Don't be fooled by Brent's claims on 'affordable' housing

Following Wednesday's Planning Committee Brent Council's communications (public relations) team were quick off the mark hailing the decisions as 'Hundreds of new homes given the go ahead by Brent Council' what they omitted was that these new homes are not ones that Brent residents can afford to buy.

The press release quoted Cllr Margaret McLennan

Cllr Margaret McLennan, Deputy Leader of Brent Council, said:

"We're serious about making this borough an amazing place to live and are working hard to build the homes that people need. We know that house prices are a massive issue and are pressing developers to deliver as many affordable units as possible.

"This is a huge development and we're proud that once completed, Wembley will have over 11,500 new homes, with around 32% affordable housing across the Wembley Masterplan area.

"The approval of these plans shows that we are serious about regenerating the area, creating the much-needed new homes, jobs, apprenticeships and economic opportunities for local people and demonstrates that Brent is very much open for business."

Monthly rents in Quintain development

The word 'affordable' is the misnomer here as affordable in this context means 'up to 80% of market rent including service charges'.  Landlords will go up to that maximum to get the highest return possible on their investment.  Developers in Wembley have time and again attempted to reduce the amount of affordable housing in their projects on grounds of financial viability so it is clear they will go for the maximum.

Cllr McLennan heralds 32% affordable housing (80% market rent) but Brent's Core Strategy CP2 states that 50% of new homes in the borough should be 'affordable':

'the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing will be sought when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed use schemes, with due regard to a number of factors, including development viability'

The key is in the last three words, each of the schemes have external viability studies that claim to show that they will not be viable without a reduced proportion of 'affordable' housing.  Viability studies are controversial and in the past Cllr Marquis, chair of the Planning Committee, has attempted to challenge them.They were labelled a 'dark art' by the former Mayor of London. LINK

There is an additional 'intermediate category' that is often added to the 'affordable' category for public relations purposes.  The definition is vague:

'intermediate houses for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent but below market level'

Even 'social rent' is problematic with housing associations becoming developers in their own right and adopting the 'up to 80% of market rent' policy.

Having established the context does the detail suggest that the press release is no more than Brent Council doing Quintain's public relations for them?

Planning officers argue that there is no necessity to provide affordable housing on the Arena Square/Powerleague site because affordable housing to meet requirements is provided elsewhere in Quintain's development. Whether this is achieving the 'maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing' is a matter for debate.

Bedrooms	Private	Up to 80% market rent	Intermediate	Social
APEX HOUSE
1	56	11	12	0
2	77	9	4	0
3	18	4	4	0
ARENA SQ
Studio	36	0	0	0
1	138	0	0	0
2	157	0	0	0
3	9	0	0	0
COTTRELL HOUSE			Shared ownership
Studio	6	0	0	0
1	13	2	1	0
2	15	4	3	0
3	8	3	0	0

It is worth noting that all of these developments are in Tokyngton ward where Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council, is a councillor along with Cllrs Ketan Sheth and Hylton.  None of them made any representations at the Planning Committee  or submitted comments on the applications.

FURTHER NOTE

A point made on Facebook discussions of this posting is that the 'up to  80%' definition of affordable is the former London Mayor, Boris Johnson's fault and not that of Brent Council.  My gripe is that the Council's press release and Margaret McLennan's flag waving, perpetuates the myth that this is genuinely affordable by residents and therefore good news.  Cllr Mashari does recognise the reality.

Former councillor James Powney has posted this on his blog LINK:

A lot of controversy is generated by the term "affordable housing", since in London especially, it is often far from affordable.  Here is a quick summary of the main types of housing sent to me by a senior housing officer:

Affordable Rent- for family units are usually 60-65% of market rents or the LHA (whichever is the lower), whereas 1-2 bed units are up to 80% of market rent or LHA (whichever is the lower).

 

Social Rent - averages out at 50% of market rent, may be slightly higher (usually 5%) above Social Rent target rents.

 

Intermediate Rent- above both Affordable or Social Rent, but will be below the market value, approx. 90% of market rent.

Cllr Mashari resigns from Brent Cabinet

I understand that Cllr Roxanne Mashari has resigned from the Brent Cabinet.  The resignation follows the controversy over the Granville South Kilburn development when she appeared to have been made the scapegoat for lack of consultation when the actual decisions had been made by Cllr Butt who holds the property portfolio. LINK

Neither Butt nor Cllr McLennan, deputy leader, were at the Scrutiny Committee where Cllr Mashari had to answer critics, including Cllrs John Duffy and John Warren.

