Community Raphs' welcome decision not to redevelop the estate

 

The group St Rapahels Estate Community (Community Raphs')  have welcome Brent Council's decision not to redevelop the St Raphael's estate which is situated between the River Brent and Norfth Circular Road:

 

We at Community Raph’s are delighted with the news that Brent Council has decided to back down on the redevelopment options for St Raphael estate.

 

 We are privileged & thankful to be working with Ash (Architects For Social Housing) from 2019 to this present day, together we have helped produced a detailed report to highlight that infill with refurbishment is financially viable, socially beneficial & environmentally sustainable. This report was sent to the Chief Executive, Brent councilors, Mayor’s office and relevant parties.

 

We believe this report to have an impact on this announcement.

 

We at Community Raphs are proud to have helped support some quarters of the estate mental wellbeing, created by the lack of transparency, honesty, respect by the official bodies of brent, & more so the thought of losing their homes & community.

 

We have worked hard to highlight our plight to outside bodies like Ash and the wider community.

 

Moving on we must have proper engagement, transparency and clarity at every stage of this infill + (refurbishment) project. Despite this announcement our work is not done, we feel there are a few things that needs to be ironed out.

1 Morland Gardens – when (if ever) will Brent’s redevelopment happen?

 

The Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, currently the “Brent Start” college. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

Guest post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)

 

Over the past eighteen months, I’ve written a number of guest posts about Brent’s plans to demolish “Altamira”, this beautiful locally listed Victorian villa in Stonebridge, in order to redevelop the site. In June, I reported that their plans had been delayed, because Council officers had not carried out legal requirements, to build out over the highway and community garden in front of the property, which they’d been advised (in December 2018!) were necessary.

 

On 11 August 2021, notice was given of a Key Decision, made by the Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment). Authority was given (subject to call-in) to re-tender for the Design & Build Contract for 1 Morland Gardens. 

 

I’m not sure what the “design” side of this is about, as it was a very detailed design which was approved by Brent’s Planning Committee (despite strong grounds for objection to the proposed scheme) a year ago! The design, by architects Curl la Tourelle Head, even won an award in September 2020 (after being nominated for it by Brent Council).

 

The award-winning design for the new 1 Morland Gardens building (with an added observation).

 

The Report on which the Key Decision was based makes interesting reading. The reason why Brent’s Property and Assets team need authority to re-tender for the contract is because they received no bids, after they invited tenders in February 2021 (via a one-stage mini-competition under the Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) Contractor Framework agreement). Following feedback from potential contractors, they have now recommended ‘re-use of the existing NHG framework and re-tender under a two-stage D&B contract.’

 

The first stage would be a Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), under which the contractor would design the project, and at the same time come up with an overall fixed price for which they would carry out the whole construction project. If that price is within the Council’s budget for the project, the second (build) stage would be awarded to them, to carry out the work.

 

This approach does come with some risks. The report doesn’t mention the risk that none of the contractors invited to bid might decline to do so. It does say: ‘The main risk of a two-stage D&B process is that the contractor may not stay within the budget so the Council has to re-procure an alternative contractor.’ But if the first contractor can’t build what the Council wants for the price they are prepared to pay, what chance is there of finding another contractor who will?

 

How much is the budget? The Report says: ‘The Morland Gardens project budget was approved by Cabinet on 14 January 2020. The total project budget is £43m of which £41.5m was assigned for the redevelopment of the Morland Gardens site…. The pre-tender estimate for the redevelopment works of £39,820,380 is within this budget.’

 

But when Cabinet approved the scheme in January 2020, the Report to that meeting said: ‘Current estimates of build cost (excluding decant) are up to £42m.’ Have building costs gone down, not up in the past 20 months?*

 

One indication is that the estimated cost (in the January 2020 Report to Cabinet) of the building work needed at the Stonebridge Annexe, to prepare it as a temporary home for Brent Start while the redevelopment is carried out, was £500k. When the contract for that work was awarded towards the end of 2020, the cost had risen to £1.2m.

 

When Brent’s Cabinet approved the 1 Morland Gardens project in January 2020, they were told that work was likely to begin on site in September 2020, and that work should be completed by July 2022. Now, IF any acceptable bid is received under the re-tender exercise, the first stage of a contract is due to begin in November 2021. 

 

If that goes successfully, and a price within budget is proposed by May 2022, work on site is expected to begin in July 2022, and take two years to complete. So, that’s when Brent’s redevelopment might happen. 

 

Although, given Brent’s history of errors over this project since 2018, it might not.

 

Philip Grant.

 

*[Forecasts published by the RICS suggest a rise in tender prices of around 6.5% between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2022.]

