Brent Council: Heritage and Hypocrisy

 Guest blog, by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-
 

The newly renovated listed Georgian house in Kensal Green.

 

A press release issued by Brent Council on 9 February opens with the words: ‘A threatened historic building is now a beautiful family home thanks to Brent’s heritage experts.’

 

It gives the news of how Brent’s Heritage team worked with the new owner of this Georgian villa, on the Harrow Road in Kensal Green, and Historic England, to retain the historic characteristics of a building that had fallen into disrepair, and was “at risk”. The press release ends with a link, inviting us to “Read more about Brent’s heritage assets”.

 

The page on the Council’s website tells us:

 

‘Brent's heritage assets include a wide range of architectural styles from Victorian Italianate, Gothic Revival, suburban 'Arts and Crafts', ‘Tudorbethan’, ‘Old World’, Modern and Brutalist.’

 

‘Heritage assets make a substantial contribution to Brent's local character and distinctiveness. They are a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’

 

And, after describing the various types of heritage assets, including statutory listed buildings, locally listed buildings and registered parks and gardens, it concludes by stating:

 

‘Brent’s heritage is valued as evidence of the past culture, providing a sense of belonging.’

 

Brent’s finest example of the Victorian Italianate style of architecture, and a locally listed heritage asset, is the villa at 1 Morland Gardens, originally known as “Altamira”. It was built in 1876, as part of the original Stonebridge Park development, by the architect Henry Kendall Jr. It is ‘a unique and irreplaceable resource which justifies protection, conservation and enhancement.’ And yet, its owner, Brent Council, plans to demolish it.

 

“Altamira” at the entrance to Stonebridge Park in a 1906 postcard. (Source: Brent Archives)

 

“Altamira”, now home to the Brent Start adult college, in 2020.

 

At the first pre-application planning meeting in March 2019, Brent’s project team were told that the Council’s Heritage Officer believed that this heritage building should be retained. But a Planning Officer had already (wrongly) told them that ‘not retaining the villa was acceptable.’

 

When Brent submitted its planning application in 2020, seeking to demolish the Victorian villa to make way for a new college facility with an eight-storey block of flats on top of it, the Heritage Officer’s initial comments said that the villa ‘should be considered an important local heritage asset of high significance.’

 

The Heritage Officer’s final report, dismissed the conclusions put forward in a “Heritage Statement” submitted by planning agents on behalf of Brent Council, as the prospective developer. He referred to evidence provided by ‘Anthony Geraghty MA PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of York’, saying: 

 

‘He rates Henry Edward Kendall Jr. as ‘an architect of considerable importance whose nineteenth century villa characterises work by an architect of genuine and lasting significance.’ This is supported by the Victorian Society who make the point that the Stonebridge Park Estate was a development by a Victorian ‘architect of note’ and a ‘good surviving example of a key aspect of Kendall's small, domestic works’.’

 

Brent’s heritage planning policy DMP7 says: ‘Proposals for…heritage assets should…retain buildings, …where their loss would cause harm.’ It’s Heritage Officer’s final report clearly stated that: ‘The demolition of the building, by its very nature, must be seen as substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset.’

 

Despite the evidence of “Brent’s heritage expert”, and the efforts of myself and other residents to get Brent’s Planning Committee to uphold the Council’s own heritage planning promises, five of the eight members were persuaded to accept the recommendation of Brent’s Planning Officers, and approve the Council’s application.

 

I welcome the news that the privately-owned heritage Georgian villa in Kensal Green has been restored to its former glory – but when it comes to heritage, it does seem that there is one rule for the Council, and another for everyone else!

-----------------------------------------------------

 

I’m dedicating this article to the memory of Martin Redston. Martin was one of many supporters of Willesden Local History Society’s campaign to “Save the Altamira”. He’d also been a leading figure in the 2012/13 community campaign to stop the demolition by Brent Council of another locally listed heritage asset, the original 1894 Victorian section of Willesden Green Library.

