South Kilburn Regeneration viability troubles should be on the Scrutiny Committee agenda tonight

 A number of factors have combined to threaten the financial viability of regeneration schemes across Brent and London including the requirements of the Building Safety Act (second staircases post-Grenfell), inflation, higher interest rates, supply chain issues and labour shortages.

In South Kilburn the Deloittes Viability Assessment provides a case study for the Hereford House and Exeter Court site.

Overall more housing is proposed but a lower proportion is social housing

 

51% affordable by habitable room

Build costs

GDV = Gross Development Vale

RLV = Residual Land Value 

Deloitte conclude:

Viability in planning is a fundamental principle of development, ensuring that the site is only pursued if it can an appropriate land value and adequate developer’s profit. The Residual Land Value (RLV) must be compared against a Benchmark Land Value (BLV) to determine whether there is enough surplus within the scheme to accommodate affordable housing, and / or other S106 obligations.

Viability in planning is achieved when the Residual Land Value (RLV) surpasses the Benchmark Land Value (BLV), indicating that the site can generate sufficient profit for the developer and meet the landowner's value expectations, thereby enabling the release of the land for development. The BLV represents the minimum price that a landowner would anticipate for their land.

In this instance, even if the Council (as applicant) was prepared to accept a BLV of zero (on the grounds that the Site is helping to facilitate a wider regeneration programme), the RLV still presents significant deficit.

Notwithstanding this outcome, the applicant, as a majority landowner remains committed to delivering a successful scheme, with 51% affordable housing (by habitable room number) to be offered at social rent.

Considering this and its role in facilitating regeneration, the applicant is proposing an affordable housing offer which is greater than the amount the scheme can afford. 

 So Brent Council is faced with the problem of finding a way of delivering the scheme as set out in the tables above when the viability assessment suggests that no developer will take it on. Scrutiny councillors will doubtless be concerned about a possible reduction in the social rent offer.

Viability assessments with be required on other regeneration sites across South Kilburn and the rest of Brent threatening to lower the amount of social housing overall. In South Kilburn it could mean (I hope councillors ask the question) that all the displaced council tenants will no longer be housed as promised.

The recent South Kilburn Tenant Steering Group received updates on the various South Kilburn sites and I highlight below the number of social rent homes proposed  out of the total number of homes proposed. The paragraph on Hereford and Exeter seems optimistic in light of the above:

Peel

In total, the Peel scheme is delivering 308 homes including 46 social rent homes for existing South Kilburn tenants and 98 shared ownership homes. 39 of the social rent homes have already been completed and let. The lower than usual number of social rent homes relates to the scheme financing the new Health Centre. However, the Council has now secured an additional four family homes for social rent in Phase 4.

NWCC Development

Countryside are progressing with the NWCC scheme (Neville, Winterleys, Carlton House and Carlton Hall), which will provide 225 new homes including 95 social rent homes for existing South Kilburn tenants. 40 of the social rent homes are 3 and 4 bedroom properties. Demolition works were completed in January with piling works for the new buildings are getting underway.

Craik, Crone and Zangwill

A planning application for the Craik, Crone & Zangwill (CCZ Site) had been submitted to the Council but was being reworked to comply with subsequent GLA guidance on fire safety requiring a second staircase. A mixed tenure scheme of 252 new homes is proposed, 104 of which would be for social rent to existing South Kilburn tenants. Two thirds of the social rent homes will be family sized to meet identified needs. New commercial and workspace, public realm improvements and infrastructure facilities are also proposed. The project has been paused whilst more strategic aspects of the programme are addressed.

Masefield, Wordsworth and Dickens

On the Masefield, Wordsworth & Dickens site, the proposed scheme includes new homes, a new primary school and enhanced green space. It is proposed that 146 homes would be built on the site in addition to the new school. 40% of the homes would be for social rent to existing South Kilburn tenants including 15 four bedroom houses. The South Kilburn Open Space will also be redesigned with new facilities within the scheme. The Planning submission is pending while the team work on funding mechanisms to deliver the school ahead of the rest of the development and examine opportunities to maximise housing on the site.