 

Wembley High Road/Ealing Road closure after fire - AVOID AREA

 From Brent Police

 Please be aware there are road closures in WEMBLEY HIGH ROAD / EALING ROAD due to a fire, there are no serious casualties, road closures will likely be in place till 7PM tonight while we make the area safe, please avoid the area as there will be an increase of traffic.

 

Will Brent Council Council's vital services to residents be improved by these proposals going to Cabinet on Monday?

 

A process with major repercussions for the future of basic services provided to residents and worth millions of pounds will be discussed at Brent Cabinet on Monday.

Brent Council synchronised the end dates of various Public Realm contracts so as to enable the Council to consider ways of Redefining Local Services (RSL). Of the contracts above the Veolia contract is the most costly.

Following an initial consultation over the provision of local servives the Council proposes to adopt a 'specialist contracts delivery model with low to moderate levels of insourcing [the council providing the service rather than external contractors].' 

This is a lower level of insourcing that some Labour councillors hoped for. Insourcing would involve TUPE from existing providers.

 The objectives of RSL are listed:

The Final RLS Delivery Model will aim to achieve the following overarching objectives: 

 
· A neighbourhood approach to managing local issues to meet the needs of local areas
· A borough-wide approach to managing our assets and infrastructure (e.g. highways, street lighting) to ensure investment is spent well
· A specialist contracts approach for outsourced services
· Improved contract management and monitoring for contracted services
· An intelligence-led approach to the deployment of resources
· Integrated deployment of environmental enforcement services across public realm
· Greater responsiveness to addressing issues and problems in the public realm
· Better digital customer interface with real-time information and issue reporting
· Additional council capacity for continuous service improvement and innovation
· Focusing specialist officers where they can add the greatest value, with more triaging between generalist and specialist roles
· Deliver improved Social Value outcomes via our Social and Ethical Procurement Policy, including: striving for carbon neutrality by 2030 and enhancing nature and biodiversity; the number of local jobs created (where appropriate for the contract), including focus on disadvantaged groups; and the number of SMEs and third sector organisations that benefit from the procurement exercises.

 The service benefits are set out:

The Final RLS Delivery Model offers the following service benefits:

· Ongoing funding for the highways reactive maintenance gang based at the Depot, tasked with 20% of reactive highways repairs which arise from customer reports, in order to provide a more flexible and responsive service than the current highways services contract. No additional cost as this has already been funded from within R & E budgets). 

· Insourcing the Education, Communication and Outreach (ECO) team (6 staff) would give the Council direct responsibility for communication, education and outreach to help address our considerable waste, climate emergency and circular economy objectives and challenges. 3 of these staff are already on LGPS with the additional cost of insourcing estimated at £52k per annum. 

· Insourcing the Head Park Warden and 4 Park Wardens would enable better integration of education and enforcement across the whole public realm in Brent. It would also enable a more strategic and holistic approach to stakeholder management and community engagement of park interest groups and park users and help to increase participation and volunteering in parks. All these staff are on existing LGPS via an Admission Agreement with the Council but there would be additional cost estimated at £26k per annum to cover Brent’s higher employers’ pension contribution (35% compared to Veolia’s 20%). 

· The Pre-Notice to Owner (NTO) Correspondence work-stream (informal parking appeals) could be incorporated back into the larger Parking back-office Notice Processing Team (formal parking appeals). The addition of these two individuals would be absorbed within the structure without any need to change either structure or management capacity. The additional cost of insourcing is estimated at £32k per annum. There has historically been discomfort that outsourcing this function results in a situation where the contractor is in effect "marking its own homework” as it is issuing the PCNs and then answering the challenges to those same PCNs. Moving this service back in house could provide: 

‒ Greater transparency on the activities of the contractor
‒ More control on how policy is applied to the cancellation of PCNs
‒ Improved quality of Pre-NTO correspondence
‒ Greater consistency between Pre and Post NTO communications with
customers
‒ Greater flexibility across the wider PCN correspondence team to deal with
surges in workload 

· In-sourcing the Tree Surveying function, tree database and the raising of
tree works orders would provide the Council with greater strategic and
financial control of the Arboriculture Services contract, improved planning
and completion of works and achieve better value for money from our tree
maintenance budget. This is estimated to cost an additional £30k per
annum, comprising £20k in staff costs and up to £10k in annual tree
database license costs. Staff time required to maintain the database would
be covered from existing resources, and/or as an element of the TUPE
transfer to the Council of the existing surveyor post. 

· Creating a stronger highways inspection regime - 1 additional highways
inspector post would significantly address the lack of resource for highways
inspections noted in section 4 of this report. Total cost £43k per annum.