 

Brent’s then Regeneration Director had said it would be impossible to retain that building if the Council was to have a new library centre, “for free”, as part of its proposed deal with a developer partner. Martin provided them with this sketch, to show how it could be done.

 

 

Public pressure forced the Council to change its mind, and Brent now boasts of its new Willesden Green Library. There is even a photograph of it on the front of its Historic Environment Place-Making Strategy booklet, with a caption saying that the new building: ‘returns to use the locally listed Victorian Library blending perfectly the old and the new.’

 

 

There is still time for Brent to change its mind, and do the same at 1 Morland Gardens, rather than demolishing a beautiful, and still useful, heritage asset.

 

Philip Grant.

Disabled leaseholder group starts fire safety legal action against Government

 From Disability Rights UK LINK

The Disabled leaseholders group Claddag has started judicial review proceedings against the Home Secretary for awarding a contract to produce guidance which includes the means of escape for Disabled people from fire to CS Todd & Associates Ltd.

In a statement it said: “Given Mr Todd consistently advocates against evacuation plans for Disabled people, and was the only expert of four to do so in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, we do not feel it is right for him to have this influence and authority over the safety of disabled people.”

Paralympian and disability rights campaigner, Baroness Grey-Thompson also raised grave concerns in the House of Lords last week. She spoke of the poor fire safety guidance and practice that ultimately led to 41% of Disabled residents of Grenfell Tower losing their lives in the 2017 fire. She highlighted the Government’s failure to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry to place a legal duty on owners and agents to prepare Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for Disabled residents unable to self-evacuate, despite a consultation ending on 19 July 2021, and spoke of the Government awarding the contract to produce new fire safety guidance to a fire safety expert whose testimony was rejected by the chair of the Grenfell Inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and who had made offensive comments on online fire safety forums about Disabled people.

Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at DR UK said: “DR UK has also written to the Secretary of State seeking reassurance that the Government intends to implement the Grenfell Tower Inquiry recommendations on PEEPs. We have asked when the new regulations on PEEPs will be laid before Parliament, and we have asked for a review of the award of the contract in the light of Equality Act duties.”

 

Flood and Fire at Brent Scrutiny - are the actions adequate?

 

 

There were two main issues at Brent Scrutiny yesterday evening, both vital to the safety of Brent residents. The meeting was chaired by vice chair Cllr Kasangra as Cllr Roxanne Mashari, the chair, is unwell with long covid. 

 

The first item came under 'Topical Issue' and was a follow up to a previous Scrutiny discussion about the impact of flooding, particularly in the Kilburn area. Thames Water appeared to answer questions but unfortunately the Environment Agency, despite requests to attend, did not.

 

This is important because Thames Water are responsible for sewer flooding, Brent Council for surface water flooding, and the Environment Agency for river flooding. Clearly the 3 factors interact with each other, so a joint approach is necessary along with services such as the London Fire Brigade.

 

Mike Benke, (Thames Water Local Government Liaison Officer) and Alex Nickson (Lead Responder on July 12th Flooding) addressed the meeting and answered questions.

 

The July 12th rainfall was much more intense that had been planned for. Thames Water said that they had not responded as well as customers had a right to expect - they had just not been quick enough. They had been overwhelmed on the day and their response had not been good enough.

 

Thames had already implemented changes such as an increase in resources at call centres and were looking for other sustainable solutions and property protection measures.

 

Cllr Johnson asked how, with a housing target of 3,200 dwelling, Thames would work with the borough to ensure drainage was adequate. The Committee were clearly shocked to hear the Thames Water were not a statutory consultee on planning applications - they didn't have to be consulted on large developments, but councils do consult them. Thames are pro-active in looking at where developments are proposed. Thames was not anti-development by any stretch but tried to get developers to engage with them. They offer a free pre-application advice service on how to make developments sustainable. However, developers are under no obligation to consult with Thames. 

 

Cllr Kasangra  felt Thames should be a statutory consultee. Nickson said that in a perfect world they would be. He remarked that it was not just large development: the cumulative impact of small changes, such as paving over of gardens could be more significant than some large developments.