Cllr Butt, in addition to his own duties as leader, is currently temporarily holding the Children and Families portfolio.

Public denied access to brook side walk after police advice

Impression of new development

It emerged last night at Brent Planning Committee that the public will be denied access to a walk beside the Wealdstone Brook which forms part of the redevelopment of the Amex House site in North End Road, Wembley.

There has been a long-time aim of naturalising the brook and increasing public access but the police have advised that because it does not provide a 'natural thoroughfare' (ie leaves North End Road and moves in a loop around the development and then rejoins North End Road) it could be liable to anti-social behaviour.

This would seem to put other potential access as a result of redevelopment at risk as the same argument coud be used as brooks and rivers meander and don't provide straight A to B thoroughfares. The police seem to have ignored walking for pleasure as something that nearby residents may want to pursue in an area with sparse greenery.

The Wealdstone Brook eventually joins the River Brent where there is a riverside path down to Monks Park and the North Circular and this is a recognised local amenity.  There is also a walk along the Brent and the canal feeder between St David's Open Space and Neasden Lane/Blackbird Hill. It is hard to know why these are fine but Amex House is not.

Councillors were concerned about potential flooding of the site and the level of pollution in the brook. The Environment Agency has opposed the development wanting it further away from the brook and this means that despite it being passed last night it will have to be referred to the Secretary of State.

The Committee also passed development applications for the Powerleague site next to Wemblety Stadium and Wembley Arena, Cottrell House, Warranty House (Dudden Hill Lane) and extensions to Ealing Road Library.

There were no public representations against any of these schemes - just speeches in favour from Brent Planning Officers and the developers' agents.

Note: I suspected there was an issue regarding public access to the brook side walk when the officer's report was vague about it. I received no answer when I contacted the Planning Department by email  and phone asking for clarification. The police advice is not included in the report to the Planning Committee.

Bid for £513m for NW London CCGs to be submitted to implement STP

Just after the Kilburn Times LINK published a story about the potential impact of the Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) on Brent, the NHS Brent Clinical Commissioning Group held an extraordinary Governing Body meeting at lunchtime today. The Times story pointed to a difference in emphasis on the STP from Cllr Krupesh Hirani, lead member for community wellbeing who said he would sign up to the STP, and Carolyn Downs, Brent CEO who has led on the STP, who repeated the caveats made at Brent's October Cabinet meeting*. The STP got very little detailed mention at today's meeting.  Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham boroughs have refused to sign the STP at present.

The chair said that in seeking £513m investment the area CCGs were following through the controversial Shaping a Healthier Future  (SaHF) and the Sustainability and Transformation Plan . The investment was necessary to deliver these plans and the meeting considered the Strategic Outline Case (Soc 1) for the investment. 

The majority of the funding (£304)  would go to acute hospitals, most of it to Ealing Hospital. £69m to improving GP practices, and £141m to out of hospital hubs.

 

The £304m hospital share would:

• support Ealing's changes to become an excellent local hospital
• expand A& E and provide more beds at West Middlesex Hospital
• expand A & E and maternity at Hillingdon Hospital
• provide more primary and community care services at Central Middlesex Hospital
• provide more post-op recovery and critical care beds at Northwick Park Hospital and improve some existing buildings

The £69m GP practices share would:

• make it easier for patients to physically get in and out of practices
• make better waiting rooms and more consulting rooms across all 8 boroughs

The £141m allocated to Out of Hospital Hubs would:

• modernise 11 existing community hubs
• build 7 new ones
• increase capacity and enable people who have multiple health and care needs to have those dealt with in one place 

The overall aim was better health care and preventing unnecessary hospitalisation.

At the public question time Robin Sharp speaking for Brent Patient Voice said:

I thank the Governing Body for making 30 minutes available for public comments or questions during this session. I am afraid that the rest of what I have to say will be more critical.

Sadly we are presented with yet another example of flawed procedure and a flawed case for change on the part of our NHS.

To begin with procedures, it is farcical that the Governing Body are set to approve a complex 250-page submission only 8 days after it was put into the public domain. Doctors on the Governing Body are very busy people with important clinical jobs. How can they have had time to read and understand these proposals?

It is also disgraceful that 7 out of the 8 NW London Healthwatches which make up the PPRG (Patient and Public Representative Group) for SaHF have offered quasi-endorsement for the document even though they admit that the public they are supposed to represent have not seen it.

We are told there will be public engagement in future, but is not this the wrong way round? Engagement should have been before the document goes to the Treasury.

