Will this fight follow the Queensbury rules?

A new fight is developing in Willesden over the redevelopment of the Queensbury Pub and the adjoining Conservative Club in Walm Lane. The building was owned by the Conservatives who have sold it to Fairview Homes for a development of flats.  The rather handsome building is in the Mapesbury Conservation area. This is the development proposal:

Demolition of existing Public House and Conservative Club and erection of a residential development of 2 to 10 storeys comprising 56 flats (19 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 11 x 3 bed). Formation of revised vehicular access from Walm Lane to basement car park comprising 23 parking spaces and associated amenity space, landscaping works and pedestrian access from Walm Lane accompanied by a Design & Access Statement and subject to a Deed of Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (revised description to more accurately reflect proposal).

Locals have started a petition and are gathering a lot of  support, including from Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, Apart from the pub the venue is also used by Busy Rascals, a parent and baby group, and National Childbirth Trust's Bumps and Babies group.

On Monday 15th October at 2pm, the local press will be coming to The Queensbury to hear what the manager of the pub,  Busy Rascals, the pub staff and the local community have to say about the planning application.

A Busy Rascals mother said:

This isn't just an application for a few flats too, it's a whopping great 11 storey redevelopment which is designed to go right up to the street with no community space and will require about 50% occupancy parking spaces and during building work trucks will be accessing via Walm Lane. Apart from the disruption, removal of our beloved local community space and favourite pub and the nature in which Fairview Homes have decided what is best for our community, it is the most ugly proposal you've ever seen in an area that's supposed to be a conservation area. We must do something now!!

The petition against the development is HERE 

 Lodge your objection to the planning application HERE

Is Donald's the right development road for Brent?

In December 2011, long before the Brent Council leadership coup, I posted an article on 'Brent Council: Who's in charge?' about the relationship between the then leader Ann John and Gareth Daniel LINK which commented on Garth Daniel's increasingly political comments.

Now the same question is being asked about Brent's Regeneration and Major Projects department and the relationship between the Director, Andy Donald and lead member, Cllr George Crane. I have commented before on the domination of the council by Major Projects and the delegating of many powers to Andy Donald by the Executive.

In March 2010 Jackie Sadek on EstatesGazette,com gushed with enthusiasm about the then assistant Director and the lead  member:

Councillor John Detre (lead member for regeneration for Brent) and Andy Donald (his AD Regeneration) are a formidable team and I congratulate them. They are clearly on a roll.  We are taking a number of jv opportunities from Brent out to MIPIM in just a few days; developers and investors would be very silly not to take Brent very seriously over the next five years. In a time of uncertain political futures, the stability of this London borough coupled with its glorious asset base (my emphasis) and its serious intent to develop and regenerate, make it fertile territory indeed. And they're green: sustainability is key. They are showing the way.

In July 2010 the Money List put Brent Council at No.9 in its list of the Top 100 Public Sector Investors in the UK, just below the then London Development  Agency:

Top 100 projects 2010 £115m
Key contact Andy Donald, assistant director for regeneration, 020 8937 1049


The north-west London borough is in the top 10 due to its commitments to two of London's biggest regeneration projects. First, there is the council's establishment of a £100 million civic centre near Wembley Stadium that is intended to act as a catalyst for the £3.8 billion Wembley City project. Brent is also lead developer for the £772 million housing estate renewal project in south Kilburn, where it has so far spent £15 million on planning, demolition and buying out leaseholders.

"Local authorities should take more direct responsibility for the delivery of regeneration when there is market failure," says assistant director for regeneration Andy Donald. "In South Kilburn we want to stay in control of the quality and timescale of delivery. Looking forward we are likely to continue with that approach in order to make the most of our land and assets."

'Making the most of our land and assets' has become Andy Donald's crusade under the current administration.  The promise of  new buildings and redevelopment at  'nil cost'  to the Council is clearly attractive to them at a time of reduced budgets. However 'our land' is not just the council's - it is OUR land - the people of Brent. That is where the battles over regeneration get nasty, as in the case of Willesden Green Library Centre. The council has given 'our land' and the profits they will get from 92 housing units to developers Galliford Try in exchange for a Cultural Centre. During Margaret Thatcher's period in office and the selling off of public assets to the private sector there was much talk of 'selling the family silver'. Brent Council now appears to be in the same business.

Andy Donald was appointed Director on Major Projects and Regeneration in October 2010. The Brent Council website states:

Andy Donald, Director of Regeneration and Major Projects
Andy’s responsibilities include the delivery of the council’s ambitious regeneration and housing agenda, and he currently leads on major projects such as South Kilburn, Wembley, the new Civic Centre, Willesden Green, and the council’s programme for new and improved schools. Service responsibilities include housing, planning, building control, property and asset management, education assets, regeneration, employment and economic Development. Andy also has responsibility for overseeing the Council’s Housing Management delivery vehicle, Brent Housing Partnership.

