Watling Gardens – a rushed (and incorrect) Report to Monday's Cabinet

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Extract from the Affordable Housing Statement in Brent’s planning application 21/2473.

 

When Brent Council submitted their planning application for the redevelopment of their Watling Gardens estate they said: ‘Brent Council are fully committed to delivering these much-needed new affordable homes.’ Then suddenly, at the last minute, they want to change that, so that 20% of the homes there will not be genuinely affordable.

 

Less than 24 hours ago, I wrote a guest post about a Report on 1 Morland Gardens for the Cabinet meeting at 10am on Monday morning, which had only been published on Thursday afternoon. I mentioned that there was another Report for that meeting which had still not been published. Giving Cabinet members, other councillors and the public so little notice of important issues where decisions are to be made is bad for local democracy, and it can also lead to bad decisions.

 

The Watling Gardens Report was only published at around 3pm on Friday afternoon. It asks the Cabinet to approve the award of a contract ‘in the sum of £38,535,634. In order to make the Watling Gardens scheme viable, it also recommends that Cabinet: ‘Approve the tenure changes of 24 homes (19 x 1 bedrom homes and 5 x 2 bedroom) from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership.’

 

I had looked at the Watling Gardens planning application, and felt that something was not right with that recommendation, nor the “facts” given in the Report to support it. I had another look, then immediately sent an email to Brent’s Legal Director and the Strategic Director (Community and Wellbeing) who had signed off the Report. This is that email (sent at 4:14pm on Friday):

 

‘Misinformation in Report to Cabinet on Watling Gardens (item 16 on Monday's agenda)

Dear Ms Norman and Mr Porter,

 

The Report on item 16 (Award of Contract for Watling Gardens) for Monday morning's Cabinet meeting was only published at around 3pm today. 

 

I realise that this is an urgent matter (and that: 'Due to urgency, a waiver of call-in has been obtained in relation to the decision to be taken by Cabinet.'), but that does not excuse the Report containing what appears to be incorrect information, which might lead Brent's Cabinet to make an unlawful, as well as rushed, decision.

 

The misinformation I am referring to is at paras. 3.3 and 3.6:

 

'3.3 The planning consent gained for this site is for a 100% affordable housing scheme.'  

 

'3.6  Therefore, officers recommend the change of 25 of the 125 homes to be converted to shared ownership as in recommendation 2.1. There will be no change to the planning approval required as this is an affordable housing product, on which the council receive 25% capital receipt at the point of sale and staircasing receipts usually from year 5 onwards. The properties would be fulfilling a need within Brent for people unable to register for affordable rented housing but not able to access the open market due to salary levels.'

 

The planning consent is not just for '100% affordable housing.'

 

Planning Committee, when they approved the application, did so on the basis that the 125 homes would be a mix of Social Rent and London Affordable Rent.

 

The consent letter of 25 April 2022 contained a specific condition over what type of affordable homes had been consented to:

 

Condition 3 from planning consent letter of 25 April 2022 on application 21/2473

 

 

There is no indication on Brent's planning website that there has been any change in this condition under application 21/2473, so that making a decision, and awarding a contract, which converted 24 (or 25?) of the 125 homes to shared ownership would involve Brent Council breaching its planning consent for the Watling Gardens scheme.

 

 

This point needs to be put right, so that Cabinet members are aware of the correct position well before they are asked to make a decision on the Watling Gardens contract.

 

 

The Report says that it affects Mapesbury and Kilburn Wards, but as I am not sure which Ward the site falls into following the boundary changes, I am copying this email to councillors for Cricklewood & Mapesbury and Kilburn Wards. Yours, 

 

Philip Grant.

DEMAND BETTER: join the TUC demonstration tomorrow. Assemble Portland Place from 11am, start March at noon and Rally in Parliament Square at 1pm

 

 

From the TUC

 

This Saturday, workers, families and pensioners will be marching through London as the TUC holds our We Demand Better demonstration. With hundreds of coaches booked from every part of the country and the weather set fair, it’s shaping up to be a memorable day. And we’ll be delivering a simple message to the government: enough is enough. 

 

With a PM who is more concerned with his own job security than anybody else’s, and a Chancellor who spends more heating his swimming pool than a minimum wage worker earns in a year, it’s time for change. Trade unions are fighting for action on the cost of living, for higher wages, and for a New Deal for working people.

 

We believe the cost-of-living emergency is the result of political choices made in Downing Street. Of course, it’s hard for government to control global energy prices – but austerity, benefit cuts and attacks on unions have held our living standards back. Even now, with City bonuses rising six times faster than wages, ministers are choosing to tax working people rather than wealth. And just last week, the PM warned workers against bargaining for higher pay.

 

The pressures facing households are getting worse. It now costs more than £100 to fill a family car, with many low-paid workers unable to drive to work. Energy bills are set to rise 23 times faster than wages. And next year, the influential OECD think tank forecasts zero growth for the UK economy – the worst performance among the G20 industrial nations, apart from Russia.

 

Rather than the Chancellor’s belated, half-hearted support package, we need real change. A decent pay rise for public sector workers. Fair pay agreements. A £15 minimum wage. And the Employment Bill we’ve been promised not once, not twice . . . but 20 times. And instead of bashing unions, ministers should back working people and boost collective bargaining.

 

But if the government won’t do what’s right, then we will. We are the trade union movement – and standing up for working people is what we do. And that includes workers who feel they have no alternative but to vote for industrial action to win fair treatment.

 

Now is the time to stand up for what we believe in. If you’ve had enough of this rotten government, and if you’re fed up with everything going up but wages, then join us in London this Saturday. And encourage your workmates, friends, family and neighbours to come too – and encourage everyone to join a union.

It's time to demand better. See you from 10.30 am in Portland Place.

 

18TH JUNE WE DEMAND BETTER PROTEST - BRENT TUC DELEGATION

JOINING THE DEMO ARRANGEMENTS

 

Brent TUC delegates and supporters will join the demo as a group so they can

march together behind BTUC's banner. 

11.30 meet at Regents Park Station on the Bakerloo line.

1 Morland Gardens – yet another twist!

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

“Altamira”, 1 Morland Gardens, with community garden in the foreground. (Photo by Irina Porter)

 

When Martin reported, just a week ago, that a call-in meeting of Brent’s Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee had given the go-ahead for the contract for the Council’s Morland Gardens redevelopment scheme to be awarded, you might have thought that the fate of the heritage Victorian villa there was sealed.

 

The only thing that could scupper Brent’s controversial plans to demolish the locally-listed building might be the objections to the proposed Stopping-up Order for an area of highway between the restored garden wall of the villa and the community garden. Council Officers, with the encouragement of several Cabinet members, had decided in early 2019 that they could use this extra piece of Council-owned land, in order to build more homes as part of the development. They had failed to consider the consequences of that decision, or to take the necessary action to obtain the Order, which led to the call-in.

 

The “