Brent Pension Fund Sub-Committee to invite the London CIV to its next meeting in a bid to speed up move to Net Zero Carbon Investments

Summary of London CIV Investments (From London CIV website)

 

 

The Brent Pension Fund Sub-Committee last night decided to invite the London CIV to its next meeting to discuss moves towards its Zero Carbon commitment.  The London CIV (Common Investment Vehicle) is a private limited company that handles £11bn investments from 32 London borough pension funds including Brent.  The boroughs are shareholders in the London CIV as well as its clients. There are some funds outside of the CIV held directly by the Brent Local Government Pension Fund but the proportion is diminishing.

 

Therefore the emphasis must be on moving the CIV towards low and net  zero carbon investments.  Last night Cllr McLennan reminded the Committee that Brent has been instrumental in persuading the CIV to appoint a sustainability officer. However the meeting recognised that the CIV's 2040 target for  Net Zero carbon investments did not match Brent's own target of 2030 and that it would not satisfy members of the public pushing for rapid action in the face of the climate emergency.

 

The 'Roadmap' approved last night was a work in progress with much research and discussion still to take place. The Brent Local Government Pension Fund currently stands at £1,032m (20/21) compared with £835 the previous year. The rise is attributed to the bounce back in economic activity after the worse period of Covid. The fund received £61m in contributions, compared with £60m the previous year.  Readers will be aware from past articles on Wembley Matters that the percentage contribution made by Brent employers is the highest of our neighbouring boroughs and is especially noteworthy in the context of school budgets where most employees (apart from teachers who have a separate scheme) are members of the Fund.

 

The aim is to protect and maximise those pensions whilst also moving away from fossil fuel and other investments that contribute to climate change. Brent will invest another tranche of £30m into BlackRock Low Carbon Fund  a total 6% of its funds. 

 

The officers' Roadmap concluded:

 

We have set out below some potential targets for further consideration. The interim targets represent significant milestones towards the longer term net zero target. 

 

Review rationale for continuing with 5% UK equity allocation (10% of overall equities). An outcome here could be to consolidate into global strategies to bring UK allocation into line with its share of global markets (5%).

 

Following on from the above, actions can be taken to increase allocation to appropriate Paris aligned mandates (either active or passive depending on outcome of belief exercise) capable of achieving carbon reduction targets. A shortlist of options available to the Fund are shown below: 

o Reduce carbon intensity as measured by Weighted Average Carbon Intensity (WACI) by X% by 2030 versus 2021 base year

o Reduce total/potential emissions from fossil fuel reserves by X% by 2030 versus 2021 base year

o Invest at least X% of Fund’s portfolio in climate solutions (e.g. renewable infrastructure, green bonds, companies with >90% revenues from climate change activities) by 2030

o Percentage of portfolio with net zero targets to be at least X% by 2030 

 

Growth structure (developed market equities) 

 

 

Review rationale for continuing with 5% UK equity allocation (10% of overall equities). An outcome here could be to consolidate into global strategies to bring UK allocation into line with its share of global markets (5%). 

 

Following on from the above, actions can be taken to increase allocation to appropriate Paris aligned mandates (either active or passive depending on outcome of belief exercise) capable of achieving carbon reduction targets. A shortlist of options available to the Fund are shown below: 

 ·

·        

o LCIV RBC Sustainable Equity Fund (active)
o LCIV RBS Sustainable Equity Exclusion Fund (active)
o LCIV Low Carbon Passive Equity Fund (to be launched)
o LCIV Paris Aligned Active Equity Fund (to be launched) LINK
o BlackRock ACS World Low Carbon Equity Tracker Fund
o LGIM Future World Range (a number of options within this) 

 

 After the meeting Simon Erskine of the Divest Brent group said:

 

In the struggle to achieve Net Zero (i.e. carbon emissions created from transport, power, agriculture etc. being balanced by carbon absorbed through growing trees, direct air capture of CO2 etc.) companies need to play a key role in reducing emissions from their activities. Switching investments from companies responsible for large emissions to companies with low or negative emissions encourages the transition to Net Zero.