 

Thames has appointed an Independent Review into the July 12th events. It was arm’s length to ensure independence despite Thames Water funding it. The three experts will procure evidence from independent professional advisers. It would report in April or May with a particular focus on the Maida Vale areas. 

 

 Of 14 recommendations made by the internal review into July 12th nine had been implemented so far and Thames was 'planning for the worst rather than hoping for the best' and working with agencies including the London Fire Brigade. Some actions had been tested during August and October storms without any serious flooding. They would provide the council with an update on the outstanding 5 actions.  They were working to improve their communication of events via social media.

 

A Brent officer said that the council were currently updating their flood planning and looking at attenuation of flood risk via green spaces. They were scoping the whole borough looking at major areas in danger of flooding and nearby green spaces. The surface flood risk plan for the whole borough would be updated and they were also working with neighbouring boroughs on a surface water management plan.

 

Cllr Mashari had sent in a question asking why Brent was not included in sewer infrastructure upgrade plans. Nickson said he was not aware that Brent was not being covered and would go back to colleagues for a response.  There was a rolling programme of works on sewers with a low capacity for growth.

 

Cllr Hylton asked about the release of sewage into the River Brent. Thames Water said that was currently legal when capacity reached a certain point, but they no longer felt that this was acceptable. They were working with the government, Ofwat and the Environment Agency to change the system. 

 

 Thames Water had updated system whereby residents could provide details of instances of flooding. Prior to July complainants were asked to send in a questionaire response, now a website has been set up and they could complete it on-line but to avoid digital exclusion a written response could still be made. A record of the responses would be submitted to the Independent Review.

 

Cllr Janice Long raised the issue of burst water mains and the resulting flooding of roads. In some cases, traffic continued to use the road and the resulting back wash was the course of the flooding of homes lining the road. She asked that in such circumstances roads should be closed. Nickson said this was an excellent point and could be done as a result of liaison between the borough, Thames Water, the Police and the Fire Brigade.

 

The Committee made three information request:

1. To receive the Independent Review into the events of and response to the floods of July when that is made available

2. To also receive Thames Water's response to that review

3. To receive an update report to the Council's multi-agency flood plan and to make a committee date for this

4. Receive a report on the level of funding in Brent for drainage repairs compated to other London boroughs.

In addition they made a recommendation that the Planning Department of Brent Counciul work more closely with Thames Water on drainage issues arising from planning applications.

The review of Fire Safety is the second item on the above video (beginning at 1.01:15) and was not as comprehensive as the Flood item.

 

A Brent council tenant who listened carefully to the discussion said:

 

The scrutiny committee did not seem to know much about the subject they were discussing with the biggest fault being they made no mention as to how residents will be involved, which was the main focus of the Building Safety bill and they failed to even mention Dame Judith Hackitt's three reports on Building Safety and the Fire Safety Act which updated the Fire Safety Order (2005.

 

Their 'experts' seemed to believe that it is only new buildings that the Building Safety bill applies to but that is not the case, as it also applies to current buildings.

 

Although they mentioned cladding, no one mentioned fire doors but to be generous the absentee technical officer might have brought them into the discussion and Cllr. Conneely tried to raise issues like fire doors but was told it was a 'housing issue'.

 

They were also vague about the training competences required but if they had read the Health & Safety reports on Building Safety led by Mr. Baker, the Regulator, they would understand that any new Inspectors would need to start from level 7 (Honours Degree) and have post grad qualifications in Fire Safety and related areas.  That is why it is so hard to find suitable candidates, as most surveyors only have an honours degree but nothing higher.

 

I could go on, but I suppose it was a start, but I would give it a 3 rating (out of 10) as the council needs to start reading all the material that has already been published, although they seem to be waiting for someone to guide them to it.

 

As Dame Hackitt said only 10% of councils are 'on the ball' e.g. Camden but unfortunately Brent is within the remaining 90%.

