Dear Brent Council – Council Housing and Common Sense

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An entry from Brent Council’s latest Forward Plan

 

Dear Brent Council,

 

I think that you’ve become too complicated in the way you seek to provide the new Council homes that many local people need. 

 

Take, for example, your decision (at last November’s Cabinet meeting) to buy a block of flats at the former Alperton Bus Garage site. The developer, Telford Homes, was given planning permission to build three tower blocks there, on condition that one of them, block C - containing 155 of the 461 flats proposed in their application, would be as “affordable housing”. 

 

South-west elevation drawing from the planning application documents (block B outlined at the back)

 

Normally, when a private developer agrees a large-scale affordable housing offer, they do so in partnership with a housing association which will provide those homes. But here, it is Brent Council who have stepped in to acquire them. And the Council is not buying them direct from Telford Homes. It is proposed that they will be acquired from an Asset Special Purpose Vehicle (“ASPV”). Who or what is an ASPV?

 

That would be explained in the report that Cabinet members made their decision on, wouldn’t it? If it was, the explanation was in one of the (now all too common) exempt appendices. Looking at the minutes of the meeting, all the Lead Member for Resources, Cllr. McLennan, said about the ASPV was simply a repeat of the Officer’s report :

 

Opening section of the November 2021 Cabinet Report

 

The report to the meeting was not from the Director of Housing, but the Director of Finance. No questions were asked about why the Council was not buying the flats direct from the developer, who the beneficial owner of the intermediary ASVP was, and why it would not be a straight 999-year lease. Cabinet members seemed more intent on congratulating the Council, its finance team (and themselves?) for the proposal they were about to “rubber stamp”:

 

‘In expressing their support for the proposal, Cabinet highlighted the opportunity the scheme provided to further increase the supply of affordable social housing within the borough based on a leasing model which was felt to represent good value for money.  Officers were thanked for their efforts in securing the necessary terms ….’

 

But how ‘good value’ was this ‘leasing model’? The Council would be taking an initial 50-year lease on 155 homes in a 26-storey tower block (55 x 1-bed, 49 x 2-bed, 46 x 3-bed [5 person] and 5 x 4-bed [6 person] flats). The report from the Director of Finance said:

 

‘Officers have been in discussion with the ASPV regarding the possibility of purchasing these homes. An offer has been on a purchase price of circa £48M via private treaty on a 50 year leasing arrangement, which means an average of £280K for each home.’

 

The report then goes on to say:

 

‘The target average development cost under the New Council Homes Programme (NCHP) is £280K per home. As such, the leasing model represents good value for money.’

 

It appears from this that the cost per home for the leasehold flats at the Alperton Bus Garage site would be no better than the development cost for freehold homes on one of Brent Council’s own housing projects, over which the Council would have much better control. 

 

And the £280k per home figure is dependent on the deal to buy leasehold flats from an ASVP (which only has an option to acquire them from the developer) qualifying for a £4.3m grant from the GLA, and that the Council would qualify for 100% Stamp Duty Land Tax relief on its leasehold purchase, which is not certain:

 

‘These assumptions will need to be fully tested along with the Council’s tax advisors and HMRC. Failure to secure the SDLT exemption noted above would increase the cost of the scheme by circa £1.9M.’

 

Why is Brent Council getting into such a complex and potentially risky deal? If it has £48m available to spend on new Council homes, why not spend it on building those homes on a vacant site it already owns, and for which it has had full planning consent since February 2021?

 

Diagrammatic view of Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme. (From an April 2021 Council document)

 

I am referring to the Cecil Avenue site, part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone, which I have been writing about since August 2021. As can be seen from the image above, this development is not a tower block (maximum height 9-storeys), it will have an internal garden square and includes family-sized maisonettes with their own private gardens. Surely that would provide better new Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

At the moment, following a Cabinet decision six months ago, it is proposed that 152 of the 250 homes to be built at Cecil Avenue (including 20 family-sized homes) would be for a developer partner to sell at a profit. In an article last month, I asked why Senior Council Officers and a small number of Cabinet members (with the rest not questioning it) were appearing to favour developers over Brent residents in need of a decent Council home? We are all still waiting for an answer!