 

One of the biggest classes of investors is pension funds – for example Brent Council’s Pension Fund owns investments in excess of £1 billion. For 5 years Divest Brent has been campaigning for the Council to sell its investments in (“divest from”) fossil fuel companies. Following the presentation to the Council of a divestment petition with nearly 1,400 signatures the Council agreed to draw up a roadmap to this goal. 

 

On 5^th October the Pension Fund Sub-committee considered the “Net Zero Transition Roadmap”. It was acknowledged that the Roadmap was a start – the Pension Fund needed to agree a target date for achieving Net Zero and then draw up interim targets e.g. a 2030 Net Zero target with interim targets of 40% emissions reductions by 2024 and 70% by 2027. The Paris Agreement of 2016 calls for a maximum average global temperature increase of 2 degrees Centigrade compared to pre-industrial levels, with a target of 1.5 degrees (compared to the current increase of 1.1 degrees). 

 

According to the UN’s climate change scientific body, the IPCC, in a 2018 report, that means Net Zero by 2050 with a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030. Since that report was issued the pace of climate change has dramatically increased with massive wildfires, record hurricanes and typhoons, lethal heatwaves, floods (including flooding in Brent itself) and so on. Furthermore, in declaring a Climate and Ecological Emergency in 2019, the Council agreed a Net Zero Target of 2030. Councillors at the Pension Fund Sub-committee spoke out against the Pension Fund adopting a 2050 Net Zero target and asked about the impact of a 2030 target – in line with the Council’s own position.

 

Officers pointed out that the London Collective Investment Vehicle, which managed many investments of London local authority pension funds, including much of Brent’s, has adopted a 2040 date and suggested it may be appropriate for Brent’s Pension Fund to follow suit.

 

We welcome the Roadmap as a first step towards decarbonising the Brent Pension Fund. Choosing a responsible Net Zero target date is crucial. Some people are saying that the many extreme climate events, which are already responsible for huge loss of life, homelessness and damage to property – along with species disappearing at an alarming rate (around 50% over the last 50 years) – demonstrate that we need to achieve Net Zero by 2025. The Council itself has agreed on a 2030 target and in our view that should apply to the Pension Fund too unless there is clear evidence that it would damage the Fund.”

 

Following approval of the report the Council will now work hard evaluating the effect of different targets, both for Net Zero and for interim emission reductions. These will be considered at the next meeting of the Pension Fund Sub-committee in February 2022.

 

 

 Full Roadmap below. Click bottom right for full page version.

Brent’s “secret” Council Housing projects: Gauntlett Court, Sudbury. 'Airspace' explained

 Guest post, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Entrance to the Gauntlett Court estate, Harrow Road, Sudbury, February 2015.

 

At the end of August, I wrote an article about Brent Council’s “secret” plans for adding more homes to some of its existing housing estates. That guest blog was mainly about estates in Fryent Ward, but I did also mention that Gauntlett Court in Sudbury was shown as a project ‘not yet in public domain’. This was on a map prepared for a Cabinet meeting in July, with a figure of 120 new homes shown beside it.

 

Two weeks ago, Martin published the response I’d received to that article from Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, Cllr. Eleanor Southwood. She said that everything shown in that map ‘is not a secret’ (although Brent has done nothing to publicise it!). One of the main themes of my article was that ‘the people affected by these proposed schemes should be consulted before the projects get “firmed-up” any further, and their views taken into account.’ Commenting on that Cllr. Southwood also said:

 

‘I absolutely agree that Brent Council must work with residents to shape housing development projects,’ and, 

 

‘I agree that working with residents is key and this will continue to be a core part of developing any proposals for new housing, balanced with the needs of residents who are currently homeless and the requirements of planning policy.’

 

You can judge for yourself how far Brent Council is living up to those words, from this further information which has reached me about Gauntlett Court from various sources. I am grateful to Paul Lorber, for letting me see a reply he received from Brent’s Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, which I will quote from below.

