South Kilburn residents face barely affordable rents hike - (if our sums are right)

South Kilburn resident Pete Firmin has been giving himself a headache trying to work out what Brent Council's 'affordable rent' policy really means. In this Guest Blog, after studying Council documents, he give it his best shot. We would be happy to hear from anyone who can show the conclusion is wrong (with workings!).

-->

At the Council Cabinet meeting on 26th January, a report from the “Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Growth” headed “South Kilburn regeneration Programme” was adopted. This concerned the approvals needed for the the next stages of redevelopment and regeneration. LINK

One of the recommendations in the document is:

“2.1. That the Cabinet agree to set rent levels for the affordable homes at Gloucester House and Durham Court once complete, at a rent equivalent to the Homes and Communities Agency Target Rent levels.”

The Gloucester House and Durham Court redevelopment involves:

“3.1 The redevelopment of Gloucester House and Durham Court site involves: a. the demolition of Gloucester and Durham and the development of 236 new homes for a mix of market sale (134 new homes) and affordable social rented (102 new homes) accommodation;”

On the rents:

“Target Rents

3.5 On 18 July 2011 the Executive agreed to adopt a rent equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels for affordable developments in South Kilburn until Borough wide rent levels were reviewed. The 18 July 2011 Executive report set out the background to the rent level change and concluded that setting HCA Target Rent levels on phases 2 and 3 and subsequent phases is the only realistic way of affording the South Kilburn regeneration

programme and avoiding the requirement for large amounts of grant that would not in themselves be certain of being awarded and, if awarded, would require rents to be increased to the new 'affordable rent' levels.

3.6 The Target Rent regime controls rent levels in the social sector. Target Rents are calculated by a formula, the basis of which is set out below. Increases in Target Rent levels are also pegged to inflation and subject to an overall cap.

• 30% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative property values compared to the national average

• 70% of a property’s Target Rent is based on relative local earnings compared to the national average

• A bedroom factor is then applied so that, other things being equal, smaller properties have lower rents”

“3.7 Between 2010/11 and 2014/15 increases in Target Rent levels and caps have been linked to RPI as set out in the tables below:”

[for tables on caps you will need to refer to the document via above link]

“Last year Government introduced a new rent policy, and for the ten years 2015/16 – 2024/25, increases in rents in the social sector will be limited to CPI +1% and increases in rent caps will be limited to CPI + 1.5%.”

BUT

“3.8 It should be noted that new social rented properties being developed in South Kilburn have a higher capital value than existing Council properties and therefore will attract a higher Target Rent under the formula outlined. Inflationary rent increases on these newproperties, whilst governed by the same rent policy and same CPI +1% limit, will therefore also be higher in monetary terms (i.e. in pounds sterling). This is because 1) inflation will be applied to a higher base Target Rent and 2) the Council will sometimes (and more commonly than the Registered Providers managing the new properties in South Kilburn) not apply a full inflationary increase to rents across its own housing stock.

3.9 In line with the Council's commitment to maintaining current HCA Target Rent levels in regeneration areas it is recommended that the Cabinet agree to set the rent levels for the affordable units at Gloucester House and Durham Court and the Post Office Plus Site once complete, at rents equivalent to the HCA Target Rent levels.”

Problem is, of course, that this is fairly impenetrable for those who want to know what this actually means in terms of real rent levels for the “affordable” new flats.

A Councillor helpfully enquired what this actually means and got this response from a Council officer:

“Your enquiry regarding affordable rents has been forwarded to me for reply. I have provided a brief explanation of the position below but please let me know if you would like any additional information or technical detail.

Target rent levels relate to Social Rented Housing, whether owned by a Council or by a Housing Association. These are based on a national formula that takes account of the capital value of the property and a factor for regional (London) earnings. They do not directly reference private rented sector rents. Target rents therefore vary across properties and boroughs. In Brent, as in many authorities current rents are below target rents but have been gradually moved towards them recent years under the government’s rent restructuring formula.

