Brent & Kilburn Times saved by takeover

 

Some of the many Archant titles

Brent's only surviving local paper, the Brent and Kilburn Times, which during the Covid19 crisis has been asking readers for support has been saved from bankruptcy and potential closure along with other Archant titles. Readers will have noticed how thin the paper has been recently.

The Eastern Daily Press, lead title of the 150 year group, explained the acquisition by Rcapital.

Norwich-based Archant - which publishes EDP, Norwich Evening News and many newspaper and magazine titles throughout East Anglia and beyond - has been acquired by new investors who will provide funding to continue its transformation into a successful modern media company.

The announcement also gives security for many hundreds of Archant pensioners and their families, and protects the hundreds of local businesses Archant trades with, who may otherwise have suffered losses 
had the business, hit hard by Covid-19, been forced into bankruptcy.

Simon Bax, Archant’s Executive Chairman, said safeguarding the interests of local suppliers and customers, and its near-1,000 employees had been his priority.

Archant and our newspapers and magazines are an intrinsic part of East Anglian life. Not only do we employ hundreds of people in the region, but we are also an important part of hundreds of other local businesses who supply us, or depend on us to help grow their business.

Like so many other businesses, Covid-19 threw us into a very difficult position. Naturally, I am very sad this deal marks the end of ownership of the local families who founded our company all that time ago. But equally I am happy we have found a new partner who respects our heritage and is able to nurture Archant’s future.

I would also like to thank the Colman and Copeman families who have been the custodians of quality journalism in East Anglia for so long – their legacy is a modern media company that will continue to proudly serve the region.

The new owners, family-based firm Rcapital, specialise in backing companies with immediate financial challenges but who otherwise have ambitious and compelling plans for commercial success.

Chris Campbell, partner at Rcapital, said:

We are incredibly pleased to have worked alongside Archant’s management team and KPMG to put forward a plan that will restructure finances and inject fresh capital into one of Britain’s oldest local newspaper brands. We are hopeful, that with the support of its creditors, Archant will emerge from this challenging period as a stronger business that continues to provide a vital service to its clients and readership. Today’s announcement marks an exciting next phase for both Archant and Rcapital - I am looking forward to working with Simon and his team to deliver on the transformation plan.

Like many other businesses in the UK, Archant had become increasingly hamstrung by multi-million payments required to pay down the large deficit in its long-defunct company pension scheme.

Under the deal, that pension scheme has been transferred to the Pension Protection Fund, a public body responsible for managing almost a quarter of a million pensions in the UK.

Shareholders in holding company Archant Limited, which has been placed into administration as part of the change of ownership, have been informed their shares are now of no value.

There is no interruption to publishing in the business, which continues to trade as before.

Clearly it is early days and we will have to wait to see what the 'transformation plans' will mean in terms of jobs and the survival of titles. Closure or transfer to on-line would be a blow against local democracy. The group have this week launched a campaign backing local councils' demands for adequate post-Covid funding.

Brilliant work on River Brent off Blackbird Hill by Thames21 and volunteers

 

Some of the volunteers

The walk through the urban orchard and St David's Open Space and along the River Thames appears on my Green Walk (see side panel) and is a great off the road route from Blackbird Hill  (Quainton Open Space) to Wembley Park Station.

If we want to reduce car trips to schools it is a good route for young children accompanied by parents or independent older pupils. I was using the route the other day to get from Chalkhill School to Birchen Grove allotments and notice two extensive heaps of rubbish that had been collected in a Thames21 cleanup of the area which is part of an ongoing project.

The route of the river can be seen in the line of trees below.  The river disappears under the railway line to re-emerge behind Wembley Stadium where there is another walking route to Stonebridge.

Brent Rivers and Communities Project Officer, Carolina Pinto, sent this report of the clean up day:

Last Saturday volunteers arrived on time, and the event started at 10.30am with a safety talk and instructions.

It is worth mentioning the important participation of our partners Ashford Place. We also counted with the presence of a representative from Extinction Rebellion Brent.

Everyone geared up, the group was divided to either litter pick or help to clean some duckweed from the pond. *Duckweeds are small, free-floating aquatic perennials that combine to form a green 'carpet' on the surface of the water. At Quainton we saw a thick mat covering the surface of the water, hard to remove, therefore a task to be continued.