 Details of the proposed legislation  HERE

Council housing at Cecil Avenue – a reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt

 Guest blog by Philip Grant in a personal capacity:-

 

Council housing at Cecil Avenue – a reply from Cllr. Muhammed Butt

 

At Monday’s Cabinet Meeting, Kilburn Village Residents’ Association presented a petition expressing their opposition to the “infill” housing plans which the Council seems determined to push through for Kilburn Square, and dissolution with the consultation process, in which residents views had been ignored.

 

After watching the webcast for this item, I was struck by the way in which the Council Leader, and Chair of the meeting, seemed to dismiss the residents’ concerns. The most important thing for him was to build the Council homes that families in temporary accommodation urgently need, and he made no excuse (or apology?) for building them.

 

Architect’s diagrammatic view of Brent’s planned Cecil Avenue development

 

That struck a chord with me, because for the past six months I’ve been trying to find out why Brent’s Cabinet decided, in August 2021, that 152 of the 250 homes the Council plan to build, on land they own at Cecil Avenue in Wembley, would be for a developer to sell at a profit, and not for people in urgent housing need on the Council’s waiting list.

 

I sent an email to the Council Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, referring to the passion he had expressed in Cabinet for building Council homes, then asking about Cecil Avenue:-

 

‘Let me ask you a straight question, and ask you for a straight reply to it:-

 

What excuse are you making for not building all of the 250 homes on Brent Council's Cecil Avenue site in Wembley as affordable Council homes for rent, and only using 98 of the 250 as Council homes for Brent people in housing need?

 

 

Cecil Avenue is a vacant, Council-owned site. Full planning permission for the 250-home development on that site was given a year ago, and the Council could by now have a contractor building those much-needed homes there.

 

 

Instead, your Cabinet resolved last August to adopt a "developer partner" option, under which the contractor who would be appointed, and paid by Brent Council to build those 250 homes (plus 54 at the Ujima House site across the High Road), would be allowed to purchase 152 of the 250 homes at Cecil Avenue and sell them for profit.

 

 

People in the borough, including those in temporary accommodation that you spoke so passionately about, deserve to know why. I look forward to receiving your response, and sharing it publicly. Thank you.’

 

 

To his credit, Cllr. Butt sent me a reply at lunchtime today (Wednesday 9 February), and agreed that I could publish it, as long as it was unedited. That is what Martin has agreed to do, and you can read it in full below.

 

 

You will see that much of it has been written in the form of a party political speech for the Local Council elections in May, but there are parts which relate directly to my question about the Cecil Avenue development. I will give my response to those – readers can comment on his other claims, should they wish to.

 

 

I do appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone scheme. I made that clear in my very first “guest blog” about this issue, last August.

 

 

In case it leads to confusion, I should clarify that when Cllr. Butt says: ‘This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites’, the site with 100% affordable housing is Ujima House. This still only has outline planning permission, and will need to be demolished before a ten-story block of 54 homes (only 8 of them family-sized) can be built on the site, above affordable workspace on the ground floor.

 

Outline plan for Ujima House, currently an office block on the High Road.

 

 

The key answer given by Cllr. Butt, to justify the planned “giveaway” of 152 homes at Cecil Avenue to a developer, is this: ‘The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

 

 

 

That may be Brent’s “excuse”, but Cecil Avenue is a Council housing development on Council-owned land. Brent Council will be borrowing the money, at low interest rates, to build the homes there, just as it would for any other Council housing scheme within its Housing Revenue Account, to provide homes for rent to Council tenants. Why does it need to sell 152 of those homes to a private developer, at a pre-agreed fixed price, rather than using them to house local people in housing need? I still don’t understand that.

 

 

After all, it appears to be acceptable, to the Council and its Cabinet, to borrow at least £48m, charged to the Housing Revenue Account, to purchase 155 leasehold flats in an Alperton tower block, from a secretive “Asset Special Purpose Vehicle”! I’m still waiting for an answer on that.

 

Artist’s impression of the courtyard garden at the Cecil Avenue site.

