As the above screengrab from the Brent Council
website shows Cllr Abdirazak Abdi is no longer a member of the Labour Group
after his resignation.He follows in the
footsteps of Kilburn councillor John Duffy, who also became independent, and
more recently Cllr Kieron Gill who was suspended from the group for 6 months
after he abstained on the budget.
The resignation comes just under a week before the
GLA election and the Brondesbury Park by-election caused by Gill’s resignation.
It is a year before the Brent Council elections which will be fought on revised
ward boundaries with a smaller number of seats.
Cllr Abdi, a socialist, lost his position on Brent
Planning Committee after allegedly voting the ‘wrong way’ despite that
Committee being statutorily non-political and therefore not whipped LINK. LI
He clearly has not been happy with the direction
that Brent Council has taken under the leadership of Cllr Muhammed Butt and
previously challenged him for the leadership. Like many on the left of Brent
Labour he was attracted to the party by Jeremy Corbyn and distrustful of what
many call ‘managerial Labour.’
More generally I understand there is disquiet in
the party over what appears to be attempts to put pressure on the two Scrutiny
committees over what reaches their agendas. This follows the calling in by a
group of Labour members of the 1 Morland Gardens development for scrutiny LINK , the special meeting on
the the implementation of Healthy
Neighbourhoods (LTNs) LINKand a skirmish over the possible calling in of
AT Medics over the Centene takeover of GP surgeries in Brent LINK.
As said many times on Wembley Matters, the role of
scrutiny in a mainly one-party council is absolutely crucial and it will be a sad
day for democratic accountability if the leader’s control is extended to the
Scrutiny Committees, as well as his more subtle influence on the Planning
Committee.
The Swaminarayan Mandir in Neasden is taking part in a fundraiser for Indian victims of the rapidly deteriorating pandemic.
They say:
Raising
vital funds to save lives in India: Please support our 48-hour non-stop
static relay challenge, covering a distance of more than 7,600
kilometres - the distance between London and New Delhi. Sat 1st May 2021
to Mon 3rd May 2021.
Brent Planning Committe this afternoon passed the planning application that will see three towers, 21 storeys, 25 storeys and 28 storeys, built on the Alperton Bus Depot site. (Ealing Road/Bridgewater Road) Planning offices said that the Alperton Masterplan policy of a limit of 14 storeys had been superseded by the Emerging Local Plan policy on tall buildings.
A planning officer said that the character of the area would change as a result of the cluster of tall buildings but that as this particular site was not next door to low buildings the usual step down of height did not apply.
None the less Cllr Maurice voted against the application on grounds of over-development, height and its destruction of the area's once pleasant suburban character.
Cllr Anton Georgiou (LD Alperton) having opposed several applications with similar speeches on ground of height, unaffordability and lack of infrastructure, took a different approach this time. Taking a leaf out of the technique used by Jeremy Corbyn, when opposition leader, Georgio quoted the views of ordinary residents. He said he was certain that none of the Committe had actually been to, or spoke to anyone in Alperton so he would bring their voices to them. He read out their statements:
Kit and Mai of Crabtree Avenue say:
“Our local community feels abandoned and unloved with the constant addiction of this
Council to approving massive tower blocks, whilst no tangible investments are made in
infrastructure and facilities.”
Bob from Vicars Bridge Close says:
“Having lived in Alperton for nearly a quarter of a century now, I have seen it change
massively, and not for the better. The emphasis seems to have been on changing the nature
and the character of the area forever and not at the behest of the people who live and work
here. Enough is enough.”
Mel from Bridgewater Road says:
“This is/ was a residential area. More developments are also planned in this small area
which adds nothings to the community and residential streets that surround it. Just more
congestion, more people, more high rise monstrous ugly buildings with no infrastructure to
cope built in – enough!”
Hiren and Anita from the Abbey Estate say:
“The scale of this development is ridiculous. The Alperton master plan claimed that no new
development would be over 17 storeys. Why should this development be any different? The
height of these towers will block sunlight for existing residents nearby, as well as overlooking
Alperton Community School - a safeguarding issue.”