During the break, we had surprise. The singer Maria Costa performed a song called the ‘River Brent’, a song she composed last year for the volunteers that joined forces in this initiative, to help the river Brent.

The result from litter picking: 40 full black bags of litter, a baby buggy, and a few other items.

Most volunteers mentioned coming back to the next events.

The next steps of the Brent Rivers and Communities project are to improve the park area (informal paths and more vegetation management now that the bird nesting season is coming to an end), and to start the river restoration activities- pre-booked for the beginning of October.

Come join us in the next events that will happen on Saturday 19^th September 2020 (Please remember to book in advance).

Carolina.Pinto@thames21.org.uk

Auditor: Brent better placed than most London councils to survive the financial challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic

The Audit Findings for the London Borough of Brent, to be considered by the Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday September 8th are rather better than might be expected. LINK

The report by Grant Thornton  states:

 

.....To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs.

 

The report looks forward to 2020/21 and the impact of the Covid19 measures taken by the Council during lockdown and the impact on income.  Having had shaky reserves in the past the Council has been reluctant to eat into reserves but may have to as a consquence of a £29m funding gap, as well as reducing demand for services and 'efficiency'  cuts:

If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

A review of the capital expenditure plan seems inevitable. Budget planning and consultation will take place soon.  One of the key issues will be what happens to Council Taxat a time when many residents will be strapped for cash as a result of unemployment resulting from the economic downturn.

 

EXTRACT FROM THE AUDITOR'S REPORT

2019/20 Financial Return

 

In a year where March saw the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council has performed well to achieve a breakeven position for its service area budgets. The Council responded to the pandemic situation quickly, making critical decisions in response to constantly moving government guidance. With only 2 weeks remaining of the 2019/20 financial year with the outbreak of the pandemic, impact on the financial outturn was minimised for 2019/20 but will be a larger impact on 2020/21.

 

The outturn for 2019/20 highlights the effective management action taken to address the pressures throughout the year. The £1.5m overspend in Children and Young Persons (CYP) (in part offset by contingency funds within CYP reserves) and £0.6m overspend in Community Well Being were offset by underspends within Regeneration and Environment.

 

The use of CYP earmarked reserves illustrates that the Council does have ongoing financial pressures which need to be addressed. However, this needs to be put in the context of income growth opportunities the Council’s reserves position. Brent has over £134.8m of usable reserves, excluding capital reserves, which can ultimately be deployed to address in-year shortfall. To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs. It is also worth noting that the Council is very clear about finding solutions in CYP going forwards.

 

The Council’s MTFS set in 2019/20 identified £11.4m savings required for 2020/21 and a best estimate budget gap of £20m for 2021/22-2022/23. In the November 2019 MTFS update a comprehensive review of technical budget assumptions took place, including a review of the 2020/21 savings plans and estimated savings of £4.28m to be delivered in 2021/22 and £1.77m to be delivered in 2022/23.

 

As a result of the pandemic it is expected that service departments will experience income and expenditure pressures in 2020/21. The magnitude of the pressures will depend on the severity and length of the pandemic. The Council has modelled the financial impact based on lockdown periods of 3 and 6 months and has a cost tracker to estimate and record the additional pressures relating to additional expenditure, loss of income, impact on savings and capital programmes, and treasury management issues. The Council estimates the 2019/20 impact to be £0.4m while for 2020/21, a 3-month lockdown period has an estimated lost income impact of £19.8m, with another £14.9m on top of that for a 6-month lockdown. The Council reports these figures to MHCLG fortnightly.

 

The net cost of Covid-19 to the Council is expected to be £47.6m (£42.7m of additional income and expenditure pressures and £4.9m of slippage in savings plans), which is far in excess of the £21.2m funding to be received from central government. The cost estimates are considerable, and the Council has been working to the assumption that costs will be fully reimbursed. Central government recently announced a new package of support which includes provision for some income losses to be reimbursed where losses are more than 5% of a council’s planned income from sales, fees and charges, with central government covering up to 75% of the remainder. Also, any deficits on council tax and business rates income will be allowed to be spread over 3 years rather than 1 year. Detailed workings of the scheme will be confirmed as central government drafts the statutory instrument that will effect the changes. This leaves the Council with an estimated gap of £26.4m before support for income losses is taken into account. If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

 

The Council has modelled indicative forecasts of the council tax base and business rates income going forward. Modelling is challenging for the Council given that the Council receives c£50m (approx. 40% of net rates payable) of additional relief from central government to further discount the bills of businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, as well as small businesses:

• the Council received c£64m from central government to provide grants (between £10k-£25k) to support the above businesses; and

• all other business rate payers having difficulty in paying were offered payment deferrals in line with central government guidance.