 

Street cleaning, litter, fly-tipping, waste collection and recycling are one of the main concerns of residents so dealt with in my detail here.

One of the proposals is for an 'Integrated Street Cleaning and Waste Contract' that combines street cleansing and waste collection but separates waste collection from recycling. A discussion with potential providers was in favour of such a separation. The Cabinet paper outlines the main requirements:

Street Cleansing Services 

 
· Provide comprehensive, seven-day cleansing services that deliver high performance standards across all land use types and which maximise the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling, composting and recovery
· Provide a ‘Clear All’ service on designated roads ensuring the removal of all waste in these areas, regardless of the source material
· Provide and manage receptacles, including litter bins, ensuring that they never become full or overflowing
· Provide a fly tipping removal service which proactively reduced the amount of fly tipped waste and delivers the highest possible performance standards
· Provide a graffiti and fly posting removal service that meets EPA standards

 

 Waste and Recycling Collections 

 
· Provide a scheduled residual, recycled, food and garden waste collection service that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and composting, while minimising contamination of target materials to improve the quality of the separately collected waste streams
· Provide an assisted collection service to meet the needs of those households who are unable to present household waste and recyclables at standard collection points
· Provide a special collections service for bulky household waste that maximises the amount of waste segregated for reuse, recycling and recovery

 

Winter Maintenance 

 
· Provide an effective winter service which ensures that safe passage along all main highways, priority routes and other relevant land use types is not endangered by ice and/or snow during the designated Winter Service Period
· Provide and manage all salt bins, ensuring that they are stocked and available for use during the designated Winter Service Period to reduce risk to residents

Other Services 

 
· Emergency and out of hours response
· Waste container management and delivery
· Customer care and satisfaction, including response to service requests and complaints.

The potential for further insourcing in the future is noted:

Under the Final RLS Delivery Model, there would be potential to insource further functions from the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste Contract during the main contract term, as detailed in paragraph 6.12 of this report, and to insource the full grounds maintenance service after the next contract ends in 2027/28, should the council’s finances improve. There was broad support for such further insourcing in the best value duty consultation response.The council would also retain an interest in considering insourcing the full street cleansing service at the end of the main contract term of the proposed Integrated Street Cleansing & Waste contract

The Timetable:

The full report can be found HERE

Redevelopment no longer an option for St Raphel's Estate Brent Council announces

 Cllr Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council, yesterday informed residents of St Raphael's Estate that redevelopment of the estate was no long an option. This had appeared to be inevitable once funding  no longer seemed likely due to changed criteria, although the Council continued talks to try and achieve funding.

The change means that there will no longer be private housing built on the estate and there will be no demolitions. Instead there will be infill new housing on parts of the estate and the council promises to 'invest in existing council homes' and carry out improvements on the estate.

The two options for the estate: infill and redevelopment, both had the support of sections of the community. LINK  A ballot would have been held which would have established the true extent of support for either. Now the council has announced the infill decision no ballot will be held.

Controversy is likely to continue, as it has on other estates, on exacly what infill will take place and where, and the impact on residents' amenity.

This is the letter sent to residents.

The Council has also issued a Newsletter outlining potential estate improvements that could be possible over the next 5 years.

 

WELLesden Garden Open Day - Friday 13 August 1pm-7pm at Mencap, High Road, Willesden

 

Fun Day at Bush Farm, Fryent Country Park, on Sunday August 15th

 

UPDATED: Another application to replace a detached surburban house with a block of flats approved

 

From Draycott Avenue

From the back garden of the property

 

UPDATE Neighbouring householder and opposite householder spoke against the development.  A condition was added that raised number of trees to be planted to replace those taken away should be 22. Argued that this would help screen the building. Only one Planning Committee member voted against and that was Cllr Kennelly. His reasons were that there was insufficient family housing in the development (and that was what Brent needed) and the the ceilings were too low and below planning guidelines.

 

A planning application to demolish a detached 2 storey 5- bedroomed family house in Draycott Avenue, Kenton will be decided by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday evening.

The application has some similarities to the controversial Queen's Walk planning application where a block of flats has replaced a detached house. This application proposes 9 residential units:

3 2 bedroomed units at market rent

2 2 bedroomed units for market sale

4 1 bedroomed units for market sale

The cost of the build is estimated at £2million

All commentss on the application are objections from near neighbours. When the Queen's Walk application was approved some objectors felt this would make way for more such applications as developers could buy up such properies and erect blocks of flats turning a handsome profit.

This comment on the planning portal is similar to several others:

We have recently received the notice of 1 Draycott Avenue's proposal to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a part four-storey apartment block providing 9X self-contained flats with associated car parks.


