'Don't let the council kick us out!' St Raph's residents come out fighting, insisting they have the final say on the future of the estate

Will the green space become the preserve of private flats as it did in West Hendon?

 This is a report from one of those St Rapahel's residents attending Monday's meeting held independently to discuss Brent Council's proposals for the future of the estate:

There was a good turn out at both meetings held by St Rapahel’s Estate residents on Monday evening  about Brent Council’s proposals to either demolish and rebuild the estate, with some private housing, or refurbish it with some additional floors above the flats and some new housing.

At least 98% of the residents who turned up wanted to stay in their homes and  many signed the petition for refurbishment, the option that  allows them to do so.

Families and the elderly were asking, "What can we do?  What can we do to stop this? We answered. “We must  keep telling the council that they stated. 'You the residents have the final say.’”

Councillor Muhammed Butt was invited to the meetings and attended alongside a senior member of  PPCR Associates, Lorraine Ophelia. The Independent Advisor company  that had been chosen only reluctantly by resident.

Residents questioned  Cllr Butt about the proposals for the estate  but as usual they didn't get any straight forward answers.  He got very agitated and angry at times.

The majority of residents did not want to vote for any of the independent advisors put forward by the council and wanted more time to have the choice of finding their own. They were unhappy that they had not been involved in the procurement process and also wanted it rescheduled due to the small turn out at the Independent Advisor selection meeting.

This is an edited version of the speech given by resident John Wood at the meetings:

I want to thank you for coming along this evening. My Name is John Wood I am a council tenant and have lived happily with my wife and family on St Raphs estate for over 25 years. Along with other concerned residents and stakeholders we have funded and organised this meeting, as the council have ignored our requests to facilitate a meeting of the residents for the residents. We believe they are deliberately trying to prevent us from joining together to oppose their plans for St. Raphs. I know that you will all have your own views and preferences about what should happen, but I hope we are all united by the belief that nothing should happen without the consent and approval of the majority of those affected by those plans.

Can I ask a question if there were no plans for redevelopment or refurbishment how many of you like me would be happy to continue living on St. Raphs? Could I have a show of hands please?

So that would be the majority then...

As you will no doubt be aware the council have made a decision that they are going to build some new homes on the estate. They put forward 2 proposals.

.        1.)  That they build homes on the available land with the possibility of building more floors on top of some the existing flats. 


.        2.)  That they will demolish the whole estate and rebuild new homes. 


.         

They have said that ultimately it is us the residents who will get to choose which option they will go with. Brent are collecting our views in a very controversial way. No ballot of the residents, no open recorded meetings only closed and secretive drop in meetings at which we’re told not to record anything.

To date they have managed to hold a three public meetings, where there was absolute chaos. After that they held meetings, drop in sessions. We were told that we could not record these meetings and they insisted that we be split into small groups. people could ask questions of the councillors and the officials present with only that group hearing the replies. No record of what was asked or said.

Then there was the election of the Independent advisor. Sadly, only 2 of the original 5 bodies invited to tender made presentation. Reluctantly we voted and there was a clear winner. With a total of 47 votes how can this be right there are over 1100 homes being affected by these proposals.

The council promised that they would put the minutes of the evening onto the info page on the council website to date this has not happened.

Oh yeah, did you get the newsletter issue 2? What a crock, page 2 “you said, we did”.... We wanted clear accessible information. “We are regularly updating the web page.”  January was the most recent update. You said you wanted us to address your concerns publicly and in writing. No one has had the decency to reply to my expressed concerns perhaps they missed me out as they were so busy replying to all of yours.

The drop in sessions were no more than talking shops no one I have spoken to has a clear understanding or was less in the dark than myself, about what is happening. Indeed, confusion reigned it appeared that some had been told one thing and others another. So understanding of what, when, why and how was as clear as mud. At first I thought this was just poor organisation on the part of the council, but have since realised it was the intention of the council not to allow the people to organise, record and reflect on the issues. Keep them in the dark and feed them Sh... crap.

I have lobbied the Council and the leader of the Council, Cllr. Muhammed Butt and requested that they provide a meeting room and facilitate a meeting at the children’s centre on the estate, for the residents so that we may discuss in open forum and debate the issues so that we may be able to compose questions and raise our concerns and take this back to the council for answers. To date the only person who has had the courtesy to reply on the 7^th March, was Cllr Ezeajughi. Who in his reply said;

“Regarding your request for a meeting at the children’s centre, do discuss that with the officers when they contact you. (No one has ever contacted me.) however you may recall that we had the residents meeting there on 16^th December and realised that the venue was not suitable (not large enough) to contain people.”

No alternative being made available, we contacted Father Patrick who kindly agreed to allow us to use the church hall for the purpose of this evening I would like to heartedly thank him for agreeing to allow us to meet here.

Brent have now entered the next phase of the managed consultation process where the independent advisor will liaise with the residents in order that they can understand the will of the residents i.e. do they want option 1 or option 2.

It’s my belief that this again it will not be given over to open debate or any form of ballot. No it will be done as a conversation. Would you like to see more cleaner environment? Would you like to have better facilities? Would you like a more secure environment? And so it will go. Then the independent advisor will report back to Brent. Amazingly they will report a massive majority in favour of improvement we will all be in agreement, after all which of us wouldn’t like to see all the proposed improvements we been waiting years just to minor improvement.

The only problem with all of this is that the best way to accommodate the expressed wishes of us all to see improvement, will of course be to kick us all out of our homes and demolish the estate so that they can have a private developer come in, use the prime river frontage overlooking the park to develop new million pound apartments for private owners and then build some high density boxes in the sky to decamp people like me, the social tenants into.

I urge you to resist allowing Brent to kick us out and use our homes to pay for the new estate. We must unite and speak as one if we are to overcome Brent’s dastardly plan.

I acknowledge that some, may be even the majority, will disagree with my preference to remain in my home. As is your right. For those of you with concerns I urge you to join in asking Brent and the independent advisor to ballot us. This will prove the will of the people and we can move on with whichever is the majority view.

However, I would urge you to look closely at the proposal if you are an owner, freeholder or leaseholder if you decide to accept the council’s offer and sell, will you be advantaged or disadvantaged?  Not only will you have to find a new home but you will have to move all of your possessions, pay stamp duty on your new home, as well as say good bye to all your friends and neighbours on St Raphs. How exasperating and upsetting would it be? When you could just say no to redevelopment and stay in your home.

Some leaseholders have expressed to me that they are concerned that if Refurbishment occurs and the council build new dwellings above their homes, then the council will hit them with the cost of these works. I say to those of you with such fears they can only do this if you stand alone, but if we stand together, we can stop them. If the council want to develop new homes, then the council should fully fund those new homes indeed compensate those affected and inconvenienced by these works after all it is the council / landlord who will profit from the rental income. Not you! so why should you be made to pay!

Some tenants who are living in overcrowded conditions have expressed they want redevelopment as the council have said that when they are rehoused they will be given suitable accommodation. I say if that is the case why have they simply not offered this now! Answer they don’t have anywhere, so I urge you to see past their misinformation. If St. Raphs is redeveloped we will all be moved out to temporary accommodation, don’t worry it will only be for a little while whilst we rebuild (up to five years) Then you can come back to lovely new accommodation suitable for your needs. Brent are of course hoping that some of the more elderly people will have passed on and that some of the younger ones will have reached 18 so no longer need to be housed by the council, but don’t worry they can go and rent one of those new overpriced flats they are  building by the stadium.  There are thousands of them.

Sadiq Khan the London Mayor has said redevelopment or refurbishment must be done in consultation and agreement of the residents. So if we can show that there is a majority in favour of refurbishment then Brent will not be able to push forward and kick us out of our homes.

We have requested that the Independent Advisor hold a postal ballot of the residents, asking do they want refurbishment with infill or demolition and redevelopment.

As well as this we are asking people to sign a petition so that we can evidence the will of the residents to remain in their homes.

After this we would like to propose that we form a formal residents group and have nominations for a chair person so that we can make formal representation to Brent to have our views and concerns dealt with in an open and honest way.

Brent People's Revolt on three fronts

If Muhammed Butt thought that achieving 60 out of 63 seats on Brent Council at the local council election would mean a quiet life with no opposition to his one party rule, he has had a nasty surprise.

He is currently faced with three 'people's revolts', in Stonebridge, St Raphael's Estate and South Kilburn.  Not coincidentally these are three areas of Brent with, to use the jargon, 'disadvantaged' populations:  diverse, ethnic minority and working class.  They feel failed and marginalised by the Labour Council but are organising and fighting back.

Far from accepting Brent Council's back door attempt to remove the Bridge Park Complex from the community, Stonebridge residents have won the first round of a legal challenge in the High Court and mobilised mass support, most evident in the public meeting, covered by this blog, of more than 1,000 people. They have not just mobilised people but have raised funds and attracted professional support in their battle. At the heart of the campaign is  anger at the council's lack of consultation with the community and a disrespect for local people.

Across the North Circular residents on the St Raphael's Estate are also organising with two public meetings tonight on the council's proposals to demolish the estate and rebuild partly financed by private housing. Residents see the proposals as backdoor gentrification which would mean the destruction of the existing solid community and loss of green space. They instead favour a refurbishment of the existing buildings but  fear that this is not really an options as far as the council is concerned. They too have had over-flowing meetings of local residents and are distrustful of the consultation process. Their billing of the meeting as 'by the people, for the people' shows where they are coming from.

South Kilburn has long been a thorn in Councillor Butt's side and having seen off Cllr Duffy he might have thought he was in the driving seat on regeneration proposals. Not so. The crowded public gallery at last week's Scrutiny Committee on the Carlton-Granville proposals, the record number of speakers from the public, and the representation of the community's opposition by two ward councillors was a powerful demonstration of people power. They raised fundamental questions about the council's consultation strategy as well as the lack of democratic accountability of the South Kilburn Trust.

Carlton-Granville comes back to the Cabinet on Monday April 15th with a report on the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations (incidentally not yet available on the council's website).

Both the Bridge Park and Carlton-Granville campaigners have put together well-researched alternative proposals to the council's and St Raphael's residents are developing their own vision for the refurbishment of their estate.

As far as I know there are currently no formal links between the three campaigns but if they came together they would represent a formidable force. Watch out Uncle Mo!

Row looms over Brent Council's proposals for an 'Alternative Provision' free school

The proposal to set up a free school at the £5m Roundwood Centre has surfaced again to be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet.  This time it is called ‘Alternative Provision Free School with Integrated Youth Offer from the Roundwood Youth Centre’ shortened to Alternative Provision School.

I covered the proposal that followed Brent Council cutting youth provision even more severely in its proposed budget  than hitherto, leaving Roundwood free standing with few direct services. Roundwood Centre’s funding source via the Big Lottery MyPlace scheme meant that it could not be closed by Brent Council without penalty.

On January 17^th I drew attention to the proposal for a free school/academy on the site LINK:

In addition the council proposes that a PRU (Pupil Referral Unit) be set up in the Centre. This would provide for pupils temporarily excluded from school. It would be classified as a new school and as such would have to be a free school or part of a multi-academy trust. It is proposed that it be run by Brent Special Academies Trust (currently consisting of Manor and the Avenue special schools).

Given Labour’s policy of not creating any new free schools and academies this is controversial within the local Labour Party. This is not only about the issue of lack of public democratic accountability of academies but also the very ad hoc way special needs provision is being developed in Brent and the backdoor privatisation of most of the borough’s non-mainstream special needs provision. A practical issue is whether the BSAT has any relevant experience in running a PRU -  a different kettle of fish from managing special schools.

The Budget Scrutiny Task Force recognised this dilemma stating:

It is far from ideal in our opinion, that this new school would be a free school, but unfortunately the law ensures that new schools opening are always outside of local education authority control. Perhaps a change of central government policy [a Corbyn government?] in future may allow the school to one day become part of the Brent family.

The arrangement is also not perfect for Brent because the asset would transfer to Brent Academies Trust meaning any additional income they derive from hiring out other rooms on site would not be retained by the council, However we will retain some oversite (sic) of the organisations as a senior officer will sit on the Trust’s board.

Later on the evening that this post was published Brent Counci leader Muhammed Butt was asked about it at a Brent Labour Party meeting and I published a follow up on Saturday January 19^th LINK:

According to several sources at the Labour Party meeting on Thursday evening Cllr Muhammed Butt said that the PRU (Alternative Provision) would be run by the Local Authority and was not suitable for a school.  He then muddied the waters by vaguely commenting that the authority was part of a consortium looking to set up a free school.

I sought clarification from Muhammed Butt asking:

I’ve heard that you told LP meeting last night that PRU at Roundwood Centre will be run by the LA and not a MAT. Is that correct? If so does Roundwood remain the property of Brent Council? I’d like to put the record straight if the Budget Scrutiny Report was wrong.

Butt replied, somewhat unhelpfully, that he never discussed Labour Party matters externally.

I also asked Brent Council Press Office for a comment but they did not respond.

The proposal now is not that the Brent Special Academies Trust runs the free school/Pupil Referral Unit but that Brent Council seeks a sponsor via the ‘Free School Presumption route.’:

The Free School presumption route whereby the council would advertise a proposal to establish a new school and invite DfE approved academy sponsors to apply to run the school. The council is responsible for providing a site and buildings.

The Secretary of State would make the final decision on a sponsor.

The Council often refers to the Brent ‘family of schools’ to include local authority schools,  academies and free schools, but only local authority schools are under direct Brent Council oversight and democratic accountability and funded via the Council’s distribution of the Direct Schools Grant . Academies and free schools are directly funded by the government.

The Cabinet report notes:

Once open the council would commission places from the Alternative Provision School, funded from the High Needs block of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Currently, the council commissions alternative provision places from within the borough at Brent River College and from external providers. The Alternative Provision School would allow an increased proportion of pupils to be placed in Brent. The procurement process should therefore consider the rates the provider would charge the council and secondary schools for commissioning places, as this will have an impact on the DSG, and there is potential to achieve better value for money for High Needs Block.

-->

On the Budget Scrutiny’s concern over the transfer of the asset the Cabinet report states:

The intention is for one single overall provider working with relevant partners to deliver the Alternative Provision School combined with the integrated youth/community offer. The Council would retain the freehold for Roundwood Youth Centre but the deed of designation would transfer to the new provider, who would take on responsibility for maintenance of the building.

Clearly the ‘deed of designation’ needs careful scrutiny if Brent is not to lose another of its assets, albeit one protected by MyPlace restrictions. The association of the proposal with budget cuts is made clear in the Financial Implications section of the Cabinet Report:

The budget for the Roundwood Centre and the associated MyPlace budget totalled £360k before a reduction of £250k is applied, as per the youth service saving (ref no. CYP005) approved as part of the 2019/20 budget setting process in February 2019. The saving to the General Fund is to be achieved by ending Council run and directly funded youth services from the site creating savings on premises costs, and creating a different model of community and voluntary provision. This model would come into effect when the Alternative Provision School plans to open in January 2020, so the running costs of the Roundwood centre and cost of any operational activity up until this date would need to be 
contained within the residual £110k budget, or alternative in-year savings would need to be found across the Inclusion service.

It is proposed that the Alternative Provision School would be based at the Roundwood Centre. As mentioned in paragraph 5.1, the Roundwood Centre is subject to a Big Lottery Fund MyPlace grant agreement which is protected by a restriction on the council title at the Land Registry and therefore the form of lease would be subject to the approval of the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. 


The Council claim that they have sought and received agreement in principle from the DCMS for the proposed use of this MyPlace funded site. 

Following on from the controversy over the  Village School academisation and the suggestion from Labour Party members  that Brent Council, and especially its leader Muhammed Butt, were not following Labour Party policy on academies and free schools, this proposal is likely to be seen as another move to privatise education.  Following on from the almost total (apart from The Phoenix) academisation of SEND education, provision for vulnerable pupils is also being removed from Brent Council responsibility and accountability.

The Cabinet report gives a long list of consultations but nowhere is there a report on the outcome of the consultations. We are expected to presume that that the consultees were in favour. I have submitted an FoI request asking for any reports/minutes on the outcome of the consultations. LINK

War or Peace in Afghanistan? - Meeting April 8th Brent Trades Hall

An alternative vision for Granville and Carlton. Response from Brent Council awaited.

This is the 'alternative vision for Carlton Granville' that was mentioned at the Scrutiny Committee hearing. Leslie and Deidre have certainly done their homework!

An alternative vision for Granville and Carlton

Introduction

Granville Community Kitchen and The Otherwise Club are proposing an alternative vision for the Granville/Carlton site. The site will be the central non-denominational community hub for South Kilburn, that meets the social, educational and wellbeing needs of residents, managed by an (alliance or consortium) of South Kilburn residents, groups and organisations.

The development of such an organisation is more in line with the vision promoted in the Localities Act 2012. It is based on respect, equity and partnerships that is truly representative and inclusive of the community. An organisation where all the stakeholders have an equal say in what goes on and how the site is run through dialogue, democratic decision-making and mutual support. It is a vision where stakeholders have the commitment and determination to make it the best place to deliver all the services that South Kilburn needs and deserve, and to preserve the heritage of the buildings and provide a legacy.

A community consortium

A community led consortium consisting of all the site’s stakeholders, some local resident positions and other local organisations such as Global Skills Centre, Canvas Arts and other unconstituted groups would be responsible for the management of Granville/Carlton and service provision. This includes public liability, licences, maintenance, health and safety , marketing, accessibility and other areas of responsibility that go with running a public asset.

This would take financial pressure off the Council to maintain the site and to deliver services. Due to its diverse makeup it will be able to offer a range of services responsive to local needs. Given the densification of the area and the loss of community spaces locally, community space is even more vital. Granville/Carlton is unique in its size and ideally located and suited to deliver wraparound services as a community hub.The Granville/Carlton buildings were originally separate although side by side but now need to be considered as one site. 

The site has historically always been used for community, education and social welfare. These buildings have since their inception been used by the people of South Kilburn as places of refuge, first as a school and then as an adult education centre and community centres. It is envisaged that these would be the continued purpose of the site for the new organisation. The object of this proposition is to secure the Granville/Carlton site and attendant buildings for the people of South Kilburn for perpetuity. To do this we need to create a legal instrument, a new organisation that will be community-led, including current stakeholders to hold and manage the site and buildings. This organisation will develop a business plan that will enable it to run and maintain the site and buildings. We would establish a Granville Carlton Alliance run by the community to oversee these buildings for the community in perpetuity. This would be a self financing organisation which is viable, credible, transparent and accountable to the South Kilburn community.

Building use

The building will retained as existing and the largest spaces reinstated as community halls. During the Youth and Community Service time the building was self financing through rental of the halls.  This is the sustainable heart of the both financially and socially. Retaining and upgrading the buildings with suitable technologies is more environmentally sustainable than the present plans. The section of Granville built in 2005 that is still perfectly fit for purpose with happy tenants. We would not build housing on 2/3 of the Granville building and site going against cabinet promises made to safeguard Carlton and Granville in 2016. 

We would return the Granville hall to its rightful place as the centrepiece of these buildings. We would ensure the use of these buildings to support a community to feel proud about itself and glad to be a part of. To further the important work of the South Kilburn Trust they would move to The Carlton, Centre, a building much better suited architecturally, and a community cafe would be reinstated there.

This project will have an enormous beneficial impact on the local economy and community cohesion. Already it has provided a positive focus for residents. Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods are well known in the area. With their long term work, track record of community led project development and excellent connections in various parts of the community, in London and further afield are both well placed to carry this work forward.

Proposal summary

To make this possible local organisations will come together in a consortium. To do this we will secure professional help from consultants to:

1.   Support the development of a legal entity that puts local voices in the lead based in the community to drive the project forward and manage it once it is up and running.

2.   Develop a business plan to plan infrastructure funding and move forward toward securing the buildings on a permanent basis from the council.

3.   Develop a detailed strategy and financial plan for management of the site, including a reconfiguration of existing business and community hub provision.

4.   Provide forums and other mechanisms for meaningful involvement of the community on a long term basis. Identify barriers to participation and address them, such as childcare.

All of this is developed with meaningful participatory processes including the residents and local community at every stage.

Short to medium term future

The Granville hall is the heart of the site emotionally, and central to a viable financial plan. To reinstate its use as a grand hall again is a key part of the vision. Refurbishment with double glazing, air conditioning and sound insulation will be necessary to ensure that its use will not impact on residents living on Granville Road.

All the other GLA funded changes to the building would remain as is.

The basement would revert to community use including designated space for Global Skills a project central to South Kilburn education.

The kitchen would be upgraded to make it more suitable for its core use as a community kitchen providing education, training and food provision for those in household food insecurity.  This has been costed at £70,000.

The South Kilburn Trust would move into The Carlton Centre, which will be developed as an enterprise hub with more space for those activities and a café in the space on the ground floor.

The nursery would get more spaces into Carlton to be negotiated.

Finance

Development and management will be self funded through grants, donations, crowdfunding and income generation streams.

Costings for first stage development we have been quoted are

£5000 will provide an initial outline scoping study moving towards what is needed for the project£40000 to cover the cost of consultancy fees providing an in depth feasibility study with costs and action depending on the conclusions the study suggests.£80-100,000  will allow us to employ building professionals including engineers and quantity surveyors to develop refurbishment plans to maximise use of site  and provide a detailed business plan

Next Steps

We would seek council approval after presenting the feasibility study to move the project forward. Shared Assets, Locality and The Architectural Heritage Fund have all been approached and are able to support us us in developing a strategic plan and with organisational development.

With regard to participatory processes we are working with and have long term relationships with various universities. Open University, Centre for Agroecology and Water Resilience (CAWR) who have can support on participatory methodologies and University College London (UCL) on planning and architecture.  We have also worked with Glasshouse Community Led Design who specialise in community led processes and the built environment, Ubele who support African and Caribbean heritage communities and organisations around business and community development and action planning.

Leslie Barson and Deirdre Woods

March 2019

 It would be good to hear the Council's response. I would be happy to publish it. MF