The department employs some 450 people, including four assistant directors.He is responsible for a significant revenue budget, including the housing revenue account, and for overseeing a large proportion of the council’s capital programme – currently to a value of £100 million.
Andy is a founding board member of the Future of London, and an active
member of the Smart Urbanism group.

The emphasis on planning and regeneration is mine and reflects my  concern about a possible conflict the between the two. Brent Planning Committee  is advised by council planning officers but has a statutorily independent role,  However councillors usually follow officers' advice and increasing numbers of decisions are made by officers following planning guidelines, rather than the committee.

In the MIPIM Round Table discussion in Cannes in April 2010, referred to by Jackie Sadek, Andy Donald revealed some of his thinking, which perhaps demonstrates a rather cavalier approach to his brief.

This contribution from Donald reinforces my concern over possible conflict between planning and regeneration functions:

What I’ve learned is, when times are good, the big scale projects work well, but when times are not so good, it is best to try and present projects to politicians in a more chunked-up way, where they can generate momentum. Once things have started and momentum builds up it is really difficult to stop it, for funders to walk away. So as local authorities we try and take more responsibility to get things started, which might mean acting as a developer, to take things through planning ourselves, which builds confidence

The council acting as developer and taking things through planning themselves, successfully marginalises the local community. In the Willesden Green Cultural Centre case the council formed a partnership with Galliford Try and initially it appeared that the planning application would be made in both names. This was changed so it became a Galliford Try/Linden Homes application with a Brent Council Planning Officer, a PR company, and latterly Library Labs all involved in the much criticised consultation process.

The question is, has the project got so much momentum that it cannot be stopped? The campaigners have had some success in slowly things down. The question for councillors, who are accountable to the public and the electorate is: Is this how things should be done if we want to retain the public's confidence?

Andy Donald went on to say:

As local authorities we’ve got to start realising and recommending to politicians. The focus should be on doing some delivery, generating the market for delivery, rather than diverting activity around producing big masterplans, often on big areas we don’t own, and trying to tell the market they must deliver this across this area over the next thirty years. Starting small and generating momentum seems to me to be the way to do it.

We want to try and remove some of the technical aspects of the process. If you ask planners what they want to do, it will be to draw a masterplan. But a masterplan won’t make the Thames Gateway happen or make a scheme the size of Wembley happen. More local authorities are realising this, realising we should instead be starting from the site upwards, or the plot upwards.

Donald's enthusiasm and confidence glows as bright as the sunshine in the south of France, but is it a vision shared by Brent Council?

The attitude to local people is revealed again in this interchange in the round table discussion:

Peter Finch The difference between the French and the British is that while Paris was busy delivering the Charles de Gaulle airport, it took the same time for us to get the public inquiry for Terminal 5. Mitterrand was asked how this could be. He gave a very witty response. He said: ‘Very simple. In France, when we wish to drain the pond, we get rid of the frogs first’.

There is a sense that Britain is neither brutal nor generous enough. When we finally get CPOs (Compulsory Purchase Orders), we’re never generous enough and we always make it nasty. We’re not brutal enough to say, we just don’t care, here’s twenty times worth the value, now just go away. Or we’ll arrest you!

Andrew Donald: But we never know if we actually do want to drain the pond. And that’s the big issue. It comes back to leadership. It doesn’t matter what scale you’re working on. There are very few people I come across in the public sector who will nail their colours to mast and say: ‘This is what we want to see happening now’. To be confident enough to know that over the 30-year lifespan of that scheme it is going to involve, there should be more confidence to say: “This is what we want now, but in five years time, if we change our minds, it is okay, as long as we’ve done something in those five years”. That is critical.

Roger Zogolovitch later in the discussions says:
Rather than getting rid of the frogs before draining the pond we’re giving authority to the frogs!

The Civic Centre opens in 2013 and its cost will be paid back over 25 years. Will the council change their minds in 2018?

Donald, despite Brent's 'green development' image, seems impatient with such demands:

I would take out in one fell swoop all the requirements around environmental requirements and transport requirements. I think that their original purpose was quite worthy but now, frankly, it is a pile this big for even tiny application. Replace that with something to the point about what this development is going to make to local area, written in plain English. The decision makers are never going to read all that text. There is a massive disconnect between the decision makers and the officers. To release the development from the upfront cost of these, maybe we can be more collaborative here in saying what a scheme is going to bring to an area in terms of improvement, from the people side and commercial side as well. What does a scheme bring to a place? It is much more about whether a scheme makes a place better or not.