Austen and Blake

Proposals for the Austen & Blake site are intended to include new community facilities alongside new homes for social rent and private sale. The scheme would also reinstate Percy Road through to Malvern Road. It is anticipated that the site would deliver around 200 new homes in total. The team are currently considering options to combine delivery with the neighbouring Masefield, Wordsworth and Dickens site.

Neville, Winterleys, Carlton House & Carlton Hall

As reported, Countryside are onsite as the Developer Partner for the scheme at 1-8 Neville House, 1-64 Winterleys, 113-128 Carlton House and Carlton Hall (NWCC Site). 225 homes are proposed for the site, 95 of which will be for social rent to South Kilburn tenants with a significant number of family sized homes. It is proposed that the first 72 homes for social rent would be completed by early 2026.

Hereford & Exeter

The Hereford & Exeter scheme is intended to deliver 250 homes, 109 of which will be for social rent for existing council tenants in South Kilburn and a new open space. A new planning application has been submitted following redesign work to meet GLA guidance on fire safety requiring a second staircase on taller buildings. This should be the next phase onsite in construction by 2025.

 There was a Q&A at the same session that will be of interest to the tenants:

 

Questions were asked as follows:

Q – Is there any progress with the Queens Park/Cullen House site ?
A – The Council is continuing to negotiate the purchase of the former Falcon pub in order to facilitate the design of a revised scheme and subsequent planning application.

Q – What are the Council doing about squatting and break ins at Blake Court ?
A – The Council are trying to work with the police to prevent squatting and securing empty properties where possible. Residents should contact the Council on 020 8937 2143 or email at Housingmanagement@brent.gov.uk regarding instances of squatting or break ins to empty properties. If there is a threat of injury, the police should be contacted on 999.

Q – Are empty homes in John Ratcliffe House going to be refurbished and relet ?
A _ The Council is letting empty flats in later phase blocks as temporary accommodation to save costs and improve security. However, these tenants will not have the right to permanent rehousing in South Kilburn.

Q – Why is the rent going up when we live in such poor conditions at Dickens House ?
A – Rents are being increased across the borough at RPI plus 1% in line with Government guidance in common with other social landlords. The Council are actively looking at options to move tenants from Dickens and Austen House.

Q – Why has rehousing priority for Craik and Crone Court tenants been changed ?
A – Tenants in Dickens & Austen House and Blake Court are now being prioritised due to the need to vacate the site for redevelopment.

Q – Who will be prioritised for the new homes at NWCC and Granville ?
A – Tenants in Dickens & Austen House and Blake Court are currently being prioritised for all available homes. However, any surplus new homes will be offered to tenants in subsequent phases.

Q – Are new build flats fitted with baths or shower ?
A – They normally have a shower within the bath but separate showers or wet rooms are provided for tenants with specific identified needs through an Occupational Therapist.

Q – When will tenants in William Dunbar House be rehoused ?
A – William Dunbar House is in the final phase of the programme, the block is not due to be redeveloped for some years.

 

Costa risk of injury in Wembley?

 

Costa and Plaza Wembley High Road

Public confidence in the safety of new buildings springing up in Wembley High Road is not helped by the amount of scaffolding around recently completed buildings.

There has scaffolding around the retail units of the former Brent House for more than three years and a concerned Wembley resident has set about investigating.

It appears there is a legal dispute between the developer and the leaseholder which has been dragging on for some time and it has been deemed 'unsafe' to remove the scaffolding. It will have to remain until the issue is resolved.

A Brent Council officer said that the scaffolding is paid for and licenced on a renewable basis every month and in place for safety reasons. The developers wants to minimise the risk to passersby being hit hit by possible or potentisl debris or loose items.

Costa's unprotected outside area

 When the resident asked why then there was no scaffolding over the plaza side of the building where there is seating for Costa customers, he conjectured that the risk is greater on the public highway side which is why the scaffolding is in place there as opposed to the plaza.

