London boroughs ‘sharply divided’ over Mayoral rent policy - where does Brent stand?

A continuing issue in Brent, as in other London boroughs, is the precisie defintion of what is 'affordable' rent (often defined in planning applications as 'up to 80% of market rent' recognised as unaffordable for most ordinary families). This article highlights the issues regarding 'social rent'. First published at 24housing.co.uk.

With this week’s welter of housing announcements out of London, evidence has emerged of the boroughs being sharply divided over Sadiq Khan’s rent policy.

Campaigners have seized on data released under FoI they say shows that, for new council homes, the Mayor has agreed higher rents than the capital’s Council tenants have ever paid before – and in five boroughs yet higher unspecified rents have been agreed.

Responding to the claim, the Mayor’s Office said Khan specifically defined London Affordable Rent to have rent caps based on social rent levels – enabling money from national Affordable Rent programme to be spent on social rent level housing in the capita.

But seven other Boroughs seem to have have defied the Mayor’s policies.

With government funding, Khan has launched a £1bn programme ‘Building Council Homes for Londoners’, for new council-built homes in London – over 14,000 homes are to be built with the first round of funding.

The snag campaigners have caught onto has the Mayor promoting his London Affordable Rent (LAR – or ‘Mayor’s Rent’) which is £50 pw higher than standard council rents.

“Compared to an average London Council rent of £105.87 pw, the current London Affordable Rent rates applied to London’s stock mix produce an average of £158.85 pw.

So the average uplift is +£52.98 weekly, or +50.0%, all plus service charges,” says Paul Burnham, Secretary, Haringey Defend Council Housing.

The figures show:

·      Bedsit £150.03 instead of £82.93 (£67.10 more, +80.9%) London Stock 18,643

·      One-bed £150.03 instead of £92.61 (£57.42 more, +62.0%) London Stock 118,090

·      Two-bed £158.84 instead of £105.29 (£53.55 more, +50.9%) London Stock 137,511

·      Three-bed £167.67 instead of £120.49 (£47.18 more, +39.0%) London Stock 100,012

·      Four-bed £176.49 instead of £138.76 (£37.73 more, +27.2%) London Stock 14,656

·      Five-bed £185.31 instead of £153.03 (£32.28 more, +21.1%) London Stock 1,926

·      Six or more bedrooms £194.13 instead of £165.70 (£28.43 more, +17.2%) London Stock 447

“The Mayor says that London Affordable Rent is social rent, but seven London boroughs disagree,” said Burnham.

According to Burnham’s interpretation that’s Haringey, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden, Hackney, Greenwich, Southwark, and Waltham Forest.

The City of London, which owns council housing stock mainly in Inner London but outside the Square Mile, makes the list too.

“It gets worse, the Mayor has agreed that six boroughs can set rents for 1,166 homes at new, higher levels above what we were told were to be the Caps for Mayor’s Rent, said Burnham.

“We do not know why the Mayor has agreed this, and whether or not these rents are supposed to be Affordable of Intermediate – we have sent an urgent message to the GLA to find out,” he said.

The five even higher-rent boroughs are said to be Sutton (16 homes), Tower Hamlets (375), Brent (124), Barking and Dagenham (156) and Harrow (273).

Though named in the initial campaign claim, Hammersmith & Fulham said it had still to respond to the FoI.

GLA reports recognise higher social and affordable rents as a leading cause of poverty for lower income households with children, and people with low and uncertain incomes.

“But by his actions the Mayor is undermining Council Social Rent which is the gold standard of rental affordability.

“Decisions about rent policy are made by people who do not have any idea of the household expenses and family budgets of working class people,” Burnham said.

A spokesperson for the Mayor’s office said the Mayor is “very pleased” by the response to his Building Council Homes for Londoners programme, which will see councils build more than 11,000 homes at social rent levels.

“The national Government allows affordable rent to be up to 80% of market rents – a level the Mayor does not consider to be genuinely affordable to Londoners on low incomes in most parts of the capital.

“He specifically defined London Affordable Rent to have rent caps based on social rent levels, enabling money from national Affordable Rent programme to be spent on social rent level housing in the capital,” the spokesperson said.

Supporting its argument, the Mayor’s office released additional information showing:

·      Building Council Homes for Londoners allows all boroughs to set rent levels for the c.11,000 referred to above at or below London Affordable Rent caps, which includes social rents

·      London Affordable Rent is based on 2016 formula social rents and is only offered on new lets

·      Current average council rents on new lets are higher than current average council rents which include rents set historically

GLA grant allocation by housing tenure

Key

LAR – ‘Mayor’s Rent’, London Affordable Rent ‘at benchmark’.

SR – Social Rent.

LAR/SR homes – rented homes not yet allocated by tenure.

LLR – London Living Rent.

LSO – London Shared Ownership.

LLR/SO – intermediate homes not yet allocated by tenure.

Boroughs with all social/affordable rent as London Affordable Rent

Barnet £8,700,000. Total 87.                                       LAR 87.

Lewisham £37,700,000 Total 384.                             LAR 384.

Sutton £6,500,000 Total: 81.                                       LAR 65, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 16.

Redbridge (funding from Right to Buy receipts) Total 400. LAR 400.

Tower Hamlets £13,000,000 Total: 675.                  LAR 300, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 375.

Croydon £61,288,000 Total: 888.                               LAR 141, LAR/SR homes 326, LLR/SO homes 421.

Brent £65,610,000 Total 817.                                      LAR 572, LSO 121, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 124.

Ealing £99,352,000 Total 1,138.                                 LAR 934, LLR 71, LSO 133.

Hounslow £63,252,000 Total 741.                             LAR 657, LSO 84.

Barking & Dagenham £25,338,000 Total: 565.      LAR 228, LSO 156, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 181.

Havering £24,046,000 Total: 282.                              LAR 215, LSO 67.

Wandsworth £12,452,000 Total: 174.  LAR 22, Intermediate home ownership 2, 83 LAR/SR homes, LLR/SO homes 67.

Hammersmith & Fulham £15,308,000 Total: 251. LAR 115, LSO 13, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 123.

Harrow £32,144,000 Total: 618. LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 273, LAR/SR homes 307, LLR/SO homes 38.

Newham £107,476,000 Total: 1,123. SR 1,056 [we think that all of these rented homes are in fact LAR], LSO 67.

Boroughs with all social/affordable rent as Social Rent

Camden £30,800,000 Total: 308.                                                               SR 308.

Greenwich £32,600,000 Total: 588.                                                          SR 588.

Kensington and Chelsea £33,600,000. Total: 336.                               SR 336.

Hackney £45,556,000 Total 949.                                                                SR: 502, LSO 447.

Haringey £62,858,000 Total: 848.                                                              SR 567, LLR 232, LSO 49.

Waltham Forest £25,518,000. Total 293.                                                SR 232, LSO 61.

City of London £14,880,000. Total 156.                                                   SR 146, LSO 10.

Southwark £89,494,138 Total: 926.                                                          SR 891, LSO 35.

Boroughs with both Social Rent and London Affordable Rent

Enfield £18,108,000 Total: 571.                  LAR 392, SR 44, LSO 61, LAR homes (above benchmark rent) 74.

Islington £24,200,000 Total: 465.                               LAR 407, SR 58.

Hillingdon £11,678,000 Total: 347.                           LAR 40, SR 86, LLR 20, LSO 201.

Kingston £67,844,000 Total: 713.                              LAR 75, SR 590, LSO 48.

-->

Will Kilburn's 'Good Ship' sail again?

Voter registration event held at the 'Good Ship'

Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday December 12th will decide whether to approve an application for the site of the 'Good Ship' pub in Kilburn High Road. In June an application was turned down because it did not conform with the Council's pub protection policy (DMP21) and concern over the quality of accommodation that was to be provided. LINK

The application will be heard in the context of concern that Kilburn High Road is losing its live music venues and local residents will want to ensure that the pub that is now included will be financially viable and attract a tenants who will continue to put on events.

Camden Council objected to the frontage design but unfortunately their comments and those of local Brent councillors are not now available on the Planning Portal:

The officer's report LINK contains a detailed section on the proposed pub space. Note the reference to the fact that it is proposed that this provision is classified as A4 rather than D2 which would be appropriate for a venue that had  entertainment as its primary purpose:

In this submission the A4 unit is proposed to be retained, although it would have a different layout to the existing unit and be split level, occupying both the proposed basement and ground floor levels. Whilst the proposed development would no longer result in a loss, it is nevertheless important to give consideration to the principles behind DMP21. Whilst the A4 unit is being re-provided, the layout is changing and therefore attention needs to be given to the quality of the unit and its ability to operate in the long-term as a viable A4 use, even if the re-development is not resulting in a loss in itself. Therefore whilst criteria a) of DMP21 is no longer relevant to the proposal, the other criteria are to be considered in turn.

Criteria c) of DMP21 states that the proposal should not constitute the loss of a service of particular value to the community. There is no evidence to suggest that the premises were and are used to host local community events such as residents or local interest group meetings. However, a significant number of objectors have referred to the value that the premises provided in terms of the local night time economy, space for bands to play in, creative space and as one of the only places in the Kilburn area to provide live music and entertainment. The premises and its former function with Kilburn is therefore clearly valued to certain sections of the local community. It is therefore important that an acceptable A4 unit is retained. It would then be down to the operator to decide whether to continue to hold music events.

The layout of the unit is proposed to change and concern has been expressed the A4 unit would not offer good quality and usable floorspace so to appeal to a wide variety of tenants or to be used in future as a live entertainment venue similar to ‘The Good Ship’ .The existing unit occupies the ground floor with a sunken area to the rear and mezzanine level, with a floor area of 138m2 at ground floor with the mezzanine providing a further 22sqm of floorspace. Due to the creation of the basement, the proposed new unit would have a total floor area of 332m2, however it is acknowledged that greater floorspace does not necessarily equate to greater quality and part of the basement cannot be considered usable given that it would have to accommodate additional storage and toilets. Nevertheless, the basement would still increase floorspace and would be an open area contributing to the quality of the unit with the potential to operate in various ways associated with an A4 use.

In order to properly assess the quality of the space, a comparison of the usable areas of the proposed and existing ground floor, which is considered the most significant, has been undertaken. In relation to the existing unit, the main bar area measures some 6.5m wide x 11.3m long with the lower level measuring 6.6m x 4.6m. There is a circulation area adjacent the sunken floor level measuring 2.1m wide leading to the back of house area. It is raised that this area would typically not be considered practical usable space, nevertheless it has been counted as such in this assessment in that it would probably be a suitable standing area for people. In relation to the proposed unit, the main front area would measure 6.8m wide x 11.3m long (slightly wider than existing), with the opening through to the rear area measuring 4.7m (less than the existing 5.5m). At the rear the area measures between 6m / 5.1m wide x 10.5m long which equates to a total ground floor area of 146m2. Therefore whilst noting that the layout would differ from the existing, with no mezzanine proposed, the area of useable floorspace at the ground floor and the proposed layout of the unit would not be very different ( a loss of approx 14sqm at ground floor) from the existing so to conclude that the unit could not be used in a similar fashion to ‘The Good Ship’ or as a viable A4 unit in the future. The ground floor would also be double height throughout which would further ensure the quality of the space. Again, floorspace would be maximised through the provision of the basement

Objections have been received from local residents noting that Kilburn High Road has been identified as an important location for the night time economy and that the subject site makes an important contribution largely due to the fact that it is the only remaining live music venue on Kilburn High Road. The extent to which the reconfigured A4 unit would be viable as a future entertainment venue has already been discussed above, however, it is important to note that an entertainment venue would fall under use Class D2. Planning history indicates that the subject site was in A4 use long before it became the Good Ship (previously occupied by ZD bar) and there is no evidence of a planning application ever being submitted for the change of use to D2. Furthermore, if the opening hours of ‘ the Good Ship’ are considered these would support its primary use as an A4 unit given that the premises were open Monday to Sunday with long openings hours (17:00 – 02:00 and until 04:00 Fridays and Saturdays ). Therefore whilst the previous occupiers may have found their niche in terms of providing live entertainment to ensure their longer term viability, this does not appear to be the primary purpose of the unit and as such it is correct to assess the unit as an A4 use. Nevertheless, and as above, it is important to ensure that a similar venue could operate from the premises and it’s considered that this would be possible.

Whilst no longer a loss of the A4 use it is acknowledged that criteria b) of DMP21 states that the proposed alternative use should not detrimental affect the character and vitality of an area and should retain as much of the building’s external fabric and appearance as a pub as possible. In this case, although the building would be replaced, the existing building and in particular its frontage is not considered typical of the frontage of a traditional public house. The frontage does not have features typically associated with a public house that can be seen in other premises on Kilburn High Road and therefore the proposal is acceptable in relation to criteria b). Criteria d) is not applicable in this case as the premises are not registered as an Asset of Community Value.

Therefore when considering the quality, it is considered that the re-configured unit would have an acceptable layout so as to appeal to a wide variety of tenants and would have the potential to operate as a live entertainment venue if such a tenant wished to occupy the unit in future. Furthermore, given that the unit  would be of a suitable quality, it would not jeopardise or undermine the Kilburn High Roads designation within the draft London Plan as an important location for the night time economy. It is therefore considered that the previous reasons for refusal have been overcome and the principle of the re-development of the site is acceptable in this regard. A condition has been recommended to agree the fit-out details of the A4 unit, to ensure that it is constructed to a standard that will attract future occupiers and be viable.

-->

Muhammed Butt receives almost £3,000's worth of gifts and hospitality in five months

The latest declaration of gifts and hospitality by Brent councillors always makes interesting reading. As one would expect, Brent council leader Muhammed Butt tops the list. The value of his gifts and hospitality are for the period July 2018 to December 2018 but nothing is declared for November. The value of all his declarations so far in the period is £2,964.

Click bottom right corner to enlarge to PDF to full size:

'Slumlord' millionaire must pay £1.5m or spend 9 years in prison for flouting planning laws and exploiting desperate tenants

Press release from Brent and Harrow Councils

A notorious rogue landlord must pay £1,500,000 or spend nine years behind bars after justice caught up with him at Harrow Crown Court last Friday (30 November). The court found that Vispasp Sarkari had flouted planning rules for more than five years - converting properties across Brent and Harrow into substandard flats without planning permission.

Sarkari, 56, of Hawthorne Avenue, Harrow, had been cramming tenants into cramped and dangerous accommodation - charging them extortionate amounts in rent. His criminal enterprise included one property in Brent illegally converted into eight substandard box-room bedsits and four more similarly converted in Harrow.

He defied all planning enforcement warnings by both councils to stop the use of his properties and carried on with his criminal venture raking in thousands of pounds from people desperate to have a roof over their head.  

Cllr Tom Miller, Brent Council's Cabinet Member for Community Safety, said:

"Slum landlords won't be tolerated - plain and simple. If you ignore planning laws or leave tenants to languish in poor conditions, then we will find you, we will take action in court, and we will win. Anyone we find flouting planning or exploiting renters will feel a deep hole in their pockets after we've taken them to task."

Sarkari was also separately fined £12,000 and ordered to pay both councils' costs in full. It's believed that he may have several further properties across the two boroughs - making him responsible for a significant proportion of illegal flat conversions and HMOs blighting North West London. 

Cllr Keith Ferry, Harrow Council's cabinet member for planning, said:

"Justice means taking the ill-gotten gains off this slumlord millionaire. This is a man who thought he couldn't be stopped. He was wrong, and thanks to our joint work with Brent Council, Sarkari's criminal venture is finished.

"But he's not the only rackrent landlord out there, wrecking lives and ruining our boroughs by running illegal flats and HMOs. My message to the others is this: we'll never stop, we'll never give up, and when we catch you, we'll punish you too."

Extensive inquiries by both councils established the extent of Mr Sarkari's criminal activity. Brent also secured a restraint order against Mr Sarkari which means that he cannot dispose of his assets before the order is paid in full. If he doesn't pay up, then the Council can force the sale of his properties.


In sentencing Mr Sarkari, Judge Wood described the breaches as "a flagrant abuse of the Town and Country Planning legislation". She went on to thank everybody involved for their hard work in putting the case forward.


Harrow and Brent were represented by Counsel Mr Edmund Robb of Prospect Law. He said:

"The Confiscation Order of almost £1.5 m which has been made in this case represents major recognition by the Crown Court of the personal misery and amenity damage which is caused by blatant and longstanding failures by developers to comply with planning enforcement notices issued by local authorities in London."