Current average rents for Brent’s council properties (which for larger properties are below target rents) are:

Bedsit - £93.91 / week

1 bed - £107.07

2 bed - £119.43

3 bed - £130.80

4 bed - £141.63

New affordable housing development is typically at Affordable Rents. These are directly based on market rents and are the lower of the maximum Local Housing Allowance (Housing Benefit) rate and 80% of the market rent (including service charge). Brent Council has a published Tenancy Strategy, that housing associations are required to have regard to, which provides guidance on maximum Affordable Rents. These set lower limits in order to support affordability, particularly for households who may be affected by the Overall Benefit Cap. The guideline limits are as follows:

1 bed – 70% market rent

2 bed – 60% market rent

3 and 4 beds – 50% of market rent”

Still with me? So what are local market rents?

This is where an internet search comes in.

To be as fair as possible (?) to Brent Council I’ve restricted myself to flats actually in South Kilburn, i.e. not even Kilburn High Road, Camden Kilburn or Brent Kilburn North of the Watford line and definitely not Queens Park.

Some results:

1 bed flat, Malvern Road (described by Estate Agents as Queens Park, but then they do that all the time) £260 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge avenue, £425 pw

2 bed flat, Malvern Road, £385 pw

2 bed flat, Cambridge Gardens, £425 pw,

2 bed flat, Cambridge Avenue, £400 pw

3 bed, Chichester Road, £475 pw

2 bed flat, Canterbury Road, £375 pw,

1 bed flat, Malvern Road, £295pw,

enough, my brain hurts.

Anyway it should be clear from this search of just a small part of one estate agents website what the range of “market rents” is in the area.

Even taking the lowest market rent for each size of flat. this would give the following

1 bed flat Target rent (70% of market) £182pw. current average Brent council rent £107.07

2 bed flat Target rent (60% of market) £225pw, current average Brent Council rent £119.43

3 bed flat Target rent (50% of market rent) £237.50 pw, current average Brent Council rent £130.80

So, it appears that Brent Council aims to charge new tenants double or nearly double current rents. As well as new tenants, these will also apply to those previously in Council accommodation moved in to new properties.

Brent Council has always denied that regeneration amounts to social cleansing, but surely this proves the opposite.:

In addition to the fact that well over half of the new properties are for market sale (and a new 3 bed flat in South Kilburn was recently on sale for £850,000!) this amounts to a massive hike barely affordable for those currently living here.

THEIR CUTS-YOUR HEALTH Deadline for submissions to Independent Healthcare Commission extended to February 24th

From Brent Fightback

The Independent Healthcare Commission set up by four boroughs and chaired by Michael Mansfield QC to look into the effects so far of the implementation of the Shaping a Healthier Future proposals has extend the deadline for submitting evidence to February 24th. This is the evidence Brent fightback has submitted:

In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.

Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.

Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.

At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.

This is the Submission made by Brent Trade Union Council
 

-->

Over many years the Brent Trade Union Council has campaigned with other concerned organisations and the local trade union movement about the cuts to the local health service.Our colleagues in the health service unions warned us that the removal of services from Central Middlesex Hospital (CMH) would lead to the eventual closure of A & E.

Central Middlesex Hospital was rebuilt and extensively modernised at a cost of more than £62 million, reopening fully in 2008. This modernisation was funded in large part by PFI and was specifically designed for emergency medicine.

In spite of this, over the intervening years, many services have been moved from CMH to Northwick Park Hospital in a far more prosperous area. Services were transferred without consultation, because there was no obligation to consult since the two hospitals were part of the same trust. Staff were often given only a few days' notice that they were required to transfer and eventually Central Middlesex was left without the back up services needed for its A & E to remain viable. So we have a situation where management moved the services, then used it as a justification for saying that A & E was no longer safe or effective as maintaining an A & E service is dependent on the full range of hospital services being available to patients. Yet, right up to the day of its closure the A & E department at CMH was still being sent patients from the overstretched departments at both Northwick Park and St Mary's.