Donald's  idea of  'starting small and generating momentum'  rather than having a Masterplan, seems to be behind the Meanwhile Project reviewed here in an earlier posting LINK  

The proposal greed by the Executive gives Donald the delegated power to buy up unused premises and let them out on fixed term contracts with no tenant right to renewal. His report states:

The term “meanwhile” is used to describe the use of vacant premises or land while it is not being used – it is the pause in the development process between the old and the new. This pause can be a few months or a number of years.

In other words those trendy spaces let out to 'pop up' shops or businesses could eventually become the pieces of a development jigsaw that all fall into place at a later date. Again, are councillors happy with this approach and won't the public be presented, in time, with a development  fait accompli? 

 The council's Corporate Risk Register builds the relationship with developers into the risk management strategy. It addresses the risk of lack of  investment in the borough thus:

De-risking by assisting with planning permissions etc on behalf of developers. Maintaining dialogue with investors/developers. Reviewing other sources of capital finance.

In April of this year Andrew Donald was shorlisted for the Alan Cherry Award:

A shortlist of nine eminent ‘placemakers’ has been announced for the Alan Cherry Award for Placemaking.  The annual award is presented in recognition of the significant contribution made to the quality of placemaking in their communities by a leading figure in the public sector.

Alan Cherry was the founder of Countryside Properties. Countryside Properties was Brent Council's development partner for the Barham Park Estate.

Elsewhere Andy Donald has been named as a 'Rising Star' and a mentor for young people involved in regeneration. He clearly has commitment and energy. The question arises as to whether this is taking Brent Council in the right direction.

The ramifications of Council Tax Support proposals

Brent Council Executive will discuss proposals for the Council Tax Support scheme which replaces Council Tax Benefit next year. It will go to full council for approval. The shift includes a 10%  Coalition Government cut in funds available for the support.

Brent's extensive consultation received only 184  residents' responses. 97 online and 87 paper. This represents 0.5% of the benefits caseload. In addition there were submissions from Citizens Advice Bureau, Mencap, Capita, GLA, Network Housing, Catalyst Housing, Brent Children and Families and Brent Partnership and Improvements.

The response on how the Key Principles outlined in the proposals should be prioritised were:

These are the proposals::

5. The Council’s Proposed Council Tax Support  scheme

5.1 The Council undertook consultation concerning its proposed draft scheme which comprised the key principles and features set out below for working age claimants:

Principle 1: “Everyone should pay something”

All working age claimants (unless defined as protected) shall be required to pay a minimum contribution towards their Council Tax – set in the draft scheme at 20%.

Principle 2: “The most vulnerable claimants should be protected”(from the minimum contribution)

Claimants shall be protected from the 20% minimum contribution if they or a dependant in their household are entitled to a disability premium, enhanced disability premium, disabled earnings disregard, Disability Living Allowance or Personal Independence Payment, Disabled Persons Reduction for Council Tax purposes, War Disablement Pension and War Widow’s Pension.

Principle 3: “The scheme should incentivise work”

Incentives to work are achieved by letting claimants who are working keep more of what they earn (before means-testing) – the recommended scheme proposes an increase of £10 per week in the earnings disregards for Single Person, Couple and Lone Parent earnings (currently set at £5, £10 and £25 respectively). In this context, a disregard means the amount of weekly earnings that may be ignored when calculating entitlement to Benefit.

Principle 4: “Everyone in the household should contribute”

Other adults in the claimant’s household (“non-dependants”) should contribute more proportionately to their income – the recommended scheme proposes doubling the existing rates of non-dependant deductions from those in place in 2012/13 and replacing the current nil deduction for other adults in the claimant’s household receiving Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based) with a deduction of £6.60.

Principle 5: “Better off claimants should pay relatively more so that the least well off receive greater protection.”

The recommended scheme proposes that the taper used in the Benefit calculation for those above the means-test (i.e. where the claimant’s income exceeds their needs) should be increased to 30% from the current 20%. This is the rate at which Council Tax Support reduces where weekly income exceeds basic living needs and will be 30 pence in the pound rather than the 20 pence currently applied for CTB.

Principle 6: “Benefit should not be paid to those with relatively large capital or savings”

The recommended scheme proposes reducing the current savings cut off limit applied for CTS claims from £16,000 at present for the purposes of CTB to £6,000.