Due to the above, the amount of NDR income collected to date compared to budget has changed significantly, and forecasting future collection is dependent on how long different business sectors take to recover, if at all. The Council has modelled business rates collection forecast for 2020/21 for the amounts collected and to be collected over a revised collection profile, against a reduced collectible debit, to support future business rates income projections. However, the amount of business rates the Council is allowed to retain is largely dependent on the future business rates regime and the amount of section 31 grant for certain business sectors. Also, the Council is part of the London business rates pool in 2020/21. London Councils will be modelling the potential impact of a deficit on the pool and individual boroughs and the results are expected later in the year. This exercise along with other intelligence and data gathering exercises on collection rates will be critical to better understand the potential impact on the 2020/21 budget and future budget assumptions for business rates income.

 

Over the past 2 years, the Council has been addressing historic overspends and undertook a comprehensive review of demographic pressures and other expenditure pressures, ensuring the Council could move to a more sustainable financial position. Following the Covid-19 outbreak the Council’s financial position has changed significantly. The impact of the loss of fees and charges, and emergency costs have had an immediate effect on all local authorities. In the longer term there is likely to be further squeeze on public spending, which could impact future funding settlement allocations.

 

The 2020/21 budget agreed in February 2020 included savings of £7.4m to deliver a balanced budget. Analysis shows that £0.3m of the planned savings are at risk of not being delivered at all, £2.5m of the planned savings have already been delivered, and £4.6m of the planned savings will not be delivered in 2020/21 (the Council will look to make these savings in 2021/22 instead). The 2020/21 budget also agreed business plans which included savings of £4.3m. Along with review and tracking of Covid-19 cost pressures, the savings position is being monitored daily and monthly monitoring reports and forecasts are reported to the Departmental Management Team. At this stage, all indications are that the 2021/22 savings (including the £4.6m of planned savings for 2019/20) will be achieved. Looking ahead, the savings forecasts will be reported quarterly and challenged and CMT and Cabinet, as well as the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. As well as reporting progress of savings delivery the update reports will include mitigating actions or other interventions if there are delays in implementation or risk of delivery.

 

Proposed budget setting for 2021/22

 

Based on information available to date, the Council estimates that ongoing and recurring pressures will be in the region of £11m to £29m from 2021/22 across all service areas and council tax collection. At this stage, the estimates excludes future losses on business rates whilst further modelling is undertaken. Therefore, without additional funding or relives from central government the budget gap is likely to increase further. The Council’s estimates will be refined over the summer and are a major factor in the construction of the 2021/22 budget. Robust and credible plans will need to be developed and agreed in February 2021 to deliver a legally required balanced budget. At this stage, it is not clear when the Spending Review will be announced, or what the LG Finance Settlement for Brent in 2021/22 will be. The lack of clarity means that the Council will need to continue to plan with little or no funding certainty over the medium term. The Council expects to need to take difficult decisions about which services to prioritise and protect, and which to reduce in order to continue to deliver affordable and sustainable budgets.

 

To close a gap of this magnitude and in a relatively short space of time there are 3 main options:

 

• Further savings – options are limited given the current savings programme already includes a significant number of efficiencies and new income generation options are likely to be limited.

• Reduce growth assumptions – the current MTFS includes £13m of annual growth but there is a risk that reducing growth assumptions will store up pressures in future years.

• Scale back the capital programme – pausing or stopping specific capital schemes funded by borrowing would free up corporate revenue budgets set aside to provide capital financing.

 

A further consideration is if central government introduces new interventions specifically for long term Covid-19 related pressures, such as a multi-year minimum funding guarantee to compensate local authorities for income losses beyond their control. Another option may be to allow the capitalisation of losses, which would ultimately be funded by increased borrowing. The options will be further examined to ensure their consequences are properly understood and set out for members and the outcome of the review will be presented to Cabinet as part of the draft 2021/22 budget in October 2020.