 

The Strategic Director’s report to Cabinet in July 2021, about Brent’s New Affordable Homes Programme, did include Gauntlett Court in a list of sites undergoing feasibility assessment. This showed the number of predicted new homes there as 5. He has recently apologised, saying that this was an old figure, which should have been updated.

 

The five new homes were bungalows, proposed to be built where there are currently garages. At least until recently, this was the only “infill” housing project at Gauntlett Court which one of the backbench Sudbury Ward councillors was aware of. Martin has let me have a photograph of a similar project underway at the Council flats in Kings Drive [readers of a similar age to me may remember Pete Seeger’s 1963 song “Little Boxes”].

 

New Brent Council bungalows under construction at Kings Drive, Wembley Park.

 

The Strategic Director has now clarified the position, saying that for Gauntlett Court: 

 

‘the current feasibility relates to a potential 120 units on the same site as the existing Gauntlett Court. The Council is considering a mix of airspace (building over existing blocks) and infill development in and around that site.’

 

He made it clear that: ‘feasibility assessments for sites under consideration.  In other words, they are early assessments of what might be possible, these numbers change as projects do or don’t progress.’ Yet they are there in the report to Cabinet, as predictions of what the Council’s Housing Supply and Partnerships (“HSP”) team expects to be able to deliver.

 

“Airspace” may be a new term to you (it was to me!). The July report to Cabinet said that one of the methods by which the HSP team would deliver 700 new homes by 2026 (using funding from the Mayor of London’s Affordable Homes Programme) was: ‘Airspace development using an offsite Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) solution.’ This appears to mean using modules built in a specialist factory, then delivered to the site on the back of a lorry and lowered into place by crane.

 

 

A factory building housing modules, and a module being lowered by crane. (Images from the internet)

 

The term “Modern Methods of Construction” covers a variety of pre-prepared materials delivered to building sites (such as panels used to clad the walls of buildings constructed on wooden, steel or concrete frames). Lowering new home units onto supports placed across the flat roofs of existing blocks appears to be the one which they have in mind for Gauntlett Court (and probably also for Campbell and Elvin Courts in Fryent Ward). 

 

I’m amused that this is considered a modern method of construction. It is what was being used to supply temporary factory-made bungalows, or “prefabs”, after the Second World War! If you’d like to discover more about local prefab homes, you can see the slides from an illustrated talk that I gave at Kingsbury Library, a couple of years ago, here.

 

 

Section of a prefab home being lowered into place by crane, 1946. (Image from the internet)

 

As well as “airspace” homes on the roofs of the existing 1950s brick-built three and four storey blocks, Brent’s HSP team are also looking to add “infill” homes. This would have to be on land that is currently grassy open space, with mature trees, or areas currently used for parking residents’ cars, or both.

 

What do the residents think?  Gauntlett Court has its own Residents’ Association, which meets regularly with local councillors and the Council’s housing management officers. One of the Association’s committee members said, as of two weeks ago, they had not been informed of or consulted about the HSP team’s proposals. Yet, a few days later, the Strategic Director wrote:

 

‘As I said above, these are early assessments, they will evolve as costs, site considerations and planning issues emerge.   All of this work will be done with local residents and councillors.’

 

I don’t think that it is right for such schemes to be kept “secret” until Council Officers have decided what they propose to do, in terms of method and numbers, on existing Council-owned estates. If they are to prepare plans that ‘work for everyone’ (to quote Cllr. Southwood’s promise to residents objecting to the plans for Kilburn Square), they need to discuss what could be acceptable at Gauntlett Court, or any other estate they are considering, from a very early stage. Surely they can see that, from the storm they caused at Kilburn Square, when they ploughed on with unacceptable plans for nearly a year before being willing to listen to what residents were telling them!

 

 

Harrow Road blocks on the Gauntlett Court estate, with a central green space beyond, February 2015.

 

The residents at Gauntlett Court are not all Council tenants. One estimate I’ve seen puts the number of leaseholders at around 50%, as a result of “right to buy”. You probably think that this was a “Thatcher-years” policy from the 1980s, but Winston Churchill’s Conservative government introduced a similar scheme in the 1950s. The Borough of Wembley Municipal Housing Handbook for 1960 records that this ‘Sale of Council Houses” scheme had caused them to sell 318 homes since December 1952.