 

I’ve set out the question and the evidence behind it. Now here is my advice. Avoid the ASPV! Ditch the developer! Get on and use the money you were willing to spend on 155 homes in a leasehold tower block in Alperton, and instead build all 250 of the homes at Cecil Avenue (including the 152 you planned to “give away” to a developer) as affordable rented Council homes. You know that is good, plain common sense.

 

Yours sincerely,

Philip Grant.

 

P.S. My consultancy fee for this sound advice is the same as usual - £zero!

Observations on South Kilburn in the light of the Brent Local Plan

 Guest post by David Walton of FLASK

The new proposed Brent Local Plan to year 2041 is set to be put for adoption to Full Council on 24^th February 2022.

 

Government Planning Inspectors in January 2022 put forward their final report and modifications to Brent Council. Here are some South Kilburn (soon to be Tall Building Zone (?) local observations…….

 

South Kilburn Growth Area, South East Place (one of 7 large often internally un-related and un-relatable Brent Plan 'places') is excluded from being part of Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum Plan for Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward), but is where Kilburn Town (Kilburn electoral ward) will tower and excluded mega population grow - a bit like Wembley non City, a bizarre, colonial and fractured approach to Brent’s major change.

 

It is of note that these modifications that all site allocation insert plans for South Kilburn have been removed by inspectors from this new Brent Local Plan. I suppose that is one solution to resident questions, but this future engagement is unhelpful as South Kilburn has so many 'site allocations' (knowns and unknowns) pending which must now rely (unlike for other Brent places) entirely on words. Some title headings for new sites have had modifications removed- why not keep a plan saying that current state school land uses or public open space land uses are become new 'site allocation' opportunities instead?

 

It is also worth noting that many South Kilburn large 'sites' don’t even make this modified plan, for example the Cullen House/ station car park ( long land banked), new Peel Square with its 16 storey Countryside tower yet to be built,  Carlton Granville Community and Education Centres, Brent housing plan 'other ideas site' and more….. What are the infrastructure planning requirements for this plan sites denied- none? Should flood alleviation infrastructure and social infrastructure not be stated in Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area? There is certainly a lot less social and health infrastructure required than the 2010 SKGA plan and that was a lot less required than the 2004 Neighbourhood Plan offer (2016 Brent cancelled).

 

The reality is that South Kilburn's population is being increased 6 fold from 6,000 in year 2000 to 36,000 by 2041 (sites hidden/ 'moveable feast' ambiguities added). Modification here is clearly all about the scale of the South Kilburn Mega Growth being kept carefully under the radar of Brent wider social and public health/ recreation strategic infrastructure investment for massive population growth..

 

Of the South Kilburn site allocations which Planning Inspectors modifications:

 

BSESA1 Austin House and public park demolition. South Kilburn Air Management Area (SKAMA) / 'a car free development should be the starting point.' Infrastructure planning requirements- 'Thames Water has indicated that upgrades to the wastewater system are likely to be required.'

 

'Are likely to be required' is the key get out clause here, as Brent despite social rent housing clearing since 2005 has yet to produce a detailed Flood Risk Assessment for any of its many South Kilburn Masterplan(s) for massed help-to buy/ affordable housing on a flood plateau. As regards future floods baked-in by the corporate risk appetite for removal of all existing public owned natural flood defences with new builds no longer being built at raised level either, South Kilburn people will have to ' learn to live with it?' and with the costs involved.

 

What is also interesting is that there are so few site social infrastructure planning requirements for new South Kilburn Growth Area, which is surprising given enormous population growth. This makes the new Brent Local Plan an inequalities/ non citizen zones Brent 'Slum Dog Billionaires' policies document towards 2041 as regards South Kilburn. Very much parallel development and as if Grenfell, Windrush and pandemic simply never happened and the planning reform bill had not been cancelled as being ill advised in 2021 either.

 

The modifications continue…….

 

BSESA2 Blake Court and public park demolition; SKAMA/ a car free development…. Despite being adjacent to Austin House public park flood defence, no infrastructure planning requirements at all?

 

BSESA3 Carlton House and Carlton Hall demolition. SKAMA / a car free development….Despite a community hall and public green space attached being demolished- Infrastructure planning requirements - zero according to Inspectors?