Donnamarie from Lyon Park Avenue says:
“Loss of the skyline - we already can’t see it, and when I look out of my windows, whether
the front or the back all I can see are tall cranes and high rise flats that have already been
built, yet more eyesores.”
Frances from the Abbey Estate says:
“I am against any more tower blocks. They block out the light and there is no parking people
who will be living in the blocks will be parking in the Abbey Estate as they are at the moment
from the last two Tower blocks that went up! We have lost our front gardens because the
majority of us could no longer park outside our front doors!”
Ingrid from Bridgewater Road says:
“We need to call a halt to the ever increasing number of tower blocks in what is principally a
low rise residential area. They do absolutely nothing for the area in terms of infrastructure,
aesthetics and wellbeing. They serve only those who want to make money. Alperton has
been blighted enough with the current construction - dark and oppressive. Just for once, try
thinking about those of us who live here on a permanent basis.”
Sammy from Heather Park Drive says:
“It looks like Hong Kong / New York not Alperton! The essence of Alperton is gone.
As a result, my family who live on Bridgewater Road are so fed up that they’re moving out of
Wembley soon. Not everyone can do that.”
Mrs Jani from Stanley Close says:
“I have lived in Alperton for the last 35 years and the way it has developed in recent years is
creating lots of problems with overcrowding and traffic congestion. The multi-storey
complexes are not what we need here.”
Ravi from Longley Avenue says:
“I have been a resident in Longley Avenue since 1983, day by day our living conditions are
becoming worse. We cannot get GP appointments, parking issues, since Covid, we need
more health supporting services (Alperton Station lift).”
Chirag, Chair of the Wembley Central and Alperton Residents’ Association says:
“Representing residents of Alperton and neighbouring residents on Bridgewater Road,
Carlyon Road, Ealing Road, Burnside Crescent and Clifford Road, the proposed development
is over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with
existing developments in the vicinity.
The development does not take into account the burden it will place on existing
neighbouring properties and the infrastructure required to accommodate such a large scale
development. The development would also adversely affect highway safety, and the
convenience of existing road users as there are no plans to mitigate the increased number of
cars owned by residents of this new development. WCARA objects to this development.”
Gabi from 243 Ealing Road says:
“Many of us who moved here to 243 six years ago have done our research and were aware the area was up for development. But we are in shock and disbelief about the density and the overall lack of long term structure/ planning of how are all these people supposed to coexist together without healthcare/education/travel provision. In the meantime from our complex many people are desperate to leave due to extortionate service charges that no one can really afford...”
Lucie Gutfreund, End our Cladding Scandal campaigner and Brent resident says:
“As the buildings safety crisis unfolds across the UK and with the Government still not
ensuring that new build homes are built safely or guaranteeing residents’ physical financial
protection from defects, I would strongly oppose the new high-rise development in Alperton.
I would also particularly also like to raise concerns about Telford Homes; the developer is
known to refuse to take responsibility for their existing unsafe homes or to even respond to
MPs, having been named and shamed in the House of Commons on 27th April.”
Cllr Kennelly asked if Telford Homes was a fit and proper developer for Brent in the light of this but the agent addressing the Committee said she did not know about the Hansard mention and that they had no outstanding cladding issues.
Wembley Central Ltd acquired the four buildings above from the developer St Modwen Sowcrest Ltd in August 2018. LINK
Now as problems have emerged in construction and safety Barry Gardiner MP (Labour Brent North) has written to Wembley Central Ltd asking key questions about the due deligience they carried out on acquisition including relevant certification and warranties to ensure the buildings were compliant with Building Regulations. He explains that he has raised this point becase of the short time between WC Ltd's incorporation in May 2018 and the purchase from St Modwen being agreed less than 3 months later in August 2018, leaving very little time to complete the necessary in-depth studies.
Althought the buildings do not have Grenfell type ACM cladding, Gardiner points out the May 2018 'Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety' highlighted that many tower blocks also have unsafe material from timber cladding, high pressure laminate and combustible insulation.