Turning to the clinical case for change, it has been over 3 years since the “Better Care Closer to Home” strategy set out in SaHF was launched. It was supposed to be all in place by 2015. Where is the assessment to show that more care in the community has stopped people being admitted to hospital and reduced the need for acute beds?  It is certainly not in the NW London STP (Sustainability and Transformation Plan). “If Better Care Closer to Home” works why are our A&Es among the most challenged in England. Why are Referral to Treatment (RTT) times on a downward trend?

We were told in the slide presentation that 27 Hubs across NW London are at the heart of this Business Case and that St Charles off Ladbroke Grove is an example of a fully functioning “Hub”. Can we please see a paper giving details of how this is working? As a patient of a nearby Brent practice who uses the Urgent Care Centre at St Charles I have to say that the existence of a Hub is a well kept secret. No-one has told me or my Practice PPG about it.

Maurice Hoffman asked if only a limited amount of the monies claimed was available how would it be distributed?  He asked if  a 'local A & E' would meet London standards. He was told that the CCG had made it clear to the NHS that all the proposals were inter-connected and they were pitching for the full amount.  He was told that a Charing Cross A & E would not take 'blue light' case and NW London CCGs were looking at what services for the frail and elderly could be best placed there.  He was assured that 'until we have the capacity we will not change anything.'

As the presentation had mentioned voluntary organisations as providing services in the hubs, I asked how this would work when NHS England and NHS Estates were saying that market rents had to be paid. There was a momentary silence while the governing body members looked at each other and then Sarah Mansurali replied that they were looking at giving grants to voluntary sector organisations so they could afford the rent, offering sessional space or try to integrate voluntary organisations into new models of care.

The Governing Body noted the scope of the SOC and approved Part 1 for submission to NHSE and NHSI for approval and asked for the following points to be considered prior to approving subsequent related Outline Business cases (OBCs):

• further public involvement is undertaken where appropriate
• the OBCs continue to justify the capital requirement set out in SOC part 1
• opportunities to accelerate the delivery of the benefits are explored
• opportunities to further improve the income and expenditure position of proposals are explored

It is worth noting that this meeting took place during the day on a weekday so opportunities for the public to attend were clearly limited.  

*Cabinet Minutes October 24th 2016:

1.     Cabinet noted the STP submission for North West London. 


2.     Cabinet welcomed the principles adopted within the STP of prevention, out  of hospital care, dealing with the social care funding gap and the need to work across the public sector to maximise benefits from changes to the NHS and other public sector estate. 


3.     Cabinet noted that the STP will need formal sign off by the end of December and that between October and December the following issues need to be clarified both within the submission and through other NHS processes, in 
 order for the council to give full support for the plan:

a.     That the IMBC on which delivery area 5 is based is released, debated and understood; 


b.     That the flow of monies from acute to out of hospital settings are clarified; 


c.      That the specification for out of hospital settings, in particular social care, are clarified
based on an agreed model of out of hospital care; 


d.     That a full risk assessment for the plan and relevant mitigations are included.

Sharp surprise in store for bottoms relaxing on a Wembley street

Fed up with people sitting on their boundary wall and dropping litter into the grounds, landlords of Kings Court, Kings Drive, Wembley have turned to nature for a remedy.

Planting of pyracantha shrubs all along the low street wall has now been completed. Pyracantha is known for its sharp thorns so once the shrubs have grown a little more anyone sitting on the wall will get a sharp jab up the backside.

Meanwhile just around the corner, the Winston Churchill Lycee, occupying the old Brent Town Hall, has planted the more benign English privet along its boundary wall with Forty Lane.

Ken Montague: 'He made the seemingly impossible happen...and without fuss'

Tributes to Ken Montague from Campaign Against Climate Change

We are deeply saddened at the death of our friend and great climate campaigner and socialist, Ken Montague, who passed away last Friday.

Ken was secretary of the Campaign Against Climate Change trade union group and a member of CACC steering group for many years. During that time Ken played an invaluable role in developing the work of the trade union group and especially the One Million Climate jobs report and campaign.

Ken's work was unseen and often unsung but without it much of what the CACC trade union group have done in the last few years would not have happened. Ken's work allowed the trade union group to campaign increasingly effectively within the wider trade union movement, to develop a deeper understanding of the climate crisis, its relevance to the struggle of working people and to counter the false narrative that jobs and the environment are mutually exclusive.

Ken had so many skills that he put to use in the climate campaigning work which he prioritised in the final years of a lifetime of campaigning for a better world. Most especially Ken was a great organiser, he made the seemingly impossible happen and always without any great fuss.