 

The Council continues to maintain reserve levels much above those of its peers, but it is recognised that of the £398.4m total usable reserves and capital receipts reserve, £249.3m relates to reserves built up to help to finance the Council’s £1bn capital expenditure plans. 

 

Excluding the capital reserves, HRA and schools’ reserves leaves general fund reserves of £134.8m, which is close to the average level of reserves for London boroughs. However, the Council must carefully consider the use of its reserves to support revenue shortfalls as it is a non-recurrent source of funding, and use of reserves on a large-scale risks creating structural overspends if the Council’s finances do not recover quickly and income is reduced long term. 

 

From an audit point of view, the Council has managed its revenue reserves in a way that makes it better placed than most London councils to survive the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic from a financial perspective. This prudent approach to reserves must be continued to address the risk of future pandemics, recessions and other issues or events that may impact on the Council’s financial sustainability.

 

 

Very low public consultation response to another high rise development in shadow of Wembley Stadium

The proposed blocks on Fulton Road/Watkin Road

The major application at next Wednesday's Brent Planning Committee is this:

1,2,3 & 9 Watkin Road, Wembley, HA9 0NL

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 1x part-20, part-17 storey building and 1x 14 storey building together containing 174 residential units; commercial floor space (B1a and B1c use class) on ground, first and second floors; car and cycle parking, refuse storage, amenity space and associated landscaping.

The existing buildings are low rise industrial and further development here is expected.

Out of the 174 residential units:

i.               15 units for affordable rent (at London Affordable Rent levels, in accordance with the Mayor of London's Affordable Housing Programme 2016-2021 Funding Guidance (dated November 2016) and subject to an appropriate Affordable Rent nominations agreement with the Council, securing 100% nomination rights on first lets and 75%nomination rights on subsequent lets for the Council)

ii.             35 units for Shared Ownership,(as defined under section 70(6) of the Housing & Regeneration Act 2008, subject to London Plan policy affordability stipulations that total housing costs should not exceed 40% of net annual household income, disposed on a freehold / minimum 125 year leasehold to a Registered Provider, and subject to an appropriate Shared Ownership nominations agreement with the Council, that secures reasonable local priority to the units).

The Planning Officers' Report states:

The viability has been tested and it has been demonstrated that this is the maximum reasonable amount  [of affordable housing] that can be provided on site.

The remaining 124 units will  be private.

On loss of light to surrounding building (check out the density in the illustration above) officers state:

There would be a loss of light to some windows of surrounding buildings, which is a function of a development on this scale. The impact is considered to be acceptable given the urban context of the site. The overall impact of the development is considered acceptable, particularly in view of the wider regenerative benefits.

The impact on the supposedly 'protected view' of the Stadium Arch from Chalkhill Park is also considered acceptable by officers:

Whilst the development would slightly reduce the extent of the Wembley Stadium arch that would be visible from Chalkhill Park and incur some level of harm to the daylight and sunlight enjoyed at neighbouring properties, a balance has to be struck between different planning objectives, and the benefits of the proposal are considered to significant outweigh its harm. The height, layout, design and massing has been carefully considered and has been evaluated by the GLA and by Brent Officers who all have concluded that the proposed building is appropriate for this context.

From Chalkhill Park today

 

With the new buildings

Consultation responses were very low with two sets of letters sent to 1,078 neighbouring properties resulting in  5 objections and one neutral comment.

A Newsletter to 5,229 local residents and businesses to a two day exhibition about the project produced just 11 attendees and only 3 feedback forms.  Cllr Muhammed Butt and Cllr Shama Tatler had their own private view. This is the report included in the main officers' report:

A public exhibition was held over two days at Wembley International Hotel on Tuesday 26th November 2019from 10am to 3pm and on Wednesday 27th November 2019 from 3pm to 8pm.Over the two days 11 individuals attended the exhibition, including the Leader of the Danes & Empire Courts Residents’ Association.Three feedback forms have been returned with largely positive feedback. 

The proposed height was noted to have been deemed appropriate in the local context and there was strongsupport for the delivery of 35% affordable housing. However, some attendees voiced concern about anothertall building in an area which already has a large number. 