Gardiner request details of the company that provided fire risk assessments and that would be needed to have the appropriate professional indemnity insurances to cover the risk of any possible claim for remediation work. The date on construction of the Metro Apartments was circa 2015 so the 10 year homebuilders warranty should still be in place.
He reports a report by William Martin Compliance (March 2021)
There is evidence that the junctions betweem compartment floors were inadequately fire stopped on Central Apartments as there were gaps at mineral wool fire barriers at steel framing. There were no visible fire barriers at vents or around windows/door frames and it could not be confirmed that the window/door frames themselves formed cavity barriers.
Gardiner concludes that at the time of construction the building regulations in force at the time were not followed.
He states that because of the type and extent of the external wall hazards identified, that the Stay Put policy has been withdrawn and replaced with a simultanous evacuation procedure and a requirement for a Waking Watch.
Gardiner expresses shock that in a Notice to leaseholders, WC Ltd cite the need for a waking walk under Government Building Regualtions 2018) and Approved Document B2019, when the defects were in place at the time of the build.
Given the above questions whether the company has the right to charge residents the proposed sums for the Waking Watch:
Central Apartments: £37,800 per month
Ramsey House: £26,790 per month
Metro Apartments: £26,790 per month
Gardiner concludes:
I appreciate that since the Grenfell Tower fire there have been numerous chnages in building safety and govenment guidance. But I believe residents have the right to know why they are now being asked to pay for failures to comply with the buidling regulations during construction.
Mr Gardiner spoke about the issue in the House of Commons yesterday LINK.
For
the last 8 years Brent Council has stopped the majority of homeless
applicants from bidding for rehousing, treating them as ‘no priority’.
Brent have now agreed to change this policy.
The Policy
Every
council must have a published policy for how it allocates tenancies to
those who apply for rehousing. Brent Council published its ‘Allocations
Scheme’ for this in 2013 (with some amendments in November 2014 and June
2019). Brent’s Scheme places applicants in priority bands D to A, where
A is the highest priority. People in higher priority bands will out-bid
people in lower priority bands who express an interest in the same
property on Brent’s housing register. Band D is the lowest and it is for
those who Brent says have ‘no priority’. People in band D are not
allowed to bid at all.
Brent’s Scheme says homeless applicants
have ‘no priority’ and will be placed in band D, so that they cannot
bid. The only exception to this is if Brent has accepted a ‘main housing
duty’ towards a homelessness applicant, in which case they are placed
in either band C or A.
What does the ‘main housing duty’ mean?
In
order to have a ‘main housing duty’ accepted under homelessness law,
you have to go through the long process of making a homelessness
application to Brent. You also need to fulfil certain criteria. If Brent
decides you do not have a ‘priority need’ (e.g. you do not have a
dependent child or a serious health condition that makes you very
vulnerable), or that you have made yourself ‘intentionally homeless’,
then you would not qualify for a ‘main housing duty’. It takes at least 8
weeks for Brent to make a decision about whether they owe you a ‘main
housing duty’, but often takes longer.
The ‘main housing duty’
basically means that Brent has to continue to provide you with temporary
accommodation until you secure suitable long-term accommodation.
Why is the Policy unlawful?
The
law gives the council a lot of freedom to choose the rules in its
Allocations Scheme and how to prioritise different applicants. However,
the law does require the council to give ‘reasonable preference’ to
certain categories of people, including people who are homeless.
“Homeless” does not just mean living on the street. The legal definition includes anyone who:
Does not have accommodation they have a right to live in (e.g. by permission, by a tenancy, or by home ownership);
Cannot access their accommodation; or
Does
not have accommodation that would be reasonable for them to continue to
live in (e.g. because of domestic violence or if the property is in
such a poor state to be uninhabitable).
The law says Brent
has to give ‘reasonable preference’ to homeless people even if they are
not owed the ‘main housing duty’. This means that Brent has been
unlawfully denying homeless applicants who are waiting for a final
decision on their homelessness applications, or who do not fulfil the
criteria for a ‘main housing duty’, their right to bid for rehousing.