 

BSESA4 Carlton Vale Infant School demolition. SKAKMA/ not car free as next to the Westminster boundary? Inspectors state that vehicle access between Malvern Road and Carlton Vale is 'proposed' to be closed, which is a bizarre planning statement given that vehicles have been closed from Malvern Road to Carlton Vale since the 1960's, this at that time to prevent regular traffic accidents near the schools and central park. Malvern Road is a Brent long established traffic calmed one way street so what is there to propose? Is the intent to open Malvern Road to two way traffic? SKAMA what SKAMA?

 

A land swap with Wordsworth and Maesfield House demolitions is proposed for this school’s new site when it becomes mono-housing. This school is currently central public park side located.

 

BSESA5 Craik Court demolition. SKAMA/ car free development. Public green open space with veteran trees and community hall demolished. Infrastructure planning requirements-non?

 

BSESA6 Crone Court and Zangwill House demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. Public open space loss, yet the only Infrastucture planning requirement – water supply and waste water infrastructure upgrades possibly.

 

BSESA7 Dickens House and public park demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements water supply and waste water upgrades hopefully.

 

BSESA8 Hereford House and Exeter Court, play areas demolitions. SKAMA/ car free. 'Development must be consistent with the recommendations of Brent Local Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Level 2' Infratructure planning requirement. Granville Road Public Open Space (see BSESA11) is to be re-located here at this BSESA8 site. Not very helpful that this requirement Inspectors term 'open space' as that will mean fully private enclosed green space thereby rendered useless to the wider community.

 

BSESA9. The Inspector doesn't dare to even write Kilburn Park Foundation School demolition anymore. The 'site' created by this will be of ambiguous status as for example SKAMA/ car free development is stated. Then Inspectors later say that the demolition site created will be a park, so a new car free park?

 

This school land use being built on re-locates to Wordsworth and Maesfield sites but also onto the South Kilburn Public Open Space, Brent Kilburns only park sized park, demolishing its bio-diverse veteran tree woodland area no less!

 

BSESA10 Neville House, public open space and Winterleys demolition. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste water upgrades possible.

 

BSESA11 Again, Inspectors dared not name the site which (upgraded and invested in in 2010) is the remains of the once grand scale Granville Road Public Open Space and flood defence. Less 'public open' too this in recent years as Brent Master Developer has been land bank locking it up on and off. SKAMA/car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. So a no public open space replacement is planning required in a flatted  (no gardens) area of public open space deficiency?

 

BSESA12 Wordsworth., Maesfield and part of South Kilburn Public Open Space. SKAMA/ car free. Infrastructure planning requirements- new school(s) to replace the two school sites being demolished for housing. Water supply and drainage upgrades? There is no planning legal requirement stated by Inspectors to replace the large chunk of South Kilburn Public Open Space veteran tree woodland area that both school(s) sold for housing will be re-built on?

 

BSESA13 Again Inspectors unhelpfully decided to abandon naming John Ratcliffe House demolition. SKAMA. Infrastructure planning requirements- waste water upgrades only. 

 

BSESA14 William Dunbar and William Saville House, community hall demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water supply and waste upgrades only.

 

BSESA15 Not site named again, the UK Albanian Muslim Community and Cultural Centre. SKAMA/ car free housing. Infrastructure planning requirements- water and waste water supply upgrades only.

 

BSESA16 Oxford Kilburn Club demolition. SKAMA/ car free housing.

Infrastructure planning requirements- Replace club either on or off site (elsewhere)? Water supply and waste water upgrade.

After Brent's take, the OK Club took the lion's share of New Deal for Communities government funds (their first project being to employ a professional fundraiser). It will be interesting to finally see if this by community investment of scarce public funds made any sense now when the OK Club now monumentally 'cashes in?'     

 

 

To add, please look at Article 4 (1) Directions published by Brent in July 2021 which includes an SK Inset Map with at least some of this site allocations red-line box's colonialist horrors illustrated. Horrors (not mapped in the Planning Inspectors modified Brent Local Plan of Jan 2022), with Brent South Kilburn mono-colonial-overdevelopment zones new plan to build on current land uses such as South Public Open Space woodland, Granville Road Public Open Space, Kilburn Park Foundation School, Carlton Vale Infants School and Dickens Austen Public Open Space. This all comes into effect 1st August 2022.