Curioser and curioser? So sitting having a coffee beneath one side of a building apparently deemed potentially dangerous is safer than passing by...

Digger deeper our resident contacted the scaffolding company who said:

When we were asked to put up scaffolding around the building, we were informed by Costa's solicitors that they did not want the scaffolding on their property, which is the seating area in the so-called 'Piazza'. It's at their discretion and their liability.

Costa press office were contacted on Friday for comment:

 I am interested in comments from you regarding the safety of the area and what steps the company have taken (surveyors etc) to demonstrate that it is safe. I am happy to carry an evidenced statement from you aimed at reassuring customers.

By the end of officer hours today there had been no response.

Meanwhile's on the other side of the Plaza, Sainsbury's is protecting its customers on the street frontage but an area used by workers on the Plaza side is not.

 

I hope that Wembley Hill councillors will investigate and see if they can get reassurances from Costa and Brent Council.

LETTER: So much for reducing the Wembley High Road's street furniture

 

 

Dear Editor,

You have to post this, whilst you were away this new street furniture/signage appeared all along the Harrow Road and High Road. 17 years after the new stadium was opened and when installing the new paving the council made a point about reducing the street furniture. 

Clearly they are struggling to get it right. The first photograph the corner of  the High Road and Ecclestone Place, and the second shows one bang slap on the narrow footpath on the central High Road shopping area, you just couldn't  make this up.

A Wembley Resident

Shocking figures on cuts to schools' essential staff and activities

 

With the local spotlight on primary schools in the light of the Byron Court Primary issue and many of our schools in budget dseficit it is worth reading this statement from the National Education Union:

Commenting on a Sutton Trust survey of school leaders which finds primary schools hit hardest by funding pressures, Daniel Kebede, General Secretary of the National Education Union, said:

Primary schools play a critical role in the education journey of young people, but their hands are being tied by real-terms funding cuts. It is shocking that three quarters are having to reduce numbers of teaching assistants, just to make ends meet. The Government's failure to properly fund support-staff pay deals is what lies at the heart of this.

 Successive surveys have shown that schools across the country are having to drop resources and cut staffing to the bone in order to survive. This repeatedly falls on deaf ears, however, and the Government allows it not only to continue but to worsen.

After 14 years of chronic Conservative cuts, 70% of schools in England have less funding in real terms than in 2010. One in eight local-authority-maintained schools were in deficit in 2022-23, the highest number on record since schools took control of their own bank balances in 1999. It is striking, too, that the Sutton Trust's latest survey finds that half of schools are redeploying pupil premium money to plug gaps elsewhere. Taken together, this is a clear indication that something has gone seriously wrong with school funding.

We are also far away from having the right level of SEND support to meet demand, thanks again to short-sighted cuts and the starvation of local authority services through inadequate funding. A third of members told us recently they have no behaviour support team whatsoever, a quarter have no access to an educational psychologist or CAMHS. Schools are having to pick up the pieces when referrals get stuck in a queue or are rejected. Make do and mend is not the answer to the crisis in SEND funding.

This Government is not serious about education. It must wake up to the reality in schools up and down the country and provide the funding that is needed to allow schools to fully deliver the service they want to provide and that parents rightly expect.

Chalkhill's Got Talent - Tomorrow Chalkhill Community Centre 1pm-3pm

 

Effusive praise for Cllr Tatler - a tale of two articles

We have a regular commenter on Wembley Matters who champions the Labour Council and s/he is so over the top that it often appears to be satire, actually serving to undermine the council. At other times it has been suggested it is written using an Artificial Intelligence program.

The latest missive is in response to Philip Grant's series of exchanges regarding what he sees as a political foreward by Cllr Shama Tatler to  Cabinet report about the Wembley Housing Zone development.