Having moved so many services to Northwick Park and closed the A & E at Central Middlesex, the CCG is now responsible for a splendid modern building which they will have to pay for until the end of the PFI contract and the dilemma of how to make use of it.

Throughout these years, Primary care services have been severely overstretched and continue to be so despite the Shaping a Healthier Future organisation and the local CCG having a “vision” of improving those services by investing to prevent illness, lessen the need for hospital admissions and shorten the length of time patients need to spend in

hospital. Of course the BTUC supports improvements in primary care, but promises were made that these improvements would be in place before radical changes were made to hospital services. However, they remain, to quote the CCG's own documents, “visions” and “aspirations”.

There is a crisis in recruitment of GPs, community nurses, health visitors and other staff needed to transform these visions and aspirations into reality, just as there is a crisis of recruitment for hospital staff and an expensive and destabilising reliance on agency staff. BTUC believes that the government's refusal to pay NHS staff even the 1% advised by their own pay review body and the housing crisis which is extreme in Brent, contribute to the recruitment crisis in the NHS, while cuts to the Council's budget threaten the provision of adequate social care, essential if patients' needs are to be met in the community.

The two Brent wards closest to the hospital, Stonebridge and Harlesden, are some of the most deprived in the Borough. The Locality Profile for Harlesden makes for grim reading. Harlesden is ranked in 30s for deprivation for England.

Despite having a young population 32% below the age of 20 years, in Harlesden ward, life expectancy is 13.4 years for men and 9.6 years for women less than the highest expectancy rate in Dudden Hill ward. It can be described by a tube train journey. If you take the train from Harlesden station and travel a few station north you will gain a decade in life expectancy.

Chronic Illness is significantly higher when compared to London and England figures, the biggest killers are Cancer, Circulatory and Respiratory diseases.

Mental illness affects one in six residents, TB is the second highest in the Borough and HIV is “considered to be very high” (Locality Profile).

Too many Children are found to be obese in their reception year when starting school and teenage pregnancies are also high.

We have only outlined a few items from the Brent Locality Profile for Harlesden Ward but we want to emphasise how completely unacceptable it is to close the A&E and other services in the middle of a population that so desperately needs a proper A&E and the important the general health services that go with it.

To compound this misery the facilities at Northwick Park which is the A&E that is suppose to replace the CMH facility, cannot cope with the extra load from the CMH and was rated as the worst A&E in the country.

The near impossibility of using public transport to go to Northwick Park. The difficulty of taking a sick child in the middle of the night to the A&E does not bear thinking about. Again the Harlesden and Stonebridge wards have the lowest levels of car ownership and minicab costs are prohibitive for those on low incomes.

Brent Trades Council also want to support and be associated with the submission from The Hammersmith and Charing Cross Save Our Hospital Campaigns.

On behalf of the Brent Trades Union Council please place our submission before Mr Mansfield.

 Brent Fighback adds:

In addition to the points made in the BTUC submission which Brent Fightback endorses, we would like to add that effective out of hospital care, care in the community, cannot be provided if social care provided by the Council is slashed.

Brent Council's funding has been drastically cut and among their proposals to achieve a balanced budget are many cuts which will severely damage the quality of care available - in particular the reduction in time from 30 to 15 minutes for carers' visits which has been widely criticised by elderly peoples' charities as ineffective and dehumanising. Also the closure of the (ironically titled New Millenium Day Centre which caters for 80 plus people with complex mental and physical needs - the group SAHF proposals are supposed to focus on.

Also the withdrawal of any provision for rough sleepers who have a high level of unmet health needs and already a disproportionately high level of A&E attendances because they lack alternative means of care.

At the other end of their residents' lives, Brent Council proposes to close ten of its seventeen children's centres. As well as providing facilities for play and education, children's centres often host health services for under-fives including baby and child clinics and advice on health and diet for parents and their small children. Brent has a very poor record on child immunisation, dental health, child mental health and obesity. If these facilities are lost, the NHS primary care services will be put under even more strain.

