Now it appears that Brent Council will have TWO internal reviews into Euro2020 Final!

 

I reported yesterday LINK that Muhammed Butt had turned down the recommendation that there be a public internal inquiry into the disturbances at the Euro2020 Final made by Scrutiny Committee.  My report was based on the speech he made at Cabinet in response to the presentation by Scrutiny Chair, Cllr  Roxanne Mashari, in which he made no reference to accepting the recommendation, where no other Cabinet member took part and the proposal not put to the Cabinet for a vote to be taken.

This is the  Cabinet decision sheet that contains the official account of his speech LINK:

Councillor Mashari, Chair of the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee, provided an update on the discussions held at the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 16 July 2021 regarding the scenes witnessed around Wembley Stadium in advance of the UEFA 2020 European Championship Final.  She advised that as well as focussing on the impact upon local residents, the Committee had also been particularly concerned at reports of injuries along with issues identified relating to public safety and public health and how this may affect arrangements for the hosting of future events at the Stadium.  Cabinet were advised that the Committee had taken evidence from relevant officers and stakeholders during their meeting and had welcomed the information provided.  As a result of the concerns expressed, however, the Committee had recommended that Cabinet hold a public review into the Council’s actions taken before, during and after the Final to establish the lessons learnt.

 

Councillor M Butt, as Leader of the Council, thanked Councillor Mashari for her contribution and in response began by highlighting the need for care to be taken in terms of the accuracy of any statements made relating to the events witnessed, given the current external independent review being led by Baroness Casey and nature of ongoing police prosecutions.  The Council were fully cooperating and supporting the independent review and in order to avoid prejudicing the outcome of this and ongoing criminal prosecutions he advised it would not therefore be possible to comment in any more detail at this stage on the issues identified.  Councillor M.Butt ended by highlighting the level of support provided by staff from across the Council in the staging of the tournament at Wembley Stadium and thanked all those involved on behalf of the Council for their efforts.

 

I think readers can see why I interpreted that as not agreeing to a internal public review as requested by Scrutiny. Usually decisions are recorded in  the form: Cabinet 'RESOLVED', and then a record of the action points.

 

However Cllr Mashari  tweeted this morning:

 

It is puzzling that Cllr Butt, as Leader of the Council, did not mention the two internal reviews in his Cabinet speech but they are very welcome and I am sure local residents would welcome a way to contribute.

Highly significant modifications to Brent's draft local plan include higher density housing in town centres & 'intensification corridors.' Comment by Thursday 19th August 5pm.

 

Philip Grant left this comment on an earlier blog post, I thought it deserved a page of its own as it opens the way to more high rise high density developments in the borough.

Proposed "modifications" to Brent's draft Local Plan are currently open for comments (but only until 5pm this Thursday, 19 August!).

In the section of the Local Plan headed "How Will Good Growth In Brent be Delivered?", on pages 28-29, at para.2 "Making the best use of land", the modifications includes the following additional point:

'd) Identifying appropriate areas for tall buildings and change that add quality to and complement Brent’s character and sense of place.'

 

 Revised Intensification Corridors

At sub-para. b), they have also added "Intensification Corridors" (that's main roads in Brent, like Harrow Road and Forty Lane, which include "suburban" sections) to "town centres", as places for higher density housing. This would now read, if the proposed modification is accepted:

'b) Supporting higher density development in Brent’s town centres, Intensification Corridors and in areas with good accessibility to public transport.'

The new areas for tall buildings, and widening of the areas in the borough for higher density developments, are so that Brent can implement another proposed modification.

Instead of the Local Plan's current housing target for an average of 2040 new homes a year up to 2041, the proposed modification at para."6. Delivering the homes to meet Brent’s needs" reads:

'a) Housing delivery will be maximised, with sufficient planning permissions to support delivery of more homes than the minimum London Plan housing target of 23,250 between 2019/20-2028/29. A minimum 46,018 dwellings will be delivered for the whole plan period of 2019/20-2040/41 ....'