One of his greatest feats was the organisation of the climate jobs caravan which involved organising two low emissions vehicles and the co-ordination of many, many people and events across the UK. The two week long event was hugely creative and successful. Arriving in towns and cities with a visible display of the campaign on the sides of the two vehicles, the tour was able to put the case for trade union campaigning on climate and for climate jobs in towns and cities across the country. It was a huge logistical operation, the bulk of the work carried humbly, as usual by Ken and was a testament to Ken's organisation, perseverance and equanimity.

Ken was also a great negotiator of situations and especially people. He had insight and empathy into individuals, their concerns and complexities. He used this regularly to great effect to help progress work in which there were conflicting views about how to take things forward. Ken didn't slide over differences of opinion but he always looked for ways through which encouraged understanding between people and more often than not a solution.

Such skills were last employed in one of Ken's last successful achievements before the news of his illness which was the organising of the first official fringe meeting for the CACC trade union group at this year’s TUC conference.

This time last year Ken was in Paris alongside 10,000s of climate activists from across the world, demonstrating for climate justice, despite a ban imposed by the French government. Many of us have wonderful memories of Ken from this time and the meetings and protests that he took part in. Coming out of Paris, Ken shared an optimism and determination, alongside others, about the growing climate movement and the necessity of an even more effective movement able to make connections and alliances in order to deliver the changes needed to tackle climate change.

It was as a result of the meetings and discussions that Ken had in Paris that he proposed to the CACC trade union groups the idea of a conference on climate change and refugees. Ken took the initial steps of setting this up, putting in place, despite as ever many logistical obstacles, the key organising group, speakers and venue in the months after his proposal. This important conference will take place next year on February 11th.

When Ken informed us only weeks ago that he was ill with cancer and his illness was terminal we all hoped that Ken would be able to be with us for this very important conference he had initiated. Unfortunately, Ken will not be there. But the conference should be and will be a huge testament to the work that Ken did and the immeasurable contribution Ken made to fighting for an equal, just and sustainable world.

We will all miss him greatly. He leaves an enormous gap which we will find hard to fill. We will miss his hard work, determination and positive outlook. We send our deepest condolences to Ken's family - his partner Janet and children Brendan, Kate and Alex, who have lost Ken far too young.

Suzanne Jeffery - Chair

On behalf of CACC steering group and CACC trade union group



Ken Montague died on Friday. When we heard the news, Nancy said, ‘How incredibly sad. He was so very nice.’

‘Yes’ I said, ‘He was nice. It’s incredibly sad.'

It stood out. Ken was nice because he was such a good man. He was kind. When people talked, he listened. He sympathised.

Another way he was good was in his dedication. He was a dogged, determined man, but not harsh. Ken was a trade unionist all his life. He was the secretary of Brent Trades Council during the Grunwick dispute, and secretary of his further education teachers branch for many years. He was a loyal member of the International Socialists, and then the Socialist Workers Party.

In his sixties Ken dedicated himself to climate activism. For the last several years he was secretary of the trade union group of the Campaign against Climate Change. It would be wrong to say Ken worked tirelessly, because he got tired. But he kept on working.

There was a thing that happened over and over at our meetings. We would be going through the agenda, generating jobs that needed doing. Then there would be a silence while none of us volunteered. Someone would suggest that Ken do it. Ken would nod. Someone else would say that we had already asked Ken to do too much, and other people would nod. But then another person would say, but Ken will actually do it. And heads would nod. Ken would say, I’ll do it, because he knew it needed doing. And also, he knew that actual human labour was what changed the world.

He did it because he cared. To listen to him talking about the planet, or socialism, or trade unionism, was to see someone putting his whole body, a whole world of emotion, into what he was saying. There was something about his shoulders, and the way he leaned forward. But he was never loud. Ken was passionate and gentle.

People said Ken was modest, but the word isn’t quite right. He was humble, really. He thought humble people should rule the earth. I think the way he saw it was, he was doing what he could. He held our one million climate jobs campaign together. He organised all our conferences. He talked to people. He put his heart into organising for a climate jobs presence at the Paris climate talks in 2015.
He never claimed credit, never pushed himself forward as a speaker. In fact he was shy about
speaking. But we started asking Ken to speak all round the country about climate jobs. I asked people how he was a speaker, and they said wonderful. Then I listened carefully as he spoke a few times. Ken was not showy. He was not loud, though everyone in the room could hear him. There were no rhetorical flourishes. What he did, I began to realise, was that he explained the situation we found ourselves in and what we had to do about it. And he explained it so clearly that everyone in the room could understand. I realised I was listening to an experienced, and very good, teacher.