We unequivocally object to this planning for the reasons outlined below.

Impact of the proposal on our personal property:

1. The development would greatly impact our privacy, especially as it has a roof terrace. The occupants of these proposed flats will have direct visual access to the surrounding gardens, which violates their privacy and introduces concerns about safety. The majority of the surrounding residents are elderly and they use their private gardens as a "safe" place for relaxing and enjoying quiet time. All of the residents have agreed this would be an invasion of their privacy, with the flats overlooking their gardens. Not only will this have a severe impact on mental health but it will now limit the time spent in their own private spaces because of this proposed plan.


2. The proposed designs also indicate a number of side windows which look directly onto our property. Whilst the windows are "opaque" according to the designs, when opened, the occupants will have direct visual access into our property without any obstructions. This issue is further exacerbated due to our plans to extend over our existing garage, which we have put an application for. Therefore the development will be severely invading our privacy.


3. The proposed four storey development is not only much taller than any of the existing residential properties in the area but it is completely out of character of the existing dwellings. Due to the completely different design of the proposal, not only does this reduce the views from the current properties, it is overbearing and reduces the outlook of our own property This would therefore make the property taller than our property and impact our views. Also, the design of the property is completely out of character of ours and the surrounding properties outlook. This development would be extremely detrimental and reduce the outlook of our property and is completely overbearing.


4 The designs shows there is cycle parking adjacent to our fence. This would also cause disturbances on our quiet enjoyment of our garden.


Many of the above points directly contravene Article 8 of our Human Rights Act 1998, clearly impacting aspects of our private, family and home life. This act (protocol 1, article 1) clearly states that we have the right to enjoy our property peacefully. The lack of privacy and increased noise from extra residents both prevent this from happening.



With regards to concerns affecting the general area:



5 This is a purely residential street with single families living there. This proposal would change the character of this part of the street significantly and greatly impact those living around it.



6 The area has already had previous issues with noise and disturbances. In fact, the owners of 1 Draycott Avenue themselves have reported the noise and disturbances to the local police and council in the past. The more intensive use of the site would no doubt increase the noise and disturbance purely from the multiple increased number of residents.



7. The property itself backs onto a conservation area. Building a large set of flats will be of great detriment to the existing wildlife that is present and also be completely out of character of the existing conservation area.



8. The property design indicates that there is cladding on the outside. We are all well aware of the disaster that occurred in Grenfell. Due to this tragic incident, the cladding and fire safety measures are currently being reviewed and there is much uncertainty about what is deemed safe. This building would therefore be a fire hazard to those within the property and those around. Especially the fact that the property backs on to a conservation area, this could be a disastrous problem. - I'm not sure this is a good point - they will put the new fire safe cladding



9. The design indicates that there are only 7 parking spots for the property (6 for the tenants and 1 visitor parking), despite 9 flats being developed. The area already has noise and parking issues. The lack of parking for each of the flats would mean the residents of the development would need to find street parking in the surrounding area, as well as any parking for their guests. This would greatly increase the noise and parking issues many of the local residents are already facing.



10. There are balconies shown at the front of the property designs. This would also impact the privacy of the opposing houses, as the occupants of the development would be able to sit and view into the opposing houses at leisure, therefore impinging on Article 8 of their Human Rights. The balconies are also clearly spoiling the outlook and character of the entire street and are totally inappropriate.



11. The increased use of Drayton Waye will be a safety hazard. This road is used by many families and young children who cross to go to school daily. There have already been multiple instances of accidents and near misses - the increased use of Drayton Waye would significantly increase this risk and put many lives at risk.



Finally and most importantly: Most of the surrounding residents have owned and lived in their homes for many decades, brought up their families, and enjoyed the quiet residential area. This new development is completely out of keeping with the existing dwellings and as outlined above completely destroys the character, privacy, and safety of the existing properties.



All of the residents have agreed this is an absolutely selfish act to monetise a plot of land that will ultimately drive out families that have been living in the area for many generations.

 Planning Officers consider the objections in their report LINK and recommend that the Committee approve the application. 

The Brent Heritage Officer considered the impact on the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area:

The applicant has provided a heritage statement which identifies the potential impacts on the nearby Conservation area. This identifies areas where the development would be most visible from within the Conservation Area. Heritage England have been consulted on the application and raised no objections.

The Council’s Heritage Officer has viewed the submitted Heritage Statement and the wider scheme and considers that the development is a reasonable distance away from the Conservation Area and is mostly screened by trees along nearby boundaries. It would not be highly visible from the most significant focal point of the conservation area and is of a similar scale to nearby developments. As such, the proposal would not result in harm to the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area.