All of these points are part of "main modification" MM3 in the revised draft Local Plan out for consultation. If you wish to make any representations on this, or any other points BY THURSDAY \9th AUGUST at 5pm, details are on the Brent Council website at:
https://www.brent.gov.uk/services-for-residents/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/shaping-brent-s-future-together/

CLICK HERE FOR A DIRECT LINK TO THE REPRESENTATION FORM THAT YOU NEED TO COMPLETE

Cllr Butt turns down public review into Brent Council’s actions taken before, during and after the Euro 2020 Final to establish the lessons learnt

 

In the aftermath of the disturbances at the Euro202 Final at Wembley Stadium the Council’s Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee added an emergency item to its agenda and discussed what had happened with council officers before agreeing a recommendation to be made to the Cabinet.

 

Cllr Roxanne Mashari presented that recommendation yesterday. She said that there was public concern in Brent about the disturbances and resulting injuries as well as concern over the public health implications of what had been called the Wembley Covid Variant. The Committee had been disappointed with the lack of detail coming from officers.

 

Cllr Mashari thanked Brent CEO Carolyn Downs for sharing an incident report with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee as well as the Chair of the Community and Well Being Scrutiny Committee but was concerned at the lack of publicly available information regarding the Council’s activities and responsibilities on the day.

 

The Scrutiny Committee resolved that the Council should hold a public  review into its actions before, during and after the Final to establish lessons learnt.

 

Responding the Leader of the Council, Cllr Butt, said that there were live cases going through the courts at present and no one from the Council or anyone else would be making any public statement about what had happened on that day.

 

He said that the Council would cooperate fully with the Casey Inquiry and went on to thank council officers for the work that they had done ‘going above and beyond what was actually required’ – work that had been in preparation over 3 years.

 

Cllr Butt reiterated that it would be wrong to make any comment or to assert any wrongdoing from anyone until investigations had concluded. He thanked everyone for ensuring that the event place in very difficult and challenging circumstances.  He added that the Government had recommended that the number of people attending the matches should be staggered slowly and that was exactly what had happened. The Council had played its full part in making sure that that everyone who needed testing and support had it. Every single service in the Council absolutely played its part and would continue to do so.

 

No other Cabinet member spoke, and no vote was taken on the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation.

 

The new Minavil House in Alperton rises and rises but a taller development is to come on the Alperton Bus Garage site

 

A 26 storey giant rises on the site previously occupied by Minavil House (below)

I would not deny that Minavil House (opposite Alperton Bus station) was ripe for development - but from 2 storeys to 26 is a mighty leap and a trip to Alperton today revealed its impact on the local rail and street scene. The original Minavil House became derelict and was damaged by a fire in 2018. The developer R55 was one of several  invited to a three course dinner with the Leader of Brent Council and some council officers by property PR agency Terrapin Communications back in 2017. Questions were asked about the hospitality event and Cllr Butt answered. LINK 

 

R55 is also responsible for the 255 Ealing Road development and The Workshop (Willesden) development near Dollis Hill - a development that is much bigger than the name would suggest. LINK

Questions were raised at the planning stage about the height of the building at the time and how it fitted in with the local landscape. In fact its height was later cited as a justiification for a 28 storey building almost opposite on the site of Alperton bus garage.

 

Minavil House from Alperton Station

From Bridgewater Road

The illustration below gives the height of the various towers in progress or planned:

Alperton High School bottom right and Alperton Station

 

On the way to Alperton on the 297 bus I took a photograph (below)  of the building locally known as the 'Twin Towers', named 'Uncle' by its  owner and on the site of the former Chesterfield House at the junction of Park Lane and Wembley High Road. It shows the visual impact of such a building from  suburban Wembley Park Drive. The tallest tower is 26 storeys.

 

Eulogy for a dead tree - killed by Brent Council

Tree surgeons at work in Carlton Avenue East

 Guest post by local resident L. Green

 

Last Monday a team of tree 'surgeons’ employed or commissioned by the Council came to Carlton Avenue East and began to demolish a beautiful and sturdy lime tree, one of the many that have lined both sides of this street for eighty odd years.

 

There was a small amount of fungus growing at the bottom; perhaps someone had complained, but the trunk was sound and the branches decked with as many leaves as all the neighbouring trees. A walk through most woodland will reveal similar fungus growing all over the place.

 

Early pictures of the street, from Brent Archives, show the newish houses with the recently planted trees in neat rows on both sides. The same view appears in the 1950's Terry Thomas film 'Too Many Crooks', shot in the area and screened at Preston Community Library in 2017.

 

When the Preston Park Estate was built in the 1920s and 1930s, tree lined avenues were clearly part of the overall vision for the development. Now in a period of great anxiety about climate change, we watch as trees are destroyed with few seeming to care. 

When I moved to this area in the 1990s I used to delight in walking along neighbouring Longfield Avenue. It was lined with a row of glorious Maples, which turned bright red and gold each Autumn. There was also cherry tree with deep pink blossom each spring. Now the Maples and the cherry have all gone, and there are only two trees left in the street, which is greatly diminished as a result. In adjoining Glendale Gardens most of the trees have gone, at least two have gone from Grasmere and in the last fortnight a tree has suddenly disappeared from the roundabout where Windermere Avenue joins Grasmere. All this devastation in just four streets - Is this typical of the whole of Brent, just how many trees have gone? Should we be mapping them?

In 2019 the Greater London Authority provided thousands of trees for Londoners to plant in their communities, and SKPPRA, the local residents' association duly organised a planting in Preston Park. However it seems likely that in this area at least, for every tree planted more than one has gone. The R number for trees is over 1!

Clearly there will be some occasions when a tree genuinely has to go. In Montpelier Rise there is a leafless tree that is as ex as the proverbial dead parrot, though unusually there is no demolition notice posted on its trunk. However, there should be a proper programme of replacement for all trees cut down, and a decent notice period when any tree is endangered, so that local people can respond when the destruction is unjustified.

Trees contribute so much to our environment - not just to the attractiveness of the street scene and as homes for birds and other wildlife, but to our safety. A neighbour had a large weeping willow in her garden which recently died. Now her garden floods more in storms, because the willow was drinking up water from the saturated ground. 

We need a programme of tree planting in our streets and parks, to both replace what has already been lost and to increase the overall number. There are plenty of local sites where trees could be planted. In Carlton Avenue East the rhythm of the planting will be spoilt by the absence of the cut down tree, and a similar tree needs to be installed as a replacement. The Borough needs to increase the number of trees, to play it's part in improving our environment and fighting climate change.

REMINDER: Bush Farm Family Funday Day in Fryent Country Park Sunday 12-5pm

 

By 83 or 302 bus alight at Slough Lane and walk along Slough Lane to the junction with Salmon Street (5 minutes). Walk straight across to Fryent Country Park entrance (be careful - there's a bend in the road).  The event takes place in the large paddock to the right as you enter.

Royal Philharmonic Orchestra marks its move to Brent with a collaborative live performance on the Kilburn High Road ahead of the September 11th 'Wemba's Dream' weekend

 

 

 Young Brent people aged 14-16 years old in performed two twenty minute concerts today with musicians from the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra after taking part in a 3 day workshop.

The concert was the grand finale of a creative music project which saw young people from Brent and RPO musicians write brand new pieces on the theme of ‘Wemba’s Dream’ – a creative project exploring the hopes and dreams of Brent residents.

Wemba was the name of the tribe or its leader that  long ago cleared the local woodland to make an open space in which to live - a lea - hence Wemba Lea: Wembley. It was first mentioned in a charter of 825.

Last week Wembley Park announced the performance of'Wemba's Dream' on September 11th:

The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is celebrating its 75th anniversary in September this year by announcing a permanent move of the Orchestra’s headquarters to Wembley Park. The Orchestra is delighted to build on more than 20 years of work with Brent Music Service to make our new home in Brent, and are eager to reach out to local residents to find out how we can engage in meaningful ways over the next months, years and decades.

To celebrate our new announcement, the RPO are working with Wembley Park to put on Wemba’s Dream, a fun-filled ‘festival’ of performances featuring RPO musicians and local artists during the weekend of 11 September. We would love for as many local people as possible to get involved in the celebration, both as audiences attending the weekend performances but also as artists, exploring the project theme through various mediums and sharing their responses with the RPO and the wider community. In the lead up to the performance weekend, the RPO therefore invites local residents to create their own artistic responses on the themes of ‘Brent’ and ‘Dreams’ and submit them to be included HERE, to create an online gallery of local people’s works. 

To find out more about the project theme and how to submit work, dowload the Wemba’s Dream Creative Resource Pack.

   

Wembley Housing Zone – is this an answer to Brent’s affordable housing needs?

  Guest Post by Philip Grant (in a personal capacity)

One year ago, the Brent Poverty Commission report by Lord Richard Best was published. The Commission reported that: ‘1 in 6 households (17%) live below the poverty line, doubling (to 33%) after housing costs are taken into account. More than 1 in 5 (22%) of children live in poverty, doubling to a startling 43% after housing costs.’ The report identified: ‘an acute shortage of social housing which has forced people into the private rented sector where rents are two or even three times higher.’

 

 

The following month, Brent’s Cabinet gave its full backing to the report’s recommendations, including those based on the key point that the Council needed to put ‘more investment in social housing’, and ‘build even more affordable homes.’

 

 

Next Monday (16 August), Brent’s Cabinet has the opportunity to put those recommendations into action, when they consider a report on implementing the Council’s proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone. I will set out briefly what is proposed, and why Cabinet members may wish to question how what Council Officers are proposing might be improved, to take better account of the Poverty Commission’s findings.

 

The Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) was set up in partnership with the Greater London Authority, to speed-up the delivery of new homes. £8m of GLA funding was received, and part of this (£4.8m) was used by the Council to buy Ujima House in Wembley High Road. The other site (already Council-owned) which now forms part of the WHZ is across the road, where Copland School used to stand (whose buildings were demolished after Ark Elvin Academy moved into its new school further down the slope).

 

 

A detailed planning application for the site on the corner of the High Road and Cecil Avenue, and an outline application for Ujima House, were made towards the end of 2019. Although these were approved by Planning Committee in March and June 2020 respectively, the formal consents were not signed off until February 2021. 

 

It had been decided that the two WHZ schemes would be treated as one for “affordable housing” purposes, and Cabinet is now being asked to ‘approve the preferred delivery option for the regeneration of the sites’. The two sites between them will provide 304 homes, and it is proposed that 50% of these should be affordable homes. I will give a short outline of what is proposed for each site.

 

The planning approval for Ujima House (19/3092) would demolish the existing building and replace it with a ten-storey block. There would be workspace and a café on the ground floor, with 54 residential flats on the floors above. The 28 1-bed, 18 2-bed and 8 3-bed (only 15% of the total) homes would all be for rent by Brent Council at London Affordable Rent levels (not social rents - see below). 

 

 

The more detailed application for the cleared site at the corner of Cecil Avenue and the High Road (19/2891) would build blocks, between five and nine storeys high, containing 250 flats and maisonettes. 64 of these homes would be either 3-bed or 4-bed (26%). However, only 39% of the homes in this development would be “affordable”, and only 52 of the 250 are proposed to be for rental, at London Affordable Rent levels.

 

 

[These blocks would not be as grim as they look in the elevation drawings, as the plans include a courtyard in the middle!]

 

The affordable element for this larger site was set out in an “Approved Plan”, which was made a condition of the February 2021 planning consent. More than half of the London Affordable Rent homes (28) would be 3 or 4-bed. The plan also set out that the other 36 “affordable” homes (21 of which would be 2-bed) should be either Shared Ownership or Intermediate Rent (which would be cheaper than private rents, but not within the means of those on the housing waiting list).

 

 

There appears to be a discrepancy. The 52 + 36 affordable homes for the Cecil Avenue / High Road site in the planning consent make a total of 88. However, the WHZ report to Monday’s Cabinet meeting says that 152 affordable homes will be delivered (50% of 304), and to reach that figure 98 of the homes from the larger site would need to be affordable, not 88.

 

Fifty percent of affordable homes may sound good. But if only 106 of the 304 new units are to be for rent, and all of those at London Affordable Rents, how does that meet the Cabinet’s commitment to the recommendations of the Brent Poverty Commission?

 

London Affordable Rent levels are set by the GLA. They use a formula based on rent figures decided in 2017/18, which are then increased each year by the previous September’s Consumer Prices Index increase plus 1%. The 2017/18 figures used were around 50% of open market rents at the time, but were between 30% and 50% higher than the average “social rent” levels for the same sized homes charged by housing associations and London boroughs. 

 

An analysis available on the GLA website makes clear that London Affordable Rent should not be confused with social rent levels, and says: ‘social rent is the only housing type really affordable to lower income Londoners.’ That is why the Poverty Commission report said that Brent should seek to make more of its new “affordable” housing genuinely affordable, at social rent levels.

 

It appears that the Council Officers making these WHZ proposals to Cabinet are either unaware of, or have chosen to ignore, the recommendations on housing in the Brent Poverty Commission report. Their proposals would ‘bring the Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites to the market together’, through the Council undertaking the construction on both sites, but “procuring” ‘a developer partner to share private housing sales risk.’

 

The Officer report to Cabinet says that their proposal is a “medium risk” strategy:

 

‘The Council takes and manages construction risk, which it has experience of doing through its housing and schools capital programmes, but a developer partner is sought to take and dispose the private sales housing, of which the Council has no experience. By financing construction, the Council can use lower public sector borrowing rates and reduce finance costs.’

 

One of the “risks” of following this route would be:

 

‘A developer may seek to influence the final scheme, compromising the overall place making vision and regeneration benefits for the area.’

 

If the Council is going to undertake and manage the construction on the two sites, why not make ALL of the homes it builds “affordable housing”, providing 304 Council homes for people (especially families) on its waiting list? Ideally, these should all be for social rent, for those most in need, as recommended in Lord Best’s report. If that is not financially viable, an alternative could be 50% let at social rent levels, with the other 50% (presumably the better ones on the Cecil Avenue site, which a developer would have wanted for “private sale”) at London Affordable Rent.

 

I can’t make any detailed suggestions on the finance side, as six of the seven Appendices to the Officer report are secret, because they contain “Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)". It appears that the press and public may also be excluded from Monday’s Cabinet meeting while these matters are discussed!

 

 

However, it is clear from the report which is available that there are ongoing discussions with the GLA over funding for the scheme, about ‘increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing’:

 

‘Reviewing WHZ financial viability, the GLA have also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme, but which is subject to confirmation.’

 

If the Council would go back to the GLA, and its 2021-2026 Affordable Housing Programme, with proposals for the Wembley Housing Zone to provide 100% affordable housing, that could provide the answer.

 

I believe that this suggestion is worth serious consideration, so I am sending a copy of the text of this article to all of Brent’s Cabinet members (sent Friday 13 August at 4:23pm). I hope that at least some of them will raise questions based on it, especially about the need for social rent homes to be considered, at the meeting on Monday.

 

I will also send a copy to the Council Officers involved, and to the Chief Executive, for their consideration, and so that they can either provide answers, or at least agree to go away and look at this matter again. 

 

The Wembley Housing Zone provides a major opportunity to meet some of the housing need identified by the Brent Poverty Commission. That opportunity should not be wasted!

 

Philip Grant.