 

The term Growth Area from 2010 BLP should not be retained in this new Brent Local Plan 2022 regarding South Kilburn given the new planning bills 2021 suspension. While underground car parks everywhere as separate 'business' opportunities and the doubling highways by Brent in SK zone should also be made public.

 

Most of the requirements from the 2010 SKGA plan were not landlord actioned and  in the new plan become cancelled requirements. 2022 SKGA South Kilburn plan infrastructure requirements is for flats as literally the only infrastructure and at densities as yet unseen in the UK! Vague Policy BSEGA1 South Kilburn Growth Area is simply not written into later 'site allocations' infrastructure planning requirements or is ambiguously stated, the same for the BSEGA1 new sites not mentioned at all- no infrastructure planning requirements for them no doubt either?

A new England-led 'sovereign take back control' South Kilburn for project Global Britain, of high tax take (tax as tribute for simply being allowed to live in the UK third class)- no social, health, shared services towered zones (a social rent estates level and up/ tower, level and up/tower, again and again as of such poor flood area build quality). A zone where no one is or ever can live a full UK citizen's life, rights, health and wellbeing supports and chances- this all by government Global Britain design.

A mega density non place for non citizens is 2041 guaranteed by these Inspectors modifications and residents concerns were not listened to and not respected. This South Kilburn zoned corporate colony for feeding Global Britain Slum Dog Billionaires risk appetite dines on and on- the South Kilburn 'moveable feast'.

 

David Walton

FLASK (Flood Local Action South Kilburn)

UPDATED WITH BRENT COUNCIL STATEMENT: LETTER: Will Brent Housing ever carry out the urgent repair to the self-closing fire door on the 3rd Floor at William Dunbar House, South Kilburn?

 

The fire door that is supposed to be self-closing remains open - allowing flames and smoke to penetrate the building.

 

Brent Council reacts on Twitter to John's first letter - January 18th, 2022

UPDATE February 2nd 2022

 

 

Dear Editor,

 

Will Brent Housing ever carry out the urgent repair to the self-closing fire door on the 3rd Floor at William Dunbar House, South Kilburn?

 

As readers of WM know, I have been trying to get the council to fix the Fire door on the 3rd floor for a long time, which compromises my safety and that of everyone living in the block.

 

Last night there was a serious fire in Poplar on the 8th floor of a tower block which required an emergency evacuation, with some residents escaping via an internal fire escape.

 

If a fire was to break out on the 3rd floor of my block and smoke and flames escaped from the flat where the fire was, it would quickly travel out the open fire door into our only internal fire escape, leaving  everyone living in the block trapped with possible fatal consequences.

 

Nobody can ever predict when a fire might break out in their home, so I am calling on Brent Council for one last time to repair the fire door to ensure the safety of everyone living there.

 

Finally, the council are breaking the law, as The Fire Safety Order (2005) updated in 2021 says "landlords have a duty of care to protect any residents living in William Dunbar House" but for some reasons known only to themselves, they have chosen to break the law by not repairing the fire door.

 

Thank you

John Healy.

 

Here is a reminder of Brent Council's undertaking following the Grenfell disaster

 

 And here is the link to the manufacturer's statement on maintenance:

https://www.gerdasecurity.co.uk/productsandservices/communal-fire-doorsets/maintenance.aspx

 

 

The environmental projects that won Brent's first' Participatory Budgeting' 'You Decide' event

Press Release from Brent Council (unedited)

 

Brent residents have cast their votes to choose which projects should share a £500,000 funding pot that aims to reduce carbon emissions in the borough by at least 100 tonnes.

Voting from residents took place on Saturday 29 January. This is the first time that Brent has used this bold new Participatory Budgeting programme. The ‘You Decide’ programme has put the community in the driving seat from the start; the resident-led Planning Group (CO2GO) designed the funding criteria and powers were handed to residents to say which projects should be funded.

A diverse range of almost 250 residents attended the ‘Decision Day’ event, which was open to any Brent resident, and voted on the green projects that they felt would make a difference in their communities. The residents’ choices are subject to formal ratification from the council’s Cabinet.

The first pot of £400k was awarded to homes that will install energy efficiency measures to reduce their carbon emissions. The winning bids included a total of 37 flats, maisonettes and houses that will undergo sustainability works to reduce their carbon footprint. These properties have combined as a cluster to maximise the benefits of green measures. Two community buildings in Willesden were also selected for energy saving makeovers.

The second pot of £100k was awarded to community groups who will run educational projects to help residents reduce carbon emissions, save money, and make positive and healthier lifestyle changes.

The winning projects for pot two, all based in Brent, included: Brookway Biodiversity Project, Advice for Renters, Ultra Education CIC, Hill Top Circle, Diffusion Elite Security, Clube dos Brasileirinhos, Mums for Lungs and Young Brent Foundations.

These exciting community-based initiatives include:

•           Planting fruit trees and extending wildflower meadows

•           An Energy Advice Bus

•           Teaching young entrepreneurs to think sustainably

•           CO2 awareness sessions with Brent, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities

•           Children’s art workshop to create single-use shopping bags

•           A mural project with schools and educating children about air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

•           Training for youth workers on creating engaging sustainability projects with young people

 

Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of Brent Council said: 

“It was amazing to see so many people coming people coming forward for the first resident-led Decision Day in Brent. The quantity and quality of the submissions was brilliant; local people, local ideas for local change. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bid and congratulations to the winning projects. Our ambition is to support more activities that give residents the power to decide on local projects for their communities! Watch out for more community decision days and we want to see more amazing projects coming forward.”

BRIEFING: New Brent Council wards for May 5th local elections. Check your ward and how many councillors you will have.

 

With the Brent Council election coming up on May 5th public knowledge of the new wards and the reduced number of councillors in some wards is fairly low, so this is an attempt to summarise the information. If you are unclear on which ward you are now in you can search by postcode HERE

Proposed polling districts/stations can be found HERE

There are now 3 wards with Wembley in their names as Wembley Park (Quintain?) ward is now separated from Tokyngton, Muhammed Butt's ward and Wembley Hill has been added. There will be some jostling for nominations in the 2 member wards by existing councillors at next month's selections, although I understand a number have decided not to stand in in May. It is likely Labour will seek a male and female candidate in 2 member wards such as Cricklewood and Mapesbury and Barnhill where presently 2 of the 3 councillors are male.

The present arrangement is 63 councillors of whom 58 are Labour, 3 Conservative, 1 Liberal Democrat and 1 Liberal Democrat. There will be 57 councillors after the election.

The new wards have been drawn up based on population projections for 2024, maintaining existing communities as far as possible and having a fairly equal number of electors per councillor. Beneath each ward I have given the number of councillors, 2018 electorate/projected 2024 electorate/projected 2024 electors per councillor.

 

Alperton 3 councillors 9,692/13,187/4,396

 Barnhill 2 councillors 7,703/8,868 /4,434

Brondesbury Park 2 councillors 9,131/9,256/4,628

Cricklewood and Mapesbury 2 councillors 9,133/9,407/4,704

Dollis Hill 3 councillors 13,745/13,831/4,610

Harlesden and Kensal Green 3 councillors 13,397/13,384/4,461

Kenton 3 councillors 13,165/13,815/4,605

Kilburn 3 councillors 11,986/12,581/4,194

Kingsbury 2 councillors 7,336/9,184/4,592

 Northwick Park 2 councillors 9,322/9,330/4,655

Preston 2 councillors 7,969/8,147/4,073

Queens Park 3 councillors 12,343/12,797/4,266

Queensbury 3 councillors11,891/11,869/3,956

Roundwood 3 councillors 10,306/11,901/3,967

Stonebridge 3 councillors 12,383/13,338/4,446

Sudbury 2 councillors 8,858/8,725/4,363

Tokyngton 2 councillors 7,149/8,085/4,042

Welsh Harp 3 councillors 11,979/11,970/3,990

Wembley Central 3 councillors  12,040/13,138/4,379

Wembley Hill 3 councillors 9,715/11,735/3,912

Wembley Park 2 councillors 4,477/8,674/4,337

 Willesden Green 3 councillors 12,411/12,509/4170

Rumi's Cave say 'Stand by us' as they prepare to leave Carlton Vale premises

 

 

New video of Glaiza Padulla, Project Manager and Aminah Babikir, Director, explaining Rumi's history and current move as demonstrated in this video.

Donate to our new fundraising page 
https://www.ulfaaid.org.uk/rumiscavelegacy/