'In-house' management of council housing favoured in Brent Council survey - Full Council debate April 20th

There will be a Special Brent Full Council meeting on Thursday April 20th, 7pm Civic Centre, to consider the outcome of the survey of council tenants and leaseholders on options for the future management of council housing in the borough.

2,937 residents responded to the survey (26% return) to consider the options:

a. Continue with Brent Hoising Partnership on a reformed basis
b. Bring the service back in-house under direct control of the council
c. Enter into partnership with another organisation to provide the service

49.1% of respondents supported option b with 55.6% of lease holders and 47.3% of tenants in favour.

After debate at Full Council the proposal to bring the service in-house will go to Cabineton Monday April 24th.

The decision will be made against the background of a deficit in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and further 'savings' and 'transformation' will be necessary:

1. The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) budget is £56.1m and is used for the management and maintenance of the HRA stock and for the repayment of the HRA debt. The HRA is a ring fenced account. The BHP Management Fee for the current year is £7.5m. This fee is for managing and maintaining the HRA properties on behalf of the Council. Core management costs, including this fee are £12.5m per annum.
   
2. 12.2  The Housing and Planning Act 2016 will have a significant impact on Brent’s Council housing and its financial position in coming years. The implications for which are continuously being reviewed with more comprehensive analysis to follow once the details are published by Government.
   
3. 12.3  Based on current assumptions and changes in the Housing and Planning Act,
   an efficiency savings target of circa £3.6m would be required to balance the HRA if the current assumptions on changes materialise.
   
4. 12.4  The savings to the HRA upon the initial implementation of the in-house housing management service are estimated to be £1m pa. These are provisional figures and will be refined as planning for the implementation of the selected option is progressed.
   
5. 12.5  The decision to bring the housing management service in-house alone is not sufficient to cover the gap without wider transformation. This, then, reinforces the need for further transformation in the service.
   

I hope councillors will explore what 'transformation' could involve when they debate the proposal.

AGENDA For Ful Council Meeting

Background:

The Council owns almost 11,500 homes, mostly flats on small and medium-sized estates, with around 7,700 tenants and 3,700 leaseholders. Around 43,000 people live in these homes - over 1 in 8 of Brent’s population. Around a third of tenants are over 60, 4% have a disability and 8% have a vulnerability of some kind. The Council is responsible for management and maintenance services and has delegated these to BHP since 2002, under a Management Agreement. BHP is a company with a Board of 13 people comprising residents, Councillors and independent persons with an independent chair. BHP provides all landlord services, directly or through contracts, including:

Tenancy Management – e.g. lettings, rent collection, resident engagement,

Right to Buy and the oversight of two Tenant Management Organisations. 


Leaseholder Management – e.g. service charges and major works. 


     Property services – e.g. estate management, repairs and major works 


    Development services – the delivery of a new-build programme on existing estates 


Now in Willesden Green: The onward march of high rise and student accommodation

Replace this...

with this:

Brent Council has designated various areas of the borough, particularly Wembley, as suitable for high rise development but it is apparent that there is seepage into other areas. Often one high rise once approved and built enables more as a precedent is set.

In Willesden Green the Queensbury project was subject to a community campaign based both on the saving of a pub as a community resource and the unsuitability of the planned new building in a conservation area. However Electric House at the junction of Walm Lane, Willesden Lane and the High Road was approved.

Now Electric House will have a part 8 storey, part 7 storey neighbour to replace the current 'meanwhile  space' shops of Queens Parade.

The applicant argues that the Council wish to see residential use of the site, the type of residential is not specified so that student accommodation complies.

There are around 2,500 student residences built or planned in the Wembley Stadium area but one, if only for 120 units, in Willesden Green sets a new precedent.

The planning application also includes 5 commercial units and a basement warehouse area.

It is early days for public comments but several objections are along the lines of this one from a resident in the neighbouring Electric House:

I wish to raise the following objections regarding application reference 17/0322:

1) Brent's Core Strategy CP2 states "The borough will aim to achieve the London Plan target that 50% of new homes should be affordable. At least 25% of new homes should be family sized (3 bedrooms or more)." The 120 high quality student units does not meet the definition of 'affordable housing' according to gov.uk; "social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market."

2) A planning application in 2013 for 34 residential units was refused on the basis that the density of the units would exceed the London Plan and Brent Council recommendations. The 120 studio units would far exceed the density of the rejected 2013 application

3) The 7 and 8-storey proposed buildings would have scale and design that harms the character and appearance of the Willesden Green Conservation Area

4) The existing buildings according to the 2013 committee report '...are considered to make a contribution towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area'. The demolition of these buildings will be a severe detriment to the Willesden Green Conservation Area.