 

Submissions should be made to: Peter Smith, Clerk to the Commission, at Hammersmith & Fulham Council. Submissions should be addressed to him at Room 39, Hammersmith Town Hall, London W6 9JU or sent by email to peter.smith@lbhf.gov.uk. Later submissions will be forwarded to the Commission but may not be given the same attention as those received by the deadline.

Ark Schools, Tory donors, tax evasion and HSBC Scandal

Guest blog by Nondom

Lord Fink

Wembley parents will have noticed that two of the most important men in the Ark organisation which runs two of their local schools, Ark Academy and Ark Elvin, have been named in the HSBC bank/Tory party donors ‘tax evasion’ scandal.

Arpad Busson, past contributor to Tory party funds, is a Founding Chairman of Ark Schools.

Stanley (Lord) Fink is a member of Ark’s ‘Global Board of Trustees’ (and recently the Tory party Treasurer). Lord Fink is the billionaire hedge-fund manager who claimed he was referred to (with Cameron) as ‘dodgy’ in Parliament on Wednesday. He is Chair of Governors of Ark Burlington Danes Academy.

·       Wembley Ark school’s website claims: ‘You will see our motto ‘Civitas’ everywhere around the school. We are first and foremost citizens and this is what binds us together’.  

·       £70 billion is lost to the UK each year in the sort of tax evasion revealed in the HSBC scandal. If collected this would cut the annual deficit by half and make frontline cuts to schools, hospitals and local services unnecessary 

·       Brent’s Budget Report states that, as a result of cuts in government funding, ‘Savings of at least £53.9m will need to be agreed, most of which will fall due in 2015/16.’

When contacted, HSBC was unable to provide any advice on cuts evasion

15.00 Water Supply Problems Kingsbury and Wembley-Update

Affinity Water have posted this information on their website


Carlton Avenue/Preston Road HA9, Belverdere Way HA3, Church Lane NW9 8 - We have successfully repaired the burst water mains and anticipate full restoration of your water supply within the next 30 minutes.

Salmon Street NW9 - repairs are on going to fix the burst water main, we will provide an update as soon as one becomes available.

Should you experience any discoloured or aerated water, which is not uncommon following a mains interruption, we recommend that you leave a mains fed tap running for approximately 5-10 minutes. Discolouration of the water is caused by small particles of iron which are within the mains and disturbed during interruptions. Cloudy water is caused by air that becomes trapped in the mains, neither of these are harmful to your health.

Where it has been necessary to excavate the area we will continue to work with the local Highways Authority to return the road surface area to normal  and ensure that the road or footway is safe for all vehicle and pedestrian traffic. This may mean that we have to maintain the site and any necessary traffic management until this is the case.

We apologise for the inconvenience caused by this incident and thank you for your patience today.
This message will be updated after 17:30.

---

During this time we ask you not to use any electrical appliances, that require a water supply, like washing machines or dishwashers, and to conserve water from storage tanks during the time your water supply is interrupted.

We apologise for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.


Follow this link to their website for updates AFFINITY

---

Willesden C of E Primary School consulting on academisation

St Andrew and St Francis Church of England Primary School in Willesden is consulting on converting to academy status.

The long established schoool was put into 'special measures' after an Ofsted report at this time last year found that Achievement of Pupils, the Quality of Teaching and Leadership and Management were all Grade 4 Inadequate.

An Interim Executive Board replaced the previous governing body and an interim headteacher was appointed.

The latest Ofsted monitoring report published last week concludes that the school is making 'reasonable progress towards the removal of special measures' LINK:

The interim headteacher has added much needed capacity to the senior leadership team. Senior and middle leadership has been restructured to better match leaders’ skills and expertise to areas of the school. Staff and parents appreciate the greater clarity of communication which this has brought about. Staff morale has improved and staff express renewed confidence in leaders’ capacity to offer the support and development they need. Teachers and middle leaders feel increasingly empowered to develop new approaches in their work.