 

Will these leaseholders want their green space built over, or new Council homes put on their roofs (with the associated building work and potential effect on the value of their own property)? What if there are subsequently problems with defects to these new homes - will they be indemnified from having to meet a share of the costs of remediation work? Such defects problems are not unknown, as we’ve seen very recently! Or will Brent Council, as freeholder, just ignore their concerns, or over-ride their “third party rights”? I sincerely hope not. 

 

Brent Council’s HSP team should let all the residents at Gauntlet Court know, in writing and without delay, what their current thoughts are about how the estate might be altered to provide more of the Council homes which the borough undoubtedly needs. It should then begin meetings with them, to discuss those ideas, and listen to the thoughts and ideas of the residents, to seek a reasonable compromise about plans going forward.

 

That is only fair and reasonable. It is also what Brent’s Lead Member for Housing, and Strategic Director for Community Wellbeing, appear to have said is the Council’s approach. The Council Officers actually dealing with these matters, day-to-day, need to put that “working with residents” approach into practice. 

Philip Grant.

 

 

 

 

Respond to Church End Masterplan - October 13th and October 16th

FROM BRENT COUNCIL

 

Development proposals

There are four developments proposals advancing within the Church End Area as is outlined below:

• 1 - Planning permission 13/1098
• 2 - Planning permission 13/2213
• 3 - Planning application 18/3498 

1 - Planning permission 13/1098

Decision: Grant Permission

Demolition of 205 Church Road and proposal of new market square to replace Eric Road. Demolition of 3 storey building to the rear of 203 Church Road and proposal of 34 residential dwellings and ground floor non-residential space (class A1/A3/B1/D1). Stopping up of Eric Road as revised by plans.

View the planning application details for 13/1098

Imaging showing the potential View Along High Road highlighting the corner area

 

---

2 - Planning permission 13/2213

Decision: Grant Permission

Full planning permission sought for demolition of buildings within 205 and 235 Church Road, and redevelopment of section of Church End car park site to the rear of 207-233(odds inc.) Church Road to erect a part 2,3,4,5 and 6-storey building containing 65 residential units, 298m2 (GEA) retail floorspace, together with 7 car parking spaces and associated works as revised by plans and details and subject to a Deed of Agreement dated 5 May 2017 under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

View the planning application details for 13/2213

Artist impression of redevelopment of section of Church End car park site 

 

---

3 - Planning application 18/3498

Decision: Awaiting decision

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 5 mixed use blocks ranging from 4 to 10 storeys plus basement levels, comprising; 245 residential units at 1st to 9th floors, and light industrial floorspace (Class B1c), food retail floorspace (supermarket) (Class A1), gym (Class D2), nursery (Class D1), commercial units (units 7 and 9) (flexible use for Class A1, A2, A3, D1 and/or B1c) and HA office (Class B1a) at basement, ground and part 1st floors, together with associated vehicular access, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, plant room, substations, landscaping and amenity space (Amended description).

View the planning application details for 18/3498

View from High Road looking into the courtyard

 

UPDATE: Risk of flooding of Wealdstone Brook reduced after overnight warning

From:  https://check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk/target-area/062WAF38BrentBks

Flood alert for Silk Stream and the Deans, Edgware, Dollis, Mutton and Wealdstone Brooks

We have issued a Flood Alert. Rain is forecast to affect London on Monday night, 4 October into Tuesday morning, 5 October. It is currently unclear which areas will experience the heaviest rain. If the heaviest rain affects the Hendon, Wembley, Harrow, Wealdstone, Edgware or Stanmore areas there is the possibility that rivers could overtop their banks. Flooding to low lying land, roads and riverside gardens is possible on Monday night. Surface water flooding may also affect these areas. We recommend you monitor local water levels and weather conditions. Consider putting your flood plan into action. You should avoid walking, cycling or driving through flood water. We are monitoring rainfall and river levels and are checking rivers for blockages. We will update this message at 10am on Tuesday morning or earlier if the situation changes. 