Commenting on feedback from consultees the report states:

In summary, (the responses) appears to indicate a clear distinction as to whether principle 1 is fair based upon whether the respondent is in receipt of Council Tax Benefit or not, principle 2 was agreed as being fair by the majority of both sets of respondents, principle 3 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of both sets of respondents, principle 4 was agreed as being fair by the greater majority of non Benefit respondents than in the case of Benefit respondents, principle 5 was not agreed as fair by Benefit respondents but had an equal split of non Benefit respondents considering it unfair and principle 6 was considered unfair by a greater majority of Benefit respondents than non Benefit respondents

The scheme recommendations are:

Appendix C to the report sets out the implications for the budget ion the future and the impact of various Council Tax rises: LINK

Any increased revenue from a higher Council Tax will be reduced by 25% as more become eligible for Council Tax Support.


The report anticipates difficulties in Council Tax collection:

Additional challenges are anticipated in collection arising from the implementation of Council Tax Support and difficulties in achieving full collection on the accounts affected may result in an overall collection rate that is less than the 97.5% currently built into the Council Tax Base. The assumed collection rate used in the Council Tax Base setting for 2013/14 will need to be given careful consideration as any anticipated reduction in future Council Tax collection rates would have the effect of increasing the Band D Council Tax unless a corresponding reduction in Council expenditure were to be provided. An overly optimistic collection assumption could lead to a need to declare a deficit on the Collection Fund in later years. Consideration will also need to be given to the other potential financial effects of the proposed scheme on the Collection Fund to prevent a deficit position from occurring (i.e. the scheme would need to raise sufficient additional Council Tax revenue).

The report recognises that Asian families will  be disproportionately  hit by a reduction in entitlement because they are more likely to be of working age, have more dependants (22% have 3-4 children compared with 10% in the 'white group), live in larger houses and have more adults living in the household. The 18-24 age group  are most likely to be affected by an entitlement loss of £3-£5 a week. The report states that claimants aged 55 to 60 are proportionately more likely to have a difference in their entitlement of £8.00 to £30.00 per week than the younger age groups. For example, in the £8 - £15 category they are represented by 11% rather than the 6% average. One factor for this variance is because claimants aged 55 to 60 are more likely to live in larger properties. For example, 15% live in Band E properties compared to 3% aged 18 - 24 and 6%aged 25 - 34 than the younger age groups. They are also in proportionate terms more likely to have more non-dependants living in their home.

This raised a smile or two at Wembley Park Station today

Thank you anonymous station staffer.

Campaigners' determination burns bright on first anniversary of library closures

The 'Light of Learning' runners called into Willesden Green Library this morning as they processed around the borough's closed down libraries to mark the first anniversary of Brent Council's act of cultural vandalism.

There were readings and other events at each venue. At Willesden I read Ghost Town by Nick Toczek and dedicated it to Brent councillors.

The crowd joined in the chorus with enthusiasm:

They're dead but they won't lie down.
They're dead but they won't lie down,
They're in our town and they're walking round.
They're dead but they won't lie down.

More pictures from Willesden on www.keepwillesdengreen.blogspot.co.uk

I would welcome photographs from the events at the other libraries to publish on this website. e-mail them to me at mafran@globalnet.co.uk

Campaigners mark first anniversary of Preston Library closure

Today was the first anniversary of the closing of six of Brent's libraries. This video is a record of Preston Library Campaigners' celebration:

Harlesden Incinerator protest tomorrow

There is a pop-up protest, jointly with Ealing residents, about the proposed "Harlesden Waste Incinerator", at 11am prompt tomorrow (Saturday) at the entrance to Willesden Junction station approach.

Ealing Council is set to approve this large waste plant in November, made up of:

    - an incinerator (not called that, for PR reasons), [see www.ukwin.org] and

    - "anaerobic digestors" (big tanks of decomposing food, to produce compost).

(The "advanced conversion technology facility" mentioned in the planning application IS an incinerator, because it involves

        - dustcart and lorry waste IN

                    (likely to be commercial, rather than domestic,

                    but may change), and

        - ash OUT.

Houses in Old Oak Lane will have dustcart traffic "all day" on the access road, which is only metres from their homes and gardens. The plant capacity is c150,000 tonnes/year.

Some of the dustcarts and lorries will pass through Harlesden. I suspect this will vary from month to month, depending on what contracts the waste plant can sign.

.

Please pass this link on to others.

Photo op. is at 11am on Saturday, Willesden Junction Approach (junction with Old Oak Lane / Station Road).

Refs:

http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=152202

http://parkroyaltown.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/wembley-matters-brent-greens-stopping.html

http://harlesdentown.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/planned-for-harlesden-incinerator-site.html

The 'lost' letter that lost Harlesden its voice on incinerator

This is the letter that Brent Planning Department lost over the summer and did not find until it was too late for the Council, or residents, to have a say in Ealing Council's consultation on an incinerator/anaerobic-digester at Willesden Junction Freightliner site.

We need to know urgently what the Planning Department will do to ensure that it fulfils its duty to represent the interests of Brent residents over such a controversial proposal.