Out of curiosity I resorted to Artifical Intelligence and asked CHATGPT to:

Write in praise of Councillor Tatler's (London Borough of Brent) of the Labour Party efforts at regeneration calling into question Philip Grant's criticisms of her schemes and her alleged politicisation of the issue. Question Philip Grant's political neutrality and condemn his actions as enabling support for the Conservative Party

Here are the two pieces of writing. Can you identify similarities?

 

ARTICLE ONE 

Councillor Tatler's tireless efforts in the regeneration of the London Borough of Brent stand as a beacon of progress and community empowerment. With steadfast dedication, she has spearheaded initiatives aimed at revitalizing neighbourhoods, improving infrastructure, and enhancing the quality of life for residents. Her vision extends beyond mere development; it encompasses inclusivity, sustainability, and social cohesion.

Despite her commendable endeavours, Councillor Tatler has faced unwarranted criticism from individuals like Philip Grant, whose motives seem questionable at best. Grant's disparaging remarks and attempts to politicise the issue not only undermine the genuine progress being made but also reveal a disturbing lack of concern for the welfare of Brent's diverse populace.

Grant's purported neutrality crumbles under scrutiny, as his actions appear more aligned with partisan agendas than with the genuine interests of the community. By echoing critiques that serve to benefit the Conservative Party, he betrays a disregard for the fundamental principles of impartiality and integrity.

In contrast, Councillor Tatler's approach remains resolutely focused on the betterment of Brent, transcending party lines in pursuit of meaningful change. Her leadership exemplifies a commitment to serving the people above all else, fostering a sense of pride and optimism among constituents.

As we navigate the complexities of urban renewal, let us rally behind leaders like Councillor Tatler, whose passion, integrity, and unwavering dedication illuminate the path toward a brighter, more prosperous future for all residents of Brent. Grant's politicisation of the issue only serves to hinder progress and perpetuate divisiveness, making it imperative that we reject such divisive tactics and unite in support of genuine, community-driven regeneration efforts.

 

 ARTICLE TWO

As a passionate Labour supporter and an avid follower of Councillor Tatler's tireless dedication to our community, I must express my wholehearted support for her invaluable contributions to Brent Council. 

It's disheartening to see Philip Grant's attempts to undermine the vital role Councillor Tatler plays in providing clarity and context through their Cabinet Member Forewords.

Grant's narrow focus on political content overlooks the broader picture of Councillor Tatler's commitment to transparency, accountability, and inclusive governance. The Cabinet Member Forewords serve as a crucial bridge between policy decisions and the community, shedding light on the Labour Party's vision for a fairer, more equitable society.

Grant's insistence on dissecting every word of these forewords in search of supposed political bias misses the mark entirely. It's abundantly clear that Councillor Tatler's motivations lie in championing the interests of all Brent residents, regardless of political affiliation. Her unwavering dedication to serving the public interest is evident in every aspect of her work.

Furthermore, Grant's suggestion of reviewing the inclusion of Cabinet Member Forewords reeks of political manoeuvring rather than genuine concern for good governance. It's a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the Labour Party's influence and stifle progressive policies that aim to uplift the most vulnerable members of our community.

Residents need to stand in solidarity with Councillor Tatler and reject attempts to discredit their invaluable contributions. We must continue to champion transparency, accountability, and social justice in Brent Council, with Councillor Tatler leading the charge towards a brighter, more inclusive future for all. This is a really important year for Labour and you are either with us or Tory enablers. 

 

 

 

Complaint over party political content of a Council report – Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate for Brent?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

This is a continuation of the correspondence which you may have read last week, in a guest post headlined “Abuse of Power?”. One anonymous comment was glad that Brent Council were being held to account, to which I replied: ‘It is not an easy task, especially when Senior Council Officers seem determined that they have to defend what is sometimes the indefensible.’

 

If you read the previous emails, and feel interested enough to read this further exchange, you may see what I meant by that. I felt that, rather than dealing with the issues I’d raised, the Senior Officer was trying to create a smokescreen. I have tried to cut through that, politely I hope, with a view to seek a resolution of the points I thought it important enough to write to her about in the first place.