5) The current amount of retail space is 590sqm, the planning application provides for 324sqm of retail space - a loss of 266sqm which would be an unacceptable threat to the high street.

6) In the absence of a legal agreement to control parking, the absence of an on-site servicing bay and a delivery and servicing plan to control servicing the proposed development will generate a demand for on-street parking and servicing that cannot be accommodated within the surrounding area and on Willesden Lane and Walm Lane, as such the development would give rise to highway conditions that would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety

7) The 2013 refused application suggested lack of road access to the retail units as a reason to refuse. If the proposed commercial units would be served by an access route surrounding Electric House, as a resident I object to service vehicles passing my window and causing a disturbance

8) Electric House has unresolved pest problems as evidenced by the rat traps laid out by Network Living near in the bin area. The addition of 120 students next door with will likely exacerbate the problem and create problems for the surrounding area

9) Brent have so far been unable to collect the refuse and recycling safely and on time from Electric House with only 25 units. There have been incidents of the doors being left open, and the recycling going weeks without collection. The additional 120 units will provide unwanted strain on these services.

Former Labour councillor James Powney writing about the proposal on his blog LINK says:

I think that [the development] is frankly too big.  Brent has a policy of concentrating tall buildings in its five growth areas for a reason - to protect the lower density developments in the rest of the Borough.  There is a creeping pressure on Willesden to accept bigger and bigger blocks.  Electric House was one of those, which I can accept because of its position at the head of a street.  Similarly with the Erin Court development from a much earlier time, but The Queensbury redevelopment was rightly refused as much too big. 

The provision of more student housing is also questionable in an area that already suffers from an extremely transient population.  In the past, Brent planning committee refused student accommodation at the former Spotted Dog development citing this as a reason.  The logic behind this has not changed.

So far there is only one supporting statement:

Overall I now support this revised plan as the proposed buildings will still enable the view of the Electric House clock.

I think that Westminster University would be good to approach as they have a site in Baker Street only 10 minutes away by Tube.

I would like to see that the buildings are clad in real red brick and not synthetic to match with the Conservation Area, and also would like see that the landscaping also extends to the building by providing a green roof or wall and bird boxes (swifts perhaps) in the design.

I like the idea of flexible shop space as we do lack larger shop accommodation for chains. But would like to see that the shop frontage conform to the design guide produced by Cllr Tom Miller for Willesden Green.

As for the existing tenants of the retail spaces, I would encourage the developers to find them alternative accommodation in some of the spaces that are empty along the High Road to make up for the disruption to their businesses and the fact that they are unlikely to be able to afford the higher rents that no doubt will happen.

Perhaps one of the retail spaces could be a technical hub (with cafe?)? This would be suitable for students to use and also would enable the local population to use the facilities as we have many who work from home and would welcome such an initiative. And enable them to have a meeting place with clients.

LINK to application 17/0322

Time to let the public in on Brent's plans for Northwick Park

Land and property at Northwick Park

The 'One Public Estate' (OPE) strategy adopted by the Brent Cabinet in January with little discussion (it was item number 16)  has made little impact on the public so far, but that will change as details become more widely available.

Basically all the public sector owned property in one area - council, health, police, fire, education is put into one pot and then looked at in terms of rationalising and maximising the assets. In health this overlaps with the 'delivery' of the controversial Sustainability and Transformation Plans, in education the supply of school places, and in regeneration the supply of affordable and temporary housing but prhaps 'subsidised' by some privare housing,

Although referred to as 'public sector property' perhaps it should be termed 'public property' with the public having a major say in what might amount to the privatisation and monetisation of public assets.

The Cabinet paper said:

  OPE is an initiative delivered in partnership by the Cabinet Office Government Property Unit (GPU) and the Local Government Association (LGA). It provides practical and technical support and funding to councils to deliver ambitious property-focused programmes in collaboration with central government and other public sector partners. 


Brent failed in a bid for Wembley (it was called 'unambitious') but succeeded in getting  £270,000  over three years for a 'Northwick Park regeneration programme':

Local people will be keen to get some detail, especially on how it will affect the green space in Northwick Park and other local assets:

The Cabinet Report describes the project (my emphasis):
 

-->

Northwick Park based around the agglomeration of public sector ownership at Northwick Park, delivering a wide variety of benefits including for example: growth via new homes and development; efficiencies via generation of capital receipts; and integrated services via a new energy centre. Current Partners are: London Borough of Brent, Northwick Park Hospital, University of Westminster, Network Homes Ltd, with anticipated future partners: London Borough of Harrow, Transport for London, Greater London Authority, Care and Commissioning Group (CCG) 


Northwick Park Pavilion Community Asset Transfer

It should be noted that the Northwick Park Pavilion is currently included in the Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Programme. There is potential for a joint approach to the provision of sport at Northwick Park, with considerable demand generated by the University and Hospital. The pavilion could play a significant role in such provision. Brent’s land holdings at Northwick Park are substantial, but are largely made up of playing fields, and the pavilion is one of the few pieces of built infrastructure that Brent can add to the OPE mix. Accordingly it is proposed that the Pavilion be withdrawn from the CAT programme.