Some stakeholders noted that they wanted as many 3 bedroom units as possible and one stakeholderquestioned whether the levels of demand for 1 and 2 bedroom units as opposed to 3 bedroom units willcontinue into the future. 

The public realm and landscaping was strongly supported by stakeholders and an aspiration for thedevelopers to work with Barratt London to coordinate the public realm across the adjoining development siteat 10-11 Watkin Road was voiced. It was largely agreed that the existing site is underutilised at present. The potential to link the site with the brook side in the future was welcomed.Stakeholders supported the re-provision of commercial space and expressed interest in the types of occupierthe space is targeted at. 

The Leader of Danes and Empire Courts RA emphasised the need for affordable housing in the area and suggested that parking spaces are provided to diffuse pressure on parking spaces nearby. The Leader of Danes and Empire Courts RA also welcomed the new landscaping and improved public realm proposals. A concern was raised that the redevelopment of the industrial space was unnecessary and that the nature ofthe commercial space would change the industrial character of Watkin Road. One attendee also felt that an uplift in commercial workspace would be unlikely to be beneficial to the local economy and would be unlikelyto create more jobs. 

One attendee was concerned that the development would lead to increased traffic congestion locally despite the car free nature of the development. 

A newsletter informing residents of the proposals and inviting them to the exhibition was sent to 5,229 local residents and businesses.A preview of the public exhibition was held with the Leader of the Council and the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to brief them on the proposals between 9am and 10am on Tuesday 26th November 2019.

New Regeneration Director signs off variation to Bridge Park land deal with GMH

Brent Council announced via its website today that Alan Lunt, the new Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment,  has signed of an agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation for the land sale of Bridge Park ahead of the announcement of the High Court judgment on Brent Council vs Bridge Park which is due this month.

The Officer Key Decision Form reads

 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.

The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted.

If you are wondering what the variation is, then hard luck. Brent has 'fully' exempted the Report from publication:

The Council states that exemption is  'By virtue of paragraph(s) 3, 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.'

Back in 2015 when the Cabinet approved the initial move to do a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings, the then Chair of Scrutiny, Cllr Dan Filson, raised warned about doing a deal with a 'convicted fraudster'  LINK.  On the Wembley Matters report on the matter Filson made the following additional comment:

I must say I was surprised that whilst mentioning the two companies involved were neither incorporated nor registered in the UK, the Cabinet paper did not mention that they were registered in tax havens namely Luxembourg and the BVI, nor that the leading shareholder in the holding company was a convicted fraudster. A quick Google search revealed this.

Possibly the council officers preparing the report felt these issues did not matter given the safeguarding phrase that the decision of Cabinet would be subject to meeting financial scrutiny (quite how these financial checks would succeed given that they had not succeeded in the months leading up to Cabinet was not made clear!).

The wider issue of the ethics of dealing with tax haven companies wasn't touched upon at all nor the fraudster angle. I understand Councillor Pavey's position that it needs government action to deal with tax haven companies (to say nothing of persons being company directors of overseas companies who, by my book, should be disqualified from holding any positions of trust in any company trading or owning land in this country).

However Brent can have its own policies; but what should they be here? The land south of the North Circular Road at Stonebridge Park has been a derelict eyesore for a couple of decades. Brent can engineer development here by intervention using such land as it has as a bargaining tool. If we take the ethical route and don't treat with tax haven companies will we get better or worse terms from other companies? Conceivably could Councillors be surcharged for not getting "best value" in a deal? Will any action happen on this site at all for another decade?

I don't know how I would respond on these issues. My disappointment was that no attempt has been made to address them before this particular decision came to Cabinet despite the identity of these 2 companies being known for some time, years even. So the Cabinet was obliged to agree to a deal involving these two companies without a financial appraisal in front if it and without a stated policy on dealing with tax haven companies. It leaves an unpleasant taste.

In another comment Philip Grant wrote:

I sent my comment of 29 July at 19:59, asking whether it is ethical for Brent Council to be dealing with a company in a tax haven, to Cllr. Michael Pavey, the Deputy Leader who chaired the Cabinet meeting on Monday 27 July. Unlike some of his colleagues, Cllr. Pavey is willing to engage in dialogue, and (with his permission) here is his reply:

‘The article on Wembley Matters doesn't give a full account of the discussion. Cllr Filson made a series of excellent points. I imagine you've read the Cabinet report, so you'll know that section 4.6 states that "Finalisation of negotiations and entering into Heads of Terms with these companies will be subject to soconfirmation of satisfactory financial standing."