 

Email from Brent Council’s Corporate Director of Governance at 4.25pm on 12 April:

 

Dear Mr Grant

 

Thank you for your email and I have considered the points you raise.

 

I have also had a quick look at practice elsewhere.  The templates used by councils for reports to their Cabinet (or Executive) are varied.  In at least 8 councils reports are expressed to be from the Cabinet member(s) to the Cabinet, in others the reports are jointly from the Cabinet member(s) and relevant senior officer(s). The template used by at least 5 councils includes a cabinet member foreword or introduction, e.g. Haringey and Newham.

 

The new approach in Brent was adopted for the reasons I gave in my previous email and is not out of step with the approach elsewhere.  Having adopted this template, reports addressed to Cabinet for decision are prepared using the template.  The legislation then requires the council (subject to rules concerning exempt and confidential information) to publish those reports and permit the public and press to attend and observe the Cabinet meetings at which they are discussed.  The publishing of the reports is clearly undertaken in compliance with the Regulations i.e. in discharge of the council’s duties under them. 

 

I remain of the view that it’s perfectly clear from the heading of the Cabinet Member Foreword section of the report that the comments in that section are comments of the Cabinet member and not of the officer.

 

I note what you say about section 3., “Contribution to Borough Plan Priorities & Strategic Context” in the particular report.  On reviewing the other reports on that agenda and other recent agendas I have noted that there is an inconsistency in practice, with some reports including this additional heading and some not.  The template itself does not have two separate headings.

 

Thank you for drawing this to my attention and I have reminded the officers who sign off the report and also the Governance team of this.  I have also reminded them of the purpose of the Cabinet Member Foreword as indicated in my previous email.

My response to that email at 4.45pm on 17 April:

 

This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Norman,

 

Thank you for your email of 12 April. 

 

I will make this response shorter than my email of 10 April, and will concentrate on the two main points.

 

1. Did Councillor Tatler’s Cabinet Member Foreword contain political material?

 

You appear to have overlooked that my original email of 5 April was a complaint, about political content in the Cabinet Member Foreword, and you have managed to avoid addressing this question in both of your replies to me (8 and 12 April). So that we can finalise this point, please let me have your straightforward answers to these two questions:

 

a) Do you accept that the Cabinet Member Foreword, in the SCIL Request Officer Report to the Cabinet meeting on 8 April, contained some political material, including at least one piece of Labour Party political material?

 

b) Do you agree that it is wrong for Officer Reports to Cabinet meetings to include material which ‘in whole or in part, appears to be designed to affect public support for a political party’ (irrespective of whether or not its publication breaches Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986)?

 

2. Are Cabinet Member Forewords appropriate in Officer Reports to Brent’s Cabinet?

 

For ease of reference, this is the purpose of Cabinet Member Forewords given in your email of 8 April:

 

‘The purpose of the introduction of the Cabinet Member Foreword was to provide an opportunity for the council policy context of decisions to be made explicit in reports to Cabinet by the Cabinet Member who is accountable for initiating and implementing council policies within the relevant portfolio.’

 

You have not explained whose decision it was to adopt the practice of including such Forewords, or at whose request. Please provide that information.

 

You have brought in information about what some other local authorities do, but all that should concern us, as citizens, Officers or Council members of Brent, is what is appropriate for our borough.

 

I understand that it helps Officers drawing up reports for Cabinet meetings to have a template, and that template (or necessary variations of it) can be drawn up or amended as appropriate, when the question I have asked in the heading to this section is resolved.

 

I think the best way to resolve it would be through a review, as I suggested, overseen by yourself, as Corporate Director of Governance, but taking views from other Senior Officers, Cabinet members and, I would suggest, the Leaders of the other Party Groups on the Council, and perhaps also the Chairs of Scrutiny Committees.

 

I have already put forward my views, as a politically independent observer of local democracy in Brent, where I have lived for more than 40 years. To summarise my views:

 

·      Officer Reports should be written solely by Council Officers, as their role is to provide the Cabinet, impartially, with all the information they need to make key decisions, and to make recommendations based on that information.