The original CAT proposal was submitted by the Parnell Gaelic Football club (PGFA), and reported to Cabinet on 8^th February 2016, when it was resolved to approve the marketing of the Northwick Park Pavilion (Main Hall and Ancillary Areas) as a CAT opportunity for a seven year lease. Discussions have recently been held with the PGFA, who have confirmed their understanding that the Council’s position on the CAT is under review, and as an alternative they are prepared to submit a proposal to lease the premises, after suitable marketing by the Council. It is believed that offering a five year lease with an option to determine at the third year would provide sufficient security for the PGFA whilst at the same time ensuring its availability for the wider Northwick Park project.

Clearly residents will be interested in the proposed new energy centre and will want details of any environmental impact.

Click to enlarge

 It is also unclear whether any of these plans will impact on Northwick Park Open Space itself. The 'landmark residential development'  with shops and cafes sounds quite a major development - and will some of the homes be private and unaffordable for local people?

There's certainly scope for some key questioning of candidates at the Northwick Park ward Labour selection meeting on Monday, where the deputy leader, Margaret McLennan, is one of the candidates.

Another area that Brent Council is also sponsoring as a possible project is Vale Farm which again has a considerable amount of green open space owned by the Council.

The Brent Property and Asset Strategy 2015-19 specifically mentioned Vale Farm but also  mentioned other open spaces that are a 'maintenance liability'.  Definitely a matter of 'watch this SPACE'!

There is scope to consider the re-planning and re-provision of the combined sports facilities at Vale Farm and there may be scope to consider similar opportunities in Roe Green and King Edward Parks. In addition there are a small number of open spaces across the Borough which remain under-utilised and potentially are a maintenance liability and this strategy proposes a review of this with a view to exploring their potential for either alternative uses in line with Borough Plan and Regeneration priorities, or alternatively Community Asset Transfer.

Join Welsh Harp clean up on Saturday

Join Thames21 to spruce up the Welsh Harp around  Neasden Recreation Ground and learn why plastic pollution is such a problem. The Welsh Harp is a very important Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), however high amounts of littler damage the habitats which made the Welsh Harp a SSSI. Our task is to remove all of the plastic litter damaging this amazing landscape.

Help to create an inviting space for people and wildlife and improve your understanding of rivers, plants and animals at the same time.

All welcome and all equipment will be provided. Under 16’s need to be accompanied by a responsible adult.   Please bring a packed lunch. Tea and Coffee will be provided.  Meeting in the car park off Aboyne Road inside Neasden Recreation Ground 10am.

Labour's nominations for Dollis Hill and Preston Wards May 2018

Dollis Hill branch has selected: Parvez Ahmed, Liz Dixon, Arshad Mahmood

Preston branch has selected: Ihtesham Afzal (Sham), Daniel Kennelly, Anita Thakkar

Somali mothers to lead discussion on eradicating FGM in London - Friday, Chalkhill Community Centre

The Welford Centre is also known as Chalkhill Community Centre

Haringey Council's subsidy to Spurs revealed as Brent Council leader meets concerned residents

Wembley Champions, the residents and small businesses umbrella group that fought against the 'Twin Towers' that is to replace Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road and also opposed the increase in full capacity events at Wembley Stadium, are to meet with the leader of the Council and senior officers about their concerns about developments in Wembley with a vew to a public meeting later. LINK

Wembley high rise building from the stadium ramp

 Meanwhile Spurs has been given an extension of the deadline to sign up for the Wembley Stadium and must now agree the deal by April 30th. Spurs chairman, Daniel Levy, has suggested that due to delays in getting the construction of the new Spurs stadium underway that the team may play their home games at White Hart Lane next season.  Chelsea waits in the wings...

During the planning application debate the applicants stressed the financial advantage to local businesses of more high capacity events (not shared by the High Road Business Association) and there were suggestions that the deal would also be advantageous to the Council and thus to council tax payers.

However a Freedom of Information request to Haringey Council suggests that the traffic is not all one way LINK:

Public Subsidy to Tottenham Hotspur:

In February 2012, Cabinet approved a £27m Funding and Investment Package for North Tottenham. The funding comprised of £18m of funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) and £9m funding from the council. This included a decision to allocate £8m of funding for ‘public realm and heritage improvements’ linked to the Northumberland Development Project (the new stadium and associated development currently underway by Tottenham Hotspur) scheme.