At the Cabinet meeting I sought specific legal advice on whether this point provided sufficient protection against the concerns raised by Cllr Filson. The legal representative stated that in his view, it did. Myself and my colleagues certainly had concerns on this front, but the legal advice was categorical. We will certainly keep an eye on this moving forward.

Martin quotes Andy Donald's somewhat derogatory comments about the decision makers not reading the papers. I certainly always read every single page of Cabinet papers and I know colleagues also prepare comprehensively. We have discussed Bridge Park in detail on many occasions and had a full discussion on Monday evening about issues such as trying to limit foreign ownership of the flats, the proportion of affordable housing and the sustainability of the new leisure centre.

I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’

It would help us have some faith in the process of this very controversial land sale if information was available to press and public and even more so to councillors.  The decision could be called-in - it is another test of our councillors to see if they have the courage to do so.

Latest on South Kilburn controversy: L&Q Chief Executive to step down

David Montague

L&Q, the controversial housing association recently in the news for its handling of Bourne Place in South Kilburn LINK, has announced that its Chief Executive, David Montague, will step down at the end of the financial year.

L&Q made the following statement on its website today:

David Montague has today announced that he will step down from his role as Chief Executive of L&Q by the end of the current financial year.

David joined L&Q as a member of the finance team in 1988 and became Group Director of Finance in 2003. He was appointed Chief Executive five years later in February 2008.

As CEO, he has overseen L&Q’s growth to become one of the country’s largest developers and providers of social housing. L&Q now houses over 250,000 people in 110,000 properties and has an ambition to help solve the housing crisis by building 100,000 new homes.

Speaking about his departure, David said: “It has been a pleasure leading L&Q in such extraordinary times and working with talented, dedicated and values driven people for the past three decades to deliver our social mission. At L&Q our story began in 1963 with a handful of entrepreneurs, £64 and a dream to house the people who had been forgotten by others; that dream has never waned.

Our mission is that everyone should have a quality home they can afford; everything we do is about providing essential homes and services for the people that need them most. I couldn’t be more proud of what we have achieved in my time as Chief Executive but I have decided that it is the right time for a new challenge.

I will continue to lead L&Q as Chief Executive until my successor is found. My remaining time will be spent working with the team to develop a new five-year strategy that will help us deliver the best we possibly can for our residents and communities.”

L&Q Chair Aubrey Adams said: “David has been a leading light not just for L&Q but for the housing sector in general. His commitment to our residents, homes and communities has enabled L&Q to face some of the toughest economic and structural challenges in the company’s history, and he has always done it with our social purpose firmly and passionately at his heart. We are thankful for everything he has championed.

Our search for David’s successor will begin immediately and will be squarely focussed on enabling us to secure the skills and diversity needed to continue our focus on safety, quality and customers, and steer L&Q through our next chapter. We will be working towards a smooth handover and transition by the start of the new financial year.”

Another Brent school 3G pitch application meets opposition

View of the Claremont site - the proposed 3G pitch will be on the grassed area lower centre

Kingsbury High School, Queens Park Community School and Claremont High School have all had plans to install floodlit artificial grass 3G pitches on their sites. The Powerleague proposal for Kingsbury High was withdrawn after a local campaign that cited environmental and social harm.  The interests of the local residents compete with those of the school. The Claremont Planning Application is HERE .

19/1388 | Construction of an additional floodlit artificial grass sports pitch and cricket practice facility with incorporated batting cages, installation of 12 floodlights, erection of high boundary fences with associated gates, formation of pedestrian access stairs and ramp. | Claremont High School, Claremont Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0UH

Roe Green Residents' Association have written to a senior Brent planning officer and councillors drawing attention to some of the issues.

The Roe Green Village Residents' Association in North West Brent (RGVRA) may not be directly impacted by what is going on at Claremont High School but RGVRA nevertheless has an important contribution to make to the planning process concerning this particular application.

We have great concerns over the impact this application represents to residents and the environment. We are also concerned that this application is being assessed prematurely and without all necessary facts being available.