 

·      Officers making and signing off those reports must be aware of the Borough Plan Priorities and other Council policies for the service area they are responsible for, and it makes sense for that to be included in one section of their reports.

 

·      If the Cabinet Lead member with the portfolio covered by the report wishes to add their own views on the policy context, they can do so when introducing the item at the meeting, and also by circulating their own briefing document to their colleagues, should they think it necessary.

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.

 

Tough questions from Byron Court parents at Brent Scrutiny Committee. Why did the Rapid Improvement Group fail?

 Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commitee: Byron Court presentation & responses

 

Two Byron Court Parents attended Scrutiny Committee thia evening to ask questions about what Brent Council had done to help the school when it was realised it was in difficulties, The Rapid Improvement Group (RIG) was set up in September 2022 more than a year before the Ofsted Inspection of November 2023.

Parents' Questions

Tanisha Phoenic: RIG history - we have put in an FOI request to help us understand how an Outstanding school with a teaching status in the borough has been left to languish, in the meantime, can the panel answer some of our questions:

 

Rig was put in place on Sept 2022, chaired by Shirley Parks. Why was RIG put in place? What issues were identified in 2022? Are some of these the same issues that Ofsted identified in their inspection?

 

What was achieved by the RIG between its inception and the Ofsted inspection in Nov 2023? How many meetings took place, what was the level of monitoring and support put in place?

 

Was it identified during the year that the RIG was in place that improvements were not being made? What interventions if any were made, were these issues escalated? If so, then where?

 

We understand that the support to the school via the RIG and SESS has not been as intensive as required i.e. meetings being frequently cancelled by Council officers. Has this in part led to the poor inspection rating?

 

Did the Council experience any barriers working effectively with the previous Headteacher and governing body?

 

We want to understand if a school mentioned in 3.3.2 that was rated “requires improvement” in 2022/2023  has had a RIG in place and been on “journey to good” - why has the RIG failed Byron Court?

 

Do the committee really believe that they have done all in their power to help the school and avoid what has now become a forced academy order?

 

 

Vina Vekria -  Assurances from now to academisation

 

Whilst we acknowledge that you are legally bound to comply with the academisation order, Gwen Grahl reaffirmed the council's commitment to supporting and improving the school and assured us additional leadership capacity would be in place after Easter. 

 

What if any guarantees can you give us that the council will be living up to its commitment to ‘protect/promote community schools’ as per the Labour manifesto? Will you commit to pushing for a reinspection?

 

We are campaigning for a reinspection of the school, what guarantees can you give that the RIG will do what is expected and required to achieve the rapid improvements needed?

 

What additional resources - mentioned by Cllr Grahl at the Cabinet meeting on 9 Apr - are being put into the school and when? Will this address the huge lack in capacity in the Senior Leadership Team?

 

Will the Scrutiny Committee agree to return to this item at their next meeting in order to provide details of actions put in place?

 

There was no specific reply to the RIG question or on resources as applied to Byron Court although it was claimed that RIGs were generally successful.   Cllr Grahl spoke about her letter to the Secretary of State and offered to meet with parents. Cllr Ketan Sheth (Chair) said the Committee would keep a watching brief and parents could submit questions to the Committee. Answering a councillor's question Brent officers said that they were confident that no other Brent school would suffer a similar fate to Byron Court.

This is the FoI request made to Brent Council:

Dear Brent Council,

I am writing to you on behalf of over 130 parents involved in the ‘Byron Court Parents’ Campaign group’. The group represents parents who are opposed to the forced academisation of the school following Ofsted’s report.

We urgently request under the Freedom of Information Act the following:

Date of the initiation of Rapid Improvement Group (RIG), details of reasons(or redacted) the RIG was requested/instigated
Date of RIG was put into place
RIG Lead and its members
Aims and Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) of the RIG
Minutes from RIG meetings
Details (or redacted) of improvements achieved