 

 

My final comment on Cllr. Butt’s reply is his reference to ‘a new publicly accessible open space’. The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road. 

 

 

This shared public open space makes the Cecil Avenue site much more desirable than the 100% affordable Ujima House site, where the flats will just have tiny balconies (plus a play area on the flat roof of the block). 152 of the Cecil Avenue homes would be for private sale, and 61 of the remaining 98 “affordable” Council homes would be either for shared ownership or intermediate rent, leaving only 37 of the 250 for affordable rent to Council tenants.

 

 

I’ve had my say, but please read what Cllr. Butt has said, and make up your own minds. This is his reply to my question above, in full and unedited:

 

 

‘Dear Mr Grant

 

 Thank you for watching the live stream, and for your comments.

 

 

I hope that you can appreciate that the Cecil Avenue site is part of a wider development in the Wembley Housing Zones Programme and includes the adjacent site Ujima House - which is being used for affordable workspace so that it remains in use until things have been finalised.

 

 

This site forms part of our New Council Homes Programme to deliver at least 5,000 affordable homes with partners and at least 1,700 council homes directly ourselves, by 2024. Brent is one of a handful of councils that is meeting its targets, that means people desperately in need of housing get safe secure housing, something that surely not even you can be against.

 

 

This site intends to deliver 100% affordable housing and a target of 50% across both sites. We have always strived to achieve the best that we can on any given site – it is the responsible thing to do, to deliver homes today not years down the line. What this means in plain English, is that a mixed development at Cecil Avenue will enable the Ujima House site to be 100% affordable housing.

 

 

Our vision is for a development that will also include workspace to support job creation and growth in the local economy, a community space for everyone, highways and public realm improvements. I hope that you will have seen some of the works for the public realm improvements have already started on Wembley High Road, aiding the local economy, footfall and turbo-charging our recovery from Covid-19. We also want to include a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.

 

 

This is the commitment that we gave about making improvements for the residents of Brent and Wembley and this is what we are delivering, this is what a responsible Labour council can do, focussing on action and outcomes for today, to bring the future forward faster.

 

 

The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant made available by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements. Your suggestion would jeopardise any affordable homes that are needed today; and would mean the people who desperately need those homes we are planning to build, would remain in poor quality accommodation, surely you would not want anyone to remain in poor quality accommodation?

 

 

As you point out, I care passionately about the people who need help to get a roof over their head; it is what I come to work for, to make a real difference to people’s lives. Creating the opportunities for people to upskill themselves through Brent start and Brent works.

 

 

Making sure that we work with all our schools to reach point today where about 97% of our schools are rated good or outstanding.

 

 

Investing in our high streets to create the strong local economy.

 

 

Our commitment to the green agenda with our climate emergency strategy and not forgetting the changes and improvements we are making to engage and interact with the good citizens of Brent with our new portal Citizen lab.

 

 

There is so much more that this Brent Labour administration has achieved and will absolutely strive to do more, despite what the Lib Dem and Tory coalition started and this party gate Tory government has taken away from us in Brent.

 

 

I need to remind you that over the last 10 years an average of £15.5 Million a year has been taken out from this councils funding. I hope that you find that truly distasteful, because I truly do.

 

 

This labour administration has worked diligently to deliver and support the residents that need our help, we have been the dented shield that has protected our residents.

 

 

We make the promise that we will continue to do whatever is in our remit and responsibility for the most vulnerable and needy in our society.

 

 

Sometimes this means taking decisions that people may disagree with, but I have always appreciated that.

 

Brent is a borough of ambition, aspiration and opportunity, that is what a good Labour council like Brent will deliver for its residents

 

 

I have answered your question; please feel free to post this on any site you wish to publish my response on; in the interests of transparency I hope unedited.

 

 

I look forward to hearing that you will be watching the next Cabinet meeting; it is a fantastic thing to see more people actively involved with local democracy.

 

 

Regards

Muhammed

Cllr Muhammed Butt
Leader of Brent Council.’