I think that was at the core of Ken’s humility, his goodness and his dedication. Always it was for the other person. He wanted people to understand, so we could do something.

Ken was my friend, too, and I’m proud of that. After they found the cancer he died so much faster than anyone expected. Our thoughts are with his partner, Janet, and his children, Brendan, Kate and Alex.

Jonathan Neale

Brent getting a poor deal in Spur's Wembley Stadium deal, claims councillor

Tottenham Hotspur's win against CSKA Moscow last Wednesday may have done something to allay fans' doubts about the move to Wembley but Cllr John  Duffy has voiced doubts about the Council's capacity to achieve benefits to Brent residents.

In an email to all Brent councillors Cllr Duffy said:

To All Brent Councillors,

I am very concerned that the Wembley Stadium and Spurs planning application is being guided and manipulated by both officers and Cabinet members.It would seem they seek a solution, that will not fully benefit Brent residents . 

All Councillors are independent on this issue and Councillors should not be influenced by either Cabinet members or officers on a pre-agreed application and should seek to ensure and maximise the benefits for Brent.

Firstly you have to consider does Brent want Wembley stadium to be a home ground for a Premier League Club and do not we want the extra congestion, nuisance and general disruption. Unless we get real investment  from the FA, Premier League and Spurs, I believe the answer is NO.

It is clear that the Cabinet are unaware of the potential of ensuring the investment to alleviate the problems caused by Wembley hosting Spurs and have not negotiated a reasonable deal for the residents…..I am tired of Brent residents being short changed, therefore I  believe Councillors should oppose the application as it stands.

Please find an edited email I previously sent to the Labour Group, which outlined my concerns about the planning application and the lack of benefits for Brent.

The earlier email, sent only to the Labour Group of councillors, said:

Dear All,

As it is 99% definite,Tottenham Hotspur will be moving to Wembley and its also likely that Chelsea (they may go to Twickenham) will moving in the following year.Its time we sorted out a strategy to protect and improve our Environment, Sports Education , parking ,community and employment strategy, together with compensation for Brent  residents.

As Chair of planning when we knocked down the old Wembley stadium and a member of the Task force for Wembley Stadium regeneration I have seen negotiations close up with the FA and they will be tough and we need a clear strategy.

From memory Wembley were allowed 22 sporting advents and they were no envisaged to be the home venue for any football club.Therefore at this point I would advise not to accept a season long deal but to treat every game as an FA cup Final and expect resources to reflect this. There Are many safeguards we  need for residents.I will outline the basics without the detail.

(1) Environmental improvement. 
I would expect extra resources ( too many options to go into) plus investment into plant. I have not looked at other Boroughs but I am aware of some who get a massively enhanced service for match day.
(2) Parking. 
Increased protection/enforcement of the neighbouring area. 
(3) Sports Education.
Ensure Investment in equipment and sports teaching in our schools including visits from football stars. Its important both the FA and Premier League show their commitment to grass roots football.
(4) Community Support .
Financial support for community activities,including , local R/As ,St Patricks day,Eid and Navratri and maybe support for local group who participate in the Notting Hill Carnival.
(5) Employment strategy.
Ensure that Brent residents get their fair share of any new jobs/ training arising from  the extra games. Also local firms should get a fair share of the increased supply chain for contracts 
(6) Compensation for local Business and residents.
Whereas the some business will benefit many other will lose (who would travel to Wembley to shop on a match day) so its important we look at high street improvements. The new games coming to Wembley will not only be on a Saturday they will included Sundays and weekdays at various kick off times.

There are many ways to negotiate and you should not look at only the time the football club is there, you should seek a 2/3 year deal on things like sports education and community support.I think you should have a local councillor on the negotiations ( seems unlikely as the leadership reject a task force for Kilburn Regeneration and now all decisions are made by the Lead member ) so local input will be represented.In my opinion we should not over engage in the - presentations- Vol-au-Vents  and vanity projects system which some members of the Cabinet prefer. We should also not going in asking for jobs at LLW ( getting employers to pay LLW is a failure ) we should be looking better jobs in supervision and management training. Finally do not over rely on Officers who will seek a deal that suits them as administrators. 

It would seem that some of the cabinet wish to treat the FA, the Premier League and Tottenham Hotspur  as " partners" whereas I see them them as people who wish to make a lot of money while using the facilities of  Brent which I have no problem with. However I believe this should be reflected in how we support our residents.So hopefully the cabinet have an agreed strategy about what we need from the richest sport in the world and the most famous football venue in the world.
    And Brent should not be short changed for all the inconvenience