What is most concerning is that this policy appears to have been in
place for 8 years and is likely to have negatively affected hundreds if
not thousands of homeless applicants over this time.
Brent’s agreement to change the Policy
Sam O’Flaherty at Osbornes wrote to Brent’s legal department on 11th
March 2021 requiring them to change their scheme to allow all homeless
people to bid and be given ‘reasonable preference’. We also asked Brent
to ensure that our homeless client would be given reasonable preference,
at least in band C, whilst Brent amended their scheme.
Brent’s legal team replied on 26th March 2021 as follows:
The
Council has considered the Claimant’s exceptional circumstances, as
outlined in the pre-action protocol letter of 11 March 2021 and has
decided that it would be appropriate for the Claimant’s case to be
referred to the Operational Director for him to exercise his
discretionary powers under 12.22 of the allocation scheme to ensure that
she is awarded reasonable preference in accordance with s.166A of the
Housing Act 1996. Her case will be referred to him with the
recommendation that she be awarded Band C from the date of her initial
application on 17/02/2021.
In respect the request to
review and amend the Allocation Scheme, the Council is already in the
process of reviewing the scheme with a view to making amendments during
the course of this year. It is not possible to set out the timescales at
this stage, as finalising and publishing the scheme, will depend on
consultation with stakeholders, an Equality Impact Assessment and
Cabinet Approval of the changes.
In other words, Brent has
effectively accepted that its scheme is unlawful and that it will be
changed this year. In the meantime, if you are homeless and have been
placed in band D by Brent, you should ask them to make a referral to the
Operational Director to place you in band C until the scheme has been
amended.
End of Osbournes article
NOTE: Wembley Matters contacted Brent Council and the Lead Member for Housing on Monday ahead of publication:
I am planning to write about Osbournes claim and ask that you confirm that the Council accepts its policy is unlawful and that it intends to change the policy.
The Alperton bus garage develpment next to Alperton station (21, 25, and 28 storeys)
The Alperton blocks from Bridgewater Road and the station
The dotted white outline shows the block from the canal
The proposed blocks on the Access Storage site on First Way, Wembley Park
The block heights are up to 24 storeys
The blocks in the stadium context
Two planning applications are coming back to Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday at 4pm (VIEW HERE) that together comprise 12 tower blocks with the tallest at 28 storeys at Alperton bus station and the tallest at First Way Wembley 25 storeys. For comparison the tallest of the Wembley 'Twin Towers' on the corner of Park Lane and Wembley High Road is 26 storeys.
26 storeys
Both schemes are recommended for approval by Brent Planning officers. The proposed housing on the Alperton Bus Garage site is distributed as follows:
The controversy continues over shared ownership and the amount is likely to feature in tomorrow's discussion as well as shortfall in amenity space. After extensive discussion of the issues Planning Officer conclude:
Following the above discussion, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions.
Whilst the provision of external amenity space falls short of Brent's policy standard, this is considered to be adequately compensated for by the overall quality of the amenity space provided and by the site’s close proximity to One Tree Hill Recreation Ground, to which a financial contribution would be secured.
Whilst the GLA consider the proposal would cause harm to the setting of Alperton Station, such harm is less than substantial, and the benefits of the scheme clearly outweigh the harm. The proposal is considered to respond well to the proposed Growth Area site allocation including the aimof developing an enterprise hub and co-locating new industrial floorspace with residential development in this highly accessible location in the centre of Alperton
The Access Storage First Way, Wembley development has the following residential pattern:
The total affordable at 10% is very low and Discount Market Rent is 80% of market rent so not affordable to most Brent residents. There are also issue of loss of daylight to neighbouring properties and lack of amenity space. Failure to meet
Planning officers conclude:
Following the above discussion, officers consider
that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to
accord with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning
considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and completion of a
Section 106 Agreement.
The
development would provide a suitable and attractive built addition to the
Wembley Park growth area in line with local policy allocation objectives,
creating a mixed-use development with 600 BTR homes and replacement office and
self-storage floorspace. At between 12 and 24 storeys, the proposed heights are
appropriate in this location, and the transition to scale and massing away from
the Stadium is considered to respect the aims of the WAAP and Local Plan
policies. Furthermore, there would be non detrimental impact to key strategic
views to Wembley Stadium arch.
There would be some limited level of harm to the
daylight and sunlight enjoyed at adjoining properties, however this is
considered minimal given the high-density urban context. The provision of a
significant quantum of replacement employment floorspace and a high number of
new homes, with significantly more of those homes being secured as affordable
units than the Council would deem viable is a significant planning benefit that
carries significant weight.
Whilst the scheme does fall short on external
amenity space standards set out in Policy DMP19, the overall quality of
accommodation is considered to be good and must be considered against the wider
benefits of the scheme including affordable housing, significantly improved
public realm and the ability to widen South Way to incorporate two-way working.
As such, the conflict with adopted and emerging policy is limited and would be
outweighed by the wider benefits of the mixed-use re-development, including
there-provision of a high-quality employment floorspace, and an adequate level
of affordable housing.
Following the above discussion, and weighing up all
aspects of the proposal, officers consider that the proposal should be approved
subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement.
The Alperton developers will pay £13,450,282 in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and developers of First Way, Wembley £16,217,198
Pamela Fitzpatrick - Director of Harrow Law Centre and delegate to Harrow TUC Speaking on the Police Bill
It is quite clear the Tory government's intention is to curtail any protest, including pickets, strikes and other protests that workers take in pursuit of their interests,as well as social movements like BLM. The ongoing brutal assault on the working class and the major unrest following months of restrictions due to lockdow is resulting in a legal crackdown of immeasurable proportion. BLM has forced a reckoning over this country's colonial and slave-owning past,as it calls into question the entire legitimacy of the ruling class.
May 1st is a national day of action over the police bill. Lets try and mobilise as many people as possible for the demo on the day.
Anthony O'Hara (Anti-Racist Alliance and delegate to Harrow TUC)
speaking on the developing Unemployed Workers Centre
As the furlough scheme comes to an end unemployment levels will go through the roofand the further rise in poverty is a consequence of Tory failure to provide an economywhich provides jobs to ensure working class people can provide for themselves and their families.
The meeting's Agenda includes
Reports from our delegates:
Gerry Downing on the Kilburn Unemployed Workers Group;
Jonathan Fluxman on the campaign against Centene/Operose;
Sonia Morgan on the Metroline Travel and Metroline West bus dispute
protesting at employers proposal to introduce remote sign on; our online
Report and vote on our audited 2020 accounts (Padraic Finn)
Brief update on the Willesden Trades and Labour Hall
A cultural intervention from Debbie Allen who hasoffered to read a short poem to commemorate the Amritsar Massacre (13 April 1919) when British troops fired on a large crowd of 10 000 unarmed Indian women, men and children in an open space known as the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar.
Delegates only will be entitled to vote.
PS1026 signatories have been added to our open letter to Sadiq Khan opposing remote sign on.
A press release has been circulated and with delegates agreement the letter will be sent to the Mayor following our trades council meeting.
PLEASE KEEP SIGNING AND SHARING THE OPEN LETTER TO SADIQ KHAN No to REMOTE SIGN ON
Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTVH), which owns and manages around
57,000 homes including much of the Chalkhill Estate in Wembley, has committed to offering all new shared owners 990-year leases
following a policy review.
Existing shared owners, of which MTVH has around 8,700 through its SO Resi
brand, will be offered the chance to extend their lease to 990 years from June
2021 for a cost based on the size of their equity share.
The changes will only apply to schemes where MTVH is the freeholder.
It will also scrap ground rents for all new sales on schemes where MTVH is
the freeholder, effective immediately.
Marriage value – the property value increase following the lease extension –
will no longer be considered when calculating extension costs.
From April 2022, all 6,500 MTVH leaseholders will see ground rents phased
out on properties where the association is the freeholder, as well as being
given the option to buy a 990-year lease extension without marriage value
costs.
MTVH said the changes are intended to improve security and cut costs for its
shared owner