Via a Cabinet Member Decision to be taken in April 2017, we will be seeking approval to enter into formal grant agreements with THFC to contribute £7.5m (£500,000 of the £8m funding has previously been used to contribute to the North Tottenham Heritage Initiative) for the public realm and heritage improvement works Tottenham Hotspur Football Club (THFC) will be undertaking as part of the NDP scheme.

Since February 2012, the Council has also undertaken the following funding transactions with THFC:

§  £32,898 to THFC for services such as room hire
§  £644,215 to the Tottenham Hotspur Foundation (THFC’s charitable
foundation)  for the delivery of programmes relating to health, social
care, community development, education and employment
§  £4,000 to Tottenham Hotspur Ladies Football Club for sports and activity programmes

You can access a copy of the original 2012 Cabinet report in the Cabinet meeting pack here:
[1]http://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/docum...
The report specific to the funding package for Tottenham Hotspur can be found on page 143 of the document (page 149 of the pdf)

Brent Civic Centre 'vanity' road cracking up

-->

Former Liberal Democrat councillor and council leader, Paul Lorber, has written to Brent Council drawing attention to the deterioration in the paved road outside the £100,000,000 Brent Civic Centre:

I note that the very expensive section of the 'paved' road on the approach to and outside the Civic Centre is crumbling away and in a very poor state.

Clearly the type of paved surface was totally unsuitable in a busy location where there is substantial and on going builder lorries traffic.

Can you confirm who advised on the design, type of materials used and the cost of the road. Can you then investigate whether the contractors responsible can be brought back to upgrade the road at their expense.

Finally in view if the fact that local residents are having asphalt imposed on them ( in place if perfectly good and repairable) paving slabs (Medway Gardens at a cost of £172,000 and others) can you confirm if the useless modular road blocks in the area outside of the Civic Centre will now be ripped up and also replaced with asphalt and at what cost.

Brent Council Highways and Infrastructure Service responded:

The choice of materials specified for the raised table was discussed with the manufacturer prior to construction. The manufacturer confirmed that the materials specified were suitable for the level of forecast traffic. This included very deep (150mm)  black granite setts on the main part of the table to ensure maximum durability. The specification for the road construction of the table was based on a drawing provided by URS Infrastructure and Environment UK Limited. URS were the engineering consultants working at the time with the Civic Centre architects and had been tasked with preparing the detailed design of the raised table which was then taken forward by council officers.  The road construction included the provision of a new concrete slab, the depth of which was determined by standard CBR testing carried out by the Council’s contractor ConwayAecom. A high strength mortar was also specified to provide maximum support and strength to the paved carriageway surface.

We are aware of the  condition of the paved section of the road outside the civic centre, which in some areas has got worse over the winter. We are commissioning  investigations, including a Ground Penetrating Radar Survey, to ascertain the cause or causes of the problem prior to formulating solutions for permanent repairs. Whether the problem turns out to be a construction or a design problem, or a mixture of both,  we will be talking to our contractor about how to put it right. However under the contract, the “defects period” is 12 months and as the paved area construction was completed in 2013 , the “contractual guarantee” period for the work has long since expired. Nevertheless and depending on what we find, we are expecting the contractor to be accountable  for any issues for which they are responsible.

Until the investigations are complete and the solutions formulated we are not in a position to estimate the cost of the repairs.

Lorber replied:

Can you please confirm the cost of the surveys/investigations you refer to and who will pay for them.

If any remedial repairs have been carried since 2013 please advise on the total cost too.

My primary concerns are simple.

1. The road outside the Civic Centre was not built to a standard construction using normal materials. It was a special and a very expensive road.

2. The road surface has clearly failed and will be very expensive to repair and to maintain in the future.

3. Why is the road simply not dug up and replaced with normal asphalt/tarmac material?

4. I ask because ripping up paving slabs and replacing them with asphalt is now the recommended officer solution to pavement issues in residential streets - as evidenced by our continuing exchanges about Medway Gardens in Sudbury.

5. If the solution - taken in cost grounds (which I have challenged) is being forced through in Medway Gardens (despite local residents opposition) why is the same 'cost effective' solution not being pursued in the case of the road outside the Civic Centre?

It was a 'vanity' project and a very expensive road in the first place but since taxpayers money is at stake why are the same policies and approach being pursued in this case as are being forced through against the wishes of local people in other areas?

Perhaps the Chief Executive as Head of Service will respond to this apparent inconsistency and issue appropriate instruction.