RGVRA has been faced with an almost identical application by an Academy school in recent months. In assessing the application RGVRA and its consultants have learned a significant amount of information about the development and operation of installations of this type which applies to the application described in 19/1388 as well.

The overall impact such installation has on its surrounding area makes this application at Claremont High School entirely unsuitable for this site. Installations like these belong far away from any residential dwellings due to their significant environmental impacts such as noise and light pollution affecting neighbours 365 days of the year until late at night. This also concerns the transport impact these facilities generate on what are typically quiet residential streets.

Scrupulous developers and agents appear to have devised schemes to provide cash-seeking academies with free ‘upgrades' to their perfectly usable natural grass playing fields through funds such as the Condition Improvement Fund (CIF) and the prospect of new revenue streams by hiring these out as entertainment venues to the public. 

Pupils tend to only have use of these new sports facilities for 35% of the time whereas the vast majority of the time these facilities get hired out for profit is to a narrow target audience of 18-25 year old male adults.

This is a recurring scenario running throughout the country. In Brent alone we have seen several of these applications in recent years. 
Brent Council needs to recognise that these facilities are not sustainable for the long term future of Brent and its residents. In fact these schemes are detrimental to community cohesion.

This particular application at Claremont High School appears to represent an intense over-development of the site.

Residents will not be able to defend themselves against the new and constant noise, light and traffic impact this scheme will create.

Brent Council needs to listen carefully to the concerns of the residents affected by this application. Brent Council also needs to ensure that both residents and the Planning Committee have access to all the facts that govern the impact of this application based on professional evidence.

This application comes without a noise assessment and without a transport assessment. These types of facilities are well-known for their excessive noise and traffic generation. It thus seems evident that this application is lacking crucial information. Without this crucial information it would seem impossible for anyone to assess the true impact of this application.

We also feel concerned that the ecological evidence available may not be receiving sufficient consideration.

Alison Fure, the author of the 'Ecology and Bat Survey Report' to this application, is a highly-respected ecologist and bat expert with a specialisation in light impact on bat behaviour.    Her findings and recommendations seem clear when her report states that ‘light curfews should be operated throughout the summer’ and that in fact ‘the new pitch should be used by the students from the school only’ which appears to suggest not to operate the facility past 4pm, i.e. school time.

Given Alison Fure's experience and expertise, we cannot think of any reason to question the ecology report’s findings or not take its recommendations seriously.

Furthermore, there are significant environmental impacts that do not appear to have been considered at all.

Within the Borough of Brent there are at least 150 artificial football pitches made of hazardous 3G rubber compounds. According to manufacturers' guidance, each of these pitches requires topping up with 2-3 tonnes of rubber infill throughout the year. This infill and its dust is toxic to humans and the Environment and, according to manufacturers’ guidance, may only be applied whilst wearing personal protection equipment.

Within the Borough of Brent alone, we thus have 300 - 450 tonnes of toxic material being released into the Environment every single year where it degrades further into ever finer micro-plastics that pollute our rivers and water supplies and enter residents’ lungs and our food chain.

Has anyone at Brent Council calculated the impacts this has?     Is there an impact assessment available of how many 3G pitches there are and the health and environmental impacts these represent?

The site of the proposed new pitch is directly adjacent to the Wealdstone Brook. The applicant has neither accounted for nor mitigated against the micro-plastics pollution this development will cause.

Brent has declared a Climate and Ecological Emergency in recognition of our seas choking with plastic. Brent has committed itself to making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

As servants of the public and stewards of public resources Brent, therefore, has an obligation to ensure that these aims and commitments are upheld.

The Planning Committee and the residents affected by the sports pitches at Claremont High School must be given access to all the facts pertaining to the impacts of this planning application before this could possibly be considered,

We further request that Brent immediately puts on hold all planning applications involving 3G pitches until it has fully established the impact these have on our Environment and until it has completed an impact assessment on the current use of all 3G pitches in Brent and can assure the public that 3G pitches are compatible with Brent’s stated aims and objectives for making Brent the cleanest, greenest borough in London.

In the interim, Brent Council should instead focus on making more effective use of existing resources and help academies such as Claremont High School benefit from the 150 plus existing 3G pitches in the borough.