UPDATE: Carlton-Granville back at Brent Council Cabinet on Monday. Will they listen to the community?

The Cabinet is due to consider the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations on the Carlton-Granville development at its meeting on Monday April 15th, 4pm Brent Civic Centre. The Scrutiny Committee report was only published on the Council website Cabinet Agenda this afternoon which gives only a limited time for campaigners to prepare their representations.

A crucial point is that the Scrutiny report refers to 'social' housing without any reference to rent levels. At the meeting councillors referred to affordable, council and  social housing without further definition.

This is the key extract from the officers' report for Cabinet:

Recommendation 


That as required under the call-in procedure, Cabinet reconsider its original decision on the Carlton & Granville Centres Site – South Kilburn, taking into account the comments made by the committee (set out ibelow) and agree one of the following outcomes:

.        To amend the decision, having taken account of the comments made; or 


.        To confirm the original decision made, enabling it to take immediate effect. 


Background 


At the meeting held on 11 March 2019, Cabinet considered the report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, “Carlton and Granville Centres Site – South Kilburn” where it was RESOLVED:

a.     To approve the continuation of Phase 2 of the project at the Carlton and Granville Site to planning submission, on the basis of design Option 3 presented in the report; 


b.     To engage with South Kilburn Trust regarding possible future management arrangements of the Carlton/Granville Centres; 


c.      To note that Property Services would immediately engage with ULFA as set out in the report and to trigger the break clause as set out in the lease; 


d.     To approve in principle that funding will come from different sources as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, with the intention to seek Cabinet approval to enter into any necessary agreements with the Greater London Authority or South Kilburn Trust in due course. 


.   

The Scrutiny Committee met on Wednesday 3 April 2019 to consider the call- in. The Committee heard from the Lead Member for Regeneration, Highways and Planning as well as a number of representations from local residents and stakeholders. As a result of this process the committee agreed to refer the original decision back to Cabinet (as the original decision-maker) for reconsideration. 


In referring the decision back, the Scrutiny Committee insisted that Cabinet only proceeds with the scheme if clear written promises are provided on the following four issues: 


.        In terms of the recommended design option, the 23 units of housing being sought must all be provided as social housing. Whilst recognising the need to address issues in relation to viability, committee were also keen to ensure a predominance of three or four bedroom ‘family-sized’ accommodation.

 

.        Appropriate noise-reduction safeguards be provided for tenants within the new housing units in order to manage the relationship between the mixed residential and community use on the site. Such a provision is to ensure that noise concerns do not limit the use of the facility by the community. 


.        A minimum level of local social enterprise provision is guaranteed within the Enterprise Hub. 


.        Community governance options being developed in terms of future management of the site must be based around the Key Stakeholder Group and involve a broader local community membership. Such governance options must have open membership to locals, with democratic processes for the selection of people and positions.

 The Scrutiny Committee have also requested a further report back in 3 months’ time enabling them to continue monitoring progress in development of the scheme.

 [End of extract]

It is likely that the community will again be present at the meeting to ensure that their voices are heard and that the Cabinet give serious consideration to the recommendations.

You can support the community's demands by signing their petition HERE

Meanwhile this is  the submission made by the Kilburn Housng Co-op to Scrutiny:

Kilburn Housing Co-op is a fully mutual housing co-operative, founded in 1978.  For nearly forty years we have provided high quality well maintained secure and decent housing on low rents, only possible when profit is not the motivating factor.  We now have 37 flats in Kilburn, including several on Princess Rd, near the Granville and Carlton centres.  Our tenant members represent a diversity of ages, ethnic and social backgrounds, household types and situations.

As a self-managed co-op, we know how vital community input is, and that community spaces run in co-operation and with the good will of local people, are the most likely to succeed in meeting community needs. 

In the 80s our office was in the Carlton Centre, and we used the hall for our General Meetings.  Our current office is at the OK Club, around the corner.  Our members and their children are long-standing users of the facilities in both Centres: nursery school, cafes and community kitchen, youth clubs and activities, social and meetings spaces.  It is the only non-denominational community space in our area, and is treasured by many. This why there has been such strong and consistent opposition to the Council’s very damaging plans.

The local area needs an extension of community space, not cuts

·       We strongly oppose the Council’s proposal for a devastating reduction to community services, facilities and space that the planned development would involve. We note that this strength of community feeling has already succeeded in considerably scaling back the original plan which involved demolition of all the community buildings. This is welcome but not enough.

·       Community space has already been reduced as South Kilburn Trust which manages them favours enterprise space over community facilities.  We do not believe enterprise space should be a priority in the Granville.

·       Local people were not widely and fully consulted by the Council and South Kilburn Trust about these changes; many of us who live nearby have heard nothing about it.  And those who opposed the plans have been ignored.

·       With cuts and austerity it is  even more urgent to preserve community spaces like the Granville and its garden where people can meet, get information, services, run projects and generally come together to decide and act on improving our living conditions and the quality of our and our families’ lives.

·       It is a priority that the beautiful hall in the Granville, which has been ruined, be fully restored to its full size and community purpose.  Finding spaces to hold meetings, celebrations and other activities has been a growing problem for years now.  Many in the area complain about this lack. 

   

We oppose any housing being built on the Granville/Carlton site

·       We strongly support building council houses, which are desperately needed. But  Brent’s 11 March 2019 Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration & Environment gave no guarantee that any of the 23 units planned for the site would be council housing. Indeed the opposite is indicated: introducing “shared ownership and/or private housing elements”.  

·       Many other housing developments are completed, underway or planned all over South Kilburn.   None of it has solved or is solving the escalating housing crisis. For example, at Peel Precinct just metres away, of the 308 homes already planned, only 42 would be “social” and are earmarked for existing Council tenants being moved out by other development.  That means in effect no new Council housing, while over 250 homes are likely to be sold or leased - more gentrification, more housing for those on high salaries, and nothing for low income families.  We suggest that those units be converted to Council housing.

·       We are told there is little public land left in Brent on which to build housing and therefore, it must be built on the Granville & Carlton Centres’ site.  Brent Council has created this crisis: between 2015 -2018, Brent Council sold 13 public spaces for about £30 million. Those sites could have been used develop Council homes. Further the Peel Precinct development and others in the area shows the Council’s low priority for Council housing.

·       We understand that the government aims to cut a further £21 million to Brent’s next budget.  These cuts which always hit the most disadvantaged communities hardest, combined with the housing crisis (homelessness, overcrowding and sub-standard unsafe homes) will only lead to more mental ill health, violence and deaths. We don’t believe the Council should accept implementing these cuts and plan around them without consulting the public who elected them.

Brent Council spends £132,000 of residents' money on fighting them in the High Court

£132,000 may be small beer compared with the £17,800,000 Brent Council handed over to Quintain for the cosmetic Wembley Stadium pedway replacement but every penny counts in an era of savage government cuts to local government spending.

Brent Council has spent £132,000 so far in legal fees for the interim application to the High Court on the Bridge Park Complex case and the two court hearings. More costs are to come.

Brent Council is spending the money in resisting the claim by Bridge Park campaigners that the site belongs to the local community rather than the Council.

'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