Despite this progress the IEB is consulting with parents on becoming part of an academy trust:

The Interim Executive Board believes that the best way to make sure that St Andrew and St Francis C of E Primary School continues to improve is for the school to become an academy, sponsored by the London Diocesan Board of Schools (LDBS) Academies Trust on 1 April 2015. The school would remain as a Church of England school, and the current staff and pupils would transfer to the academy.

We believe that becoming an LDBS academy is the best way forward for our pupils and staff, and will ensure that the St Andrew and St Francis quickly becomes a good school again whilst retaining its strong Christian ethos.  The LDBS Academies Trust is a charity which already runs six primary schools in north London. Of the six LDBS academies which have been inspected by Ofsted, all have been judged good.  Some of the Christian values which the Trust thinks are important and should underpin the work of all of its schools are: Reverence, Thankfulness, Humility, Endurance, Service, Trust, Peace, Forgiveness, Friendship, Justice, Hope, Creation, Koinonia (Partnership).

Although St Andrew and St Francis would be a standalone school, it would benefit from strong links with other academies in the LDBS network. For instance:

·       Staff would be able to share resources and ideas with staff in other LDBS Academies Trust schools.

·       The school will benefit from links with Grow Education Partners which offer an extensive range of educational support services to Trust academies.

To find out how the LDBS Academies Trust schools work, visit: ldbsact.org

The members of the IEB have researched what the LDBS Academies Trust can do for our pupils and staff.  This included visiting an LDBS academy which had been in similar circumstances to St Andrew and St Francis.  The school has rapidly improved as part of a federation with two other Trust academies. We were able to see the improvements first hand and talk to staff including the headteacher.  We have also met with LDBS Academies Trust staff to find out about the support that is provided by the Trust to its schools. This research, along with our consideration of the Trust’s track record, has led us to make our proposal.

The proposal is that if it goes ahead the school would become an academy on April 1st 2015. The LDBS Academies Trust would enter into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State. The deadline for responses is Monday February 23rd.

Paul Lorber to contest Brent North for Liberal Democrats

Lorber cutting celebration cake at Barham Community Library

Paul Lorber, former leader of Brent Liberal Democrats, who was defeated in the May 2014 local elections, is to stand as the Liberal Democrat candidate for Brent North in the General Election.

Lorber was a councillor for 32 years and was leader of a Liberal Democrat-Conservative Coalition that ran the Council from 2006 to 2010. This required him to work with Bob Blackman, Tory group leader, who is now the MP for Harrow East.

He came to Brent in 1969 and attended a Brent secondary school. He lives in the Brent North constituency.

Lorber was an energetic campaigner against the Labour Council's library closures as a councillor and is involved in the community campaign which opposed the closure of Barham Library and set up two community libraries to provide a service to local people, especially children. The campaign continues and is fighting to set up a volunteer library in the Barham Park buildings.

The expenses scandal that engulfed both Dawn Butler and Barry Gardiner particularly incensed Lorber, who says it was wrong for them to claim expenses for second homes when their constituencies were less than 30 minutes away from Parliament. A major thrust of his campaign is a demand that they repay the expenses they claimed for their second homes before standing again.

Sarah Teather's distancing from the Liberal Democrats role in the Coalition, her sacking and decision not to stand again, and the wiping out of Liberal Democrat representation on Brent Council in May 2014 (except for one seat) as well as what many see as the Lib Dem 'betrayal' by working with the Conservatives on polices that have impacted so much on the poor, are likely to be major issues in the campaign.

Lorber has pledged that if elected he would continue to live in Brent and would open up a Brent North Constituency Office. He will  refuse to take an 11% rise demanded recently by some MPs.

His key issues are investment in training and apprenticeships for young people, investment in early years education and support for pensioners through fair pensions and access to activities and facilities.

General Election result 2010

Barry Gardiner	Labour	24514	47%	Elected
Harshadbhai Patel	Conservative	16486	32%	Not elected
James Allie	Liberal Democrats	8879	17%	Not elected

James Allie defected to Labour in July 2012 accusing his party of being hypocritical and having neither the will nor ability to make Britain fairer, greener and more equal.

Candidates so far announced are (in alphabetical order)

Scott Bartle (Green Party)
Mark Ferguson (UKIP)
Barry Gardiner (Labour)
Paul Lorber (Liberal Democrat)
Luke Parker (Conservative)

Guest blog: We must embrace and appreciate our natural environment

'Plain Jaine' sent in a comment in response to Viv Stein's letter in the Kilburn Times regarding Brent Council's environmental cuts and the FoE submission on the budget. LINK In her letter Viv asked readers to imagine what Brent might be like after the cuts. Jaine's article was too long to publish as a comment so I publish it below as a Guest Blog.

Viv, thank you for comments.

But  for us Residents, this is something I don't need to imagine, this is not a figment of my imagination,  this is happening right now.   In the street where I live, it is not cleaned regularly although when it is the regular guy does do  a good job, however it's getting less and less frequent.   Getting regular fly-tipping removed a constant battle, at least a few emails, photographs and threats of embarrassment normally does the trick, but hey they're REACTIVE  not PROACTIVE. 

 Brent Council are actively engaging with developers to build on our parks to hell with the residents and their needs and desires for accessible Green Open Space, ( which in Wembley is less than 50% of what should be provided)   their slogan  " a better cleaner, environmentally friendly Brent".

Get real! this is just PR on behalf of the LB Brent.  They have already implemented many of the cuts already, I have the photographic evidence.     We have consultations to engage the public, but WE the public never find out about them until the last minute, because,  Hey!  they are not actually publicised. How does that work?  A recent FOI request was refused,  although to the prior to the request the majority of information was on LB Brent system and readily available has become extremely difficult for them to retrieve and we were informed, that should we be serious in our request please pay £480.00 we may be able to supply this information?

The Welsh Harp Area hold's a special place in my heart.  Somewhere I could go and feel at one with nature, tranquillity, walk, feed the Ducks, Swans, see Frog Spawn , to get away from the rubbish that is happening on my doorstep.  Beautiful landscape that has now been defiled by Barratt Homes and Barnet Council, who have flatly refused to accept the findings of the West Hendon Residents ,  the  original residents who resided  in the location only to discover they have been consistently been mislead, fraudulently represented, , abused,  and betrayed by the Planning System and have a real case to fight under  Human Rights legislation. 

Surely there must be a way forward, With regard to the Nature Reserve ant Teaching Facility, I recall that Carey's Group supported this as part of their Charitable Trust and giving back to the community surely we can engage more business partners in Brent to help keep this afloat?

Is there no way back?

 Should we align ourselves with the self proclaimed  saviours of LB Brent,   QUINTAIN  PLC , who are developing Wembley with so called prestigious housing developments, the new North West Village?

Poetic Licence has gone mad!!, 1 acre of green space, with a lot of nice landscaping and plants, some which are far from the definition of a Village, I hereto explain:-

 To be a Village a settlement must  list  the following of amenities  have:-      
                         

1   a church,                          

2    a village hall or community centre,

3    a school(though not necessarily),  

4    some shops, usually including a post office,                               

5   a  village green,                   

6    allotments,                        

7   places to work,                    

8    a public house,                    

9    Houses etc.,usually to include  Private, Council rented and Privately rented to give a mixed community.    

10  a Parish Council or Parish Meeting. 

                                    

Nice concept shame about the delivery.

 Hey who am I?

Having grown up in a Real Village  with a Duck pond,  Social club/Community centre,  Church with Warden, Women's Institute,  Social Club etc.

Are  LB Brent climbing in bed with  "The Devil's Advocate?"

Are we, the  residents of Brent  going to continue to endorse this alliance or are we going to a  take a stand, reject the council's austerity measures,  be proactive and support  anyone or  organisation, irrespective of our sympathetic allegiance to any political party.

 We need  to protect Our  Future, Our Children's Future,  Sustain our Community and Green Space  to  ensure all of us  grow up in the best natural environment  we are able to experience,  embrace and  appreciate everything that nature has to offer from now to infinity 3.14.

Martin, my  apologies if I am thought to be shouting

regards

Plain Jaine