a vote of all 4,516+ South Kilburn households in 2022- especially as Brent aims to by five times grow the SK population to over 36,000 by 2041.

 

I would propose a Brent ballot 2 remedy in 2022, in which all 4,516+ households in SK have a ballot vote to correct the gross injustice of 2019.This ballot 2 would force the public landlord to offer a new responsible high quality detailed, healthy, cohesive, inclusive, civil and flood attenuation aware plan for SK future land uses towards 2041 which is clearly in the best interests of all who live South Kilburn Land.

 

Will Brent finally listen and engage?

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

Council accused of waste and poor design over Wembley High Road repaving project

 

Paul Lorber  writes that his complaint to Brent Council alleging the waste of money and damaging environmental impact of their Wembley High Road pavement etc £3.5 million project has reached Stage 2. This is what he sent to Brent Council officers:

 

Anyone with the minimum of knowledge of Wembley High Road and its Paan Spitting problem would have realised that using pale grey stones is downright stupid.

 

I refer to my complaint about the decision to rip up perfectly good pavements in Wembley High Road - including areas of safe asphalt paving and new paving provided by the developer outside the Uncle building in Park Lane just 6 months ago.

The justification for this waste used by senior Council Officers was that the Council was following a design guide from 2016 and that High Road locations were treated differently to residential roads where use of asphalt was being imposed despite local opposition.

The photographs  show the new and expensive pavements completed outside the Uncle building less than a week ago.

Of course Brent Council Officers are very well aware that Wembley High Road has a serious Paan spitting problem which the Council has failed to contain despite painting warning signs on the pavements in this very area just a few weeks ago - signs of course only dug up shortly after!

If nothing else this highlights how foolish it is to use an out of date design guide which fails to take account of local circumstances - which officers should be or were perfectly aware of.

Using pale grey brick paving in this area was clearly not wise (and I am using measured language here). In contrast black/dark grey asphalt would hide this kind of mess much better and be probably easier to clean of.

The Design Guide is clearly useless and it would be highly irresponsible to continue to use it. I appreciate that Brent Council is like a juggernaut and Councillors and Officers never admit to making a mistake until it is too late. 

In this case I would urge a revision to the current work programme to both save money and not to continue to put down material which is unsuitable for this location.

There are large areas of the pavements in Wembley High Road do NOT require ripping up as they are perfectly safe. Many areas just require a proper and effective repair reusing existing materials.

Residents want safe pavements and most will not care if part of the High Road are paved with asphalt, existing car resistant slabs or new materials where required. 

They will however be angry about both the waste of large sums of money (especially when repeatedly told that “there is NO money to fix dangerous pavements in the streets”) or when they see the kind of mess shown in these photographs.

The money saved can then be used to repair and upgrade pavements in streets with unsafe pavements instead.

As a local Taxpayer I strongly object to the current Council approach of ripping up perfectly good pavements for the sake of a clearly useless Design Guide and the totally inefficient and environmentally damaging approach taken by Brent Council. The Council should re focus its approach and give greater emphasis to effective repairs and maintenance rather than the current ‘rip up’ approach.

I trust that you will listen rather than continuing to pursue your dogmatic ‘we know best’ approach.

 

LETTER: “Flying from Brent” – another gem from “Being Brent”

 

Sadie Kempner as Amy Johnson in 'Flying from Brent' visit to 

Northview Primary School November 2021

Dear Editor,

 

Regular readers of your blog will know my interest in the local history of our area, from early to more modern times. The current “Being Brent” series of projects, organised by Brent Museum & Archives with funding from the National Lottery's Heritage Wellbeing Fund, has produced excellent opportunities for residents to discover more about our heritage, but these have not always been well publicised. That’s why I’m writing to share some now.

 

“Flying from Brent”, sharing the inspiring story of Amy Johnson with both schools and adults, was the work of Wembley-based author Amanda Epe. Her short video film, starring actress Sadie Kempner as Amy, is now available, and I’d encourage anyone to view it, perhaps with children or grandchildren over the coming holiday period:   https://youtu.be/96P0aPz2FgM

 

 

 

Amanda and Sadie have been to at least two local Primary Schools this autumn, to share Amy’s story with the children and use it as a basis for creative writing. Amanda also organised a walk for adults in September, visiting places in Kingsbury where Amy lived and worked before her famous solo flight to Australia in 1930. It’s been my privilege to work with Amanda, to create a permanent self-guided walk document, “In Amy Johnson’s Footsteps”, based on that walk. Anyone can now follow it, and discover more about Amy along the way, by downloading the walk from the Brent Archives website, at: https://www.brent.gov.uk/media/16419753/in-amy-johnsons-footsteps.pdf

 

Another “Being Brent” project, which groups of local residents have already been able to enjoy, is “Brent Heritage Tours”. Their free guided walks, led by qualified local history enthusiasts, will continue next February and March, covering Queens Park, Willesden High Road and the Welsh Harp. There will also be free online talks about these areas in January. For details, go to: https://brent-heritage.co.uk/

 

If you have not already seen it, I would also recommend another recent video film from “Being Brent”, called “Being Alive”, which captures the diversity that makes our community so strong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYbeAoyBKbY

 

These are not the only gems on offer from “Being Brent”, and you can find out more from their website. Best wishes,

Philip Grant.

Review of Brent Council's Flood Risk Management Strategy to commence in January 2022

 I received this response from Cllr Krupa Sheth  (Lead Member for Environment) today to my supplementary question asked at Full Council on November 22nd 2021 about  Brent Council overdue review of its Flood Management Strategy.

Response from Councillor Krupa Sheth to supplementary public question from Martin Francis asked at the Full Council meeting on 22 November 2021.

 

1.         My question on a review has not been directly answered, fortunately a council officer told Scrutiny on November 10^th that a review of the 2015 Flood Risk Management Strategy is required and context should include real focus around climate change (for example the forecast 59% increase in winter rainfall) as well as the necessary local mitigation.

 

Response:  A review of the Flood Risk Management Strategy is now due and we informed the Scrutiny Committee it will be completed over the next 12 months. The review will include a focus on climate change.

 

2.         Can you give us the timetable for the review and the partnership members who will be involved?

 

Response: We are currently in discussion with consultants to scope the review and the timetable with an intention to commence the review early in the New Year.  We’d envisage a 9 month exercise from January. The Environment Agency will be consulted along with Thames Water to access modelling already undertaken on some of our open spaces such as Woodcock Park. Other main stakeholders are listed below:

·            Transport for London

·            Residents and Businesses

·            The Greater London Authority

·            Canal & River Trust

·            Network Rail

·            Neighbouring London Boroughs

 

3.         Will, as the West London Flood Risk Management Strategic Partnership has recommended, the accumulative impact of developments on flooding and drainage infrastructure systems, be assessed?

 

Response: Yes

Bridge Park campaign going back to High Court with Appeal on behalf of the African and Caribbean Community over land sale to developer

 

Statement from BPCC Steering Group

who lead the The Save Bridgepark Campaign.

BPCC Steering Group was established in 2017, and was given a mandate by HPCC and a Community vote to lead the Save Bridge Park Campaign.

 BPCC setup Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Ltd (SCT), a company capable of fighting the legal case on behalf of the Community stating that the African and Caribbean hold a direct and equitable interest in the Bridge Park land and Assets.  As a result we are currently restricting the sale of Bridge Park land and assets by Brent Council to a private developer.

Appellant 1 Leonard Johnson (As himself) and Apellant2, Stonebridge Community Trust (HPCC) Ltd (A Company Limited by Guarantee with Charitable objects) have arguments that differ:

I) Appellant 1 (LJ) wishes to put forward new arguments not placed before

and 

Ii) Appellant 2 (SCT) wish to maintain the Arguments based on the original arguments that were made when the courts granted the Appeal.

Both Appellants wish to maintain arguments that the events around the purchase in 1982 established a Charitable Trust and as such should be protected from Brent Council's attempted disposal of Bridge Park Land to the private buyer behind the sale, a group called General Meditterranean Holdings.  Appellant 1 is currently refusing the offers from Appellant 2 to work together.

All sides in the Appeal have a QC representing them at the hearing on 14th December 2021 at the High Court.

Jay Mastin of Stonebridge Community Trust (Appellant2) said:

We have led this campaign on behalf of the community from the start and we feel confident that we have a deserving case which will now be heard by a group of the Top High Court Appeal Judges in the UK. The Bridge Park Complex is the largest and only centre of its type in Europe and the arguments are largely unique in Law. We hope that the outcome will likely set Legal Precedent.

We would like to thank the Community, councillors, MPs, press and legal community for the continued understanding and support.

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:

 

If you use the Seach Facility on the right and type in Bridge Park you can find a number of Wembley Matters article on this issue. This LINK takes you to the verdict in previous appeal.

Seasonal fun and some serious stuff at St Raph's Winter Fair on Saturday December 11th

 

Mili Patel, David Lammy's Head of Office steps down as Brent Cabinet Member.

 

Cllr Mili Patel

David Lammy MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary

It would have been Cllr Mili Patel's last Brent Cabinet meeting this morning as it was announced to the Labour Group tonight that she is stepping down as Cabinet Member for Children's Safeguarding, Early Help and Social Care.  In fact she sent her apologies for absence.

With the local council election only 6 months away I understand her responsibilities have been mainly taken over by  Cllr Thomas Stephens already responsible as Cabinet member for Schools, Employment  and Skills. Some of  responsibilities have been transferred to Cllr Harbi Farah,  Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care.

There is speculation that the stepping down may be due to the promotion of David Lammy MP to Shadow Foreign Secretary - she is Lammy's Head of Office. Patel previously served as Senior Party Researcher (2015-2016) to Keir Starmer  MP after nearly 7 years in the same role for Frank Dobson MP.

The changes considerably strengthens the position of Cllr Stephens who is regarded by Labour colleagues as in no way lacking in ambition.

Mili Patel's partner, Cllr Matt Kelcher, continues as Chair of Brent Planning Committee.

IMPORTANT NOTE

Since publication the Kilburn Times has followed up with a statement from the Council that contradicts the allocation of roles outlined above which came from a trusted Council source:

Cllr Mili Patel, who represents Harlesden, has departed the authority's top table and her 'safeguarding' portfolio will be filled by deputy leader Margaret McLennan.

A bounce back email from Cllr Patel states that she is taking maternity leave.

A Brent Council spokesman said: "Councillor Mili Patel has stepped down from her cabinet role to take time out. Deputy leader, Councillor Margaret McLennan, will take over the portfolio.”