 

UPDATE

 
The risk of flooding from the Silk Stream and the Deans, Edgware, Dollis, Mutton and Wealdstone Brooks has now reduced and levels have fallen below levels of concern. No further flooding to fields and roads is expected, however there may be standing water seen for several days

VIDEO: Reflections on the London Borough of Culture 2020

 

 Note the first speaker was not using a microphone so see captions. Sound picks up after that speaker.

BRENT SOS: Tribute to Brent library campaigners 10 years after Brent Council closed half our libraries

 In the guest post below Paul Lorber, volunteer at Barham Library reflects on the battle against the closure of six Brent libraries, at the time half of the total libraries in the borough.  There were debates within SOS Brent Libraries over the issue - some wanted to concentrate on maintaining the provision of a locally accessible, properly funded professionally staffed library while others, although agreeing with that as a long-term aim, wanted to safeguard the actual buildings and stocks with  short-term volunteer led provision. Taking the legal route was an option undertaken only after considerable debate and produced national headlines. LINK

Four of the six were 'saved' one way or another but Neasden, despite being in one of the poorest areas in the borough had no high profile backing it and is now a church. Tokyngton Library, across the River Brent from St Raphaels Estate, was sold off to an Islamic Association in which  Muhammed Butt  was alleged to have an interest. LINK On the other hand Kensal Rise campaigners had access to a long list of celebrity authors to back their campaign.

The closures led evetually to the demise of   Council Leader Ann John, and her replacement by Muhammed Butt.  It is interesting to revisit the Open Letter that former Brent Labour councillor Graham Durham wrote to him at the time. LINK 

Brent Council began to give some tentative assistance to the volunteer libraries but with no commitment to full reinstatement of the services, signing a Memorandum of Understanding with them in 2017.  LINK

 Recently Preston Community Library after some internal disagreements, has moved to temporary premises while a block of flats is being built on the  redeveloped site with space for a volunteer library on the ground floor.

 

Guest post by Paul Lorber, library volunteer, Friends of Barham Library

 

he second week of October marks 10 years since Labour Councillors in Brent put the final nail in and closed 6 public libraries in Brent. Libraries in Barham Park, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise, Neasden, Preston and Tokyngton were closed after a long battle to save them.

 

There was massive opposition to the closures proposed by the Labour run Brent Council with large petitions, protests and well attended meetings. Local Campaigners raised over £30,000 and took the Council to Court and it was only after they lost their case and the Judge denied them the right to appeal that Brent Council was finally able to close the 6 public libraries for ever.

 

What Labour Councillors did not expect was the determination of dedicated local people to fight on and establish their own Community Libraries to continue the provision of service to the public.

 

They decided to close 6 local libraries (half the total) to save around £1 million. Around 80% of that cost related to staff costs. Local people asked the Council to hand over the Library buildings so that volunteers could run the Libraries instead. This offer was refused despite the fact that 3 of the Library buildings were gifts to local people - Cricklewood and Kensal Rise from All Souls College Oxford and Barham Park from Titus Barham of Express Dairies.

 

For 10 years dozens of local volunteers have kept the dream of local libraries alive and 4 have survived - Barham Community Library has moved around between Barham Primary School, High Road Wembley and finally Barham Park itself and has been actively providing a service for 10 years. Preston Community Library eventually fought its way back into its own building and while Kensal Rise and Cricklewood Community Libraries had their old buildings sold to developers All Souls College, to their credit, insisted that space was made available to the reborn Community Libraries. Kensal Rise has been operating for some time and Cricklewood is hoping to open soon.

 

While the Community Libraries cannot compete for money and resources with Brent Council funded libraries they compensate for this with the dedication of their volunteers and their ingenuity in providing a wide range of local services. Barham Community Library has put on live theatre, Preston has a Film Club while Kensal Rise has put on Author and Comedy events. They all provide the usual book lending services and a wide range of activities for people of all ages.

 

Some of us have been around right from the outset. Over the past 10 years hundreds of people have helped and volunteered to keep the Community Libraries and the spirit of community service alive.

 

I still think that Labour councillors made a big mistake in closing the public libraries and refusing to work in partnership with local people. It is for Labour Councillors to look in the mirror and admit that they made a big mistake.

 

Today, while remembering the battles of 2010 and 2011, I just want to pay a Tribute to all those dozens of dedicated people who recognised the importance of local libraries and would not allow them to die. And of course the best way of recognising this achievement is by paying a visit and supporting your local Community Library in Barham Park, Cricklewood, Kensal Rise and Preston is by paying a visit and borrowing a book or two.

 

 

Brent campaigners at a national demonstration

 

EDITOR'S NOTE

I would be interested in other campaigners' comments on the campaign and what has eventually transpired. 

 

 

UPDATED SCANDAL: South Kilburn blocks so badly built for Brent Council that remediation exceeds the original purchase cost

A report going to Brent Council's Wellbeing and Scrutiny Committee next week LINK reveals that blocks built in 2009 on the South Kilburn Estate by Higgins suffer from water penetration and cladding, fire safety and window issues. The blocks are known together as Granville New Homes.

The problems are so bad that demolition was one of the options considered. Brent Housing Partnership purchased the properties for £17.1m and the estimated cost of remediation works is £18.5m.

The report summarises the issues:

First Wave Housing (FWH)  is one of the Council’s wholly owned housing companies. It is a registered provider with 326 properties. Of FWH’s 326 properties, 110 are located at Granville New Homes. These 110 properties comprise of 84 social rented properties, 25 intermediate rented properties, and one leaseholder. 

 

Granville New Homes is a residential development that completed in 2009. It was developed by the Council and Higgins. The Council’s Arms Length Management Organisation, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), purchased the properties at a cost of £17.1m. This figure met the Council’s development costs and was funded via a loan from the Council. BHP also received 45 one bedroom market rented properties in order to cross subsidise the acquisition, as on its own, the purchase of Granville New Homes would not have been viable for BHP. Since 2009, the properties have been managed as part of BHP/now FWH’s portfolio. 

 

FWH commissioned a report from Ridge Consultants to investigate water penetration, cladding, fire safety and window issues at FWH’s Granville, Princess, and Canterbury blocks (otherwise known as Granville New Homes). Ridge have recommended that works be carried out at the blocks to remediate these issues. It is estimated that the cost of works will be £18.5m.

A report going to Cabinet on October 11th after Scrutiny has considered the issue set out the options that were rejected: 

The Ridge Report that was commissioned by the Council outlined the main problems:

The Ridge report stated that the issues identified are not easily repairable in a way which will offer a guaranteed and satisfactory solution. On this basis, the only available option is to replace the facades, roof coverings and balcony waterproofing systems. These works include:

· Removing and replacing all cladding (both cementitious and brick effect panel) with non-combustible A1 or A2 fire rated materials;
· Stripping external façades and removing all external doors and windows;
· Providing new external doors and windows within a new panelised cladding system;
· Replacing insulation; and
· Stripping roofs and providing new roof coverings. 3.9 Including consultancy services, the waking-watch, the fire alarm system and contingency allowances, the estimated total cost of remediation works is circa £18.5m (including VAT). This figure includes £2m of contingency costs. If the remediation is carried out as outlined, the estimated completion date is September 2023. At present these costs are not affordable for FWH. It should be noted that the £18.5m is an estimated value from Ridge; until works are tendered and completed the actual cost will not be known.

The Cabinet Report suggests the following complex  option to resolve the issue:

5.1 The recommended option is for FWH to dispose of the blocks to the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and for the HRA to carry out remediation works as recommended in the Ridge report. There are nuances to this option in regards to how the transaction would be structured. These are detailed in section 6.

However, broadly, under this option:

 

· The transfer occurs at zero value as the blocks’ asset valuation of £12.5m is offset by the £15.4m of works required to the asset (the figure excludes VAT as this is reclaimable by the Council). The HRA as part of the Council will come
within the scope of public law principles. Therefore, it cannot act unlawfully or irrationally. Therefore, the HRA cannot pay a sum for the blocks.
· The HRA carries out the remediation works.
· The 84 social rented tenants would become secure Council tenants.
· The 25 intermediate rented tenants would be transferred to i4B under the recommended option; the HRA will recharge i4B for its proportion of the works.
· FWH’s loan for the blocks would be refinanced to a more affordable rate.
· As the transfer will formally be valued at zero value by the valuer no capital gains or SDLT costs are anticipated. As the transaction is a commercial transaction to support the ability of FWH to trade as a going concern, any tax
implications to the transfer are incidental and would be in accordance with General Anti avoidance Rules operated by HMRC. Tax advice from the Council’s tax advisors have confirmed this position.

 

5.2 The following assumptions have also been made:
· It is assumed the housing management function will be managed within existing staffing resources. There will be a reallocation of resource time and cost from FWH to the HRA to reflect the work associated with the transferred units.
· Rent inflation at 1.5% in line with CPI+1 and cost inflation at 2% per annum in line with Bank of England target rates.
· The cost assumptions in this report do not include estimates for decarbonisation works, as this is a known budget limitation across the sector.
· Further major works at £2,000 per property assumed from year 8 of the HRA Business Plan. 

 

5.3 This option balances the cost between FWH, i4B, the Council’s General Fund and the HRA. It also offers the minimum disruption to residents in the blocks by offering the most rapid solution to addressing the remediation works required.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that this is a reasonable way to achieve appropriate levels of different types of housing tenure in the borough.

 

Higgins and Brent Council celebrating the start of the current Stonebridge scheme in December 2020 (first published on Brent Council & Higgins' websites)

 

The elephant in the room is of course Brent Council's partner in the development Higgins and what their responsibility is regarding these very expensive defects. Higgins, who appear to go under various names - Higgins Partnership, Higgins Homes, Higgins Group, seem to be a favoured partner of the Council with a £22m contract for 73 council homes in Stonebridge signed last August and another South Kilburn development at Chippenham Gardens.

 

I am sure councillors on the Scrutiny Committee will be keen to find out more about the partnership and its future.

 

UPDATE - Comment from Wembley Matters contributor Philip Grant

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd is the same company as Brent Housing Partnership Ltd - there was simply a change of name in 2017. It's details on the Companies House Beta website (Company No. 04533752) make for interesting reading.

The Chairman of the company appears to be Martin Smith (other details unknown), and other directors are Akintoye Durowoju (who appears to be a Chartered Surveyor and Brent Council employee), two senior Brent Officers, Phil Porter and Gail Tolley (although there is conflicting evidence about whether one or both have resigned or are still in post), and Councillor Saqib Butt (appointed in November 2020, after the previous councillor directors George Crane - to September 2020 - and James Denselow - Sept. to November 2020 - had both resigned).

The most recent accounts submitted are for the year to 31 March 2020. These include a £1.1m increase in the value of its properties, based on valuations by Jones Lang LaSalle. It will be interesting to see what their valuation is at 31 March 2021!

The balance sheet shows net assets of around £26.7m, but this includes a revaluation reserve of £15.5m. The cash flow (profit or loss) for the year showed a deficit of £264k.

There were loans of £36.8m from Brent Council, and the accounts were prepared on a going concern basis, as 'The Council has confirmed, in writing, of its intention for FWH to remain as a going concern for at least twelve months from the date of approval of the annual report and financial statements.' The financial statements were approved on 29 September 2020!

With the loss of rental income when a third of its properties are passed to Brent Council (and i4B), and the value of its Granville New Homes properties written down to NIL, but still with interest to pay on the loan from the Council to purchase those homes in 2009, there must be some doubt over whether First Wave Housing Ltd can continue as a going concern.

 

 First Wave Housing Ltd outstanding £17.8m loan on Granville New Homes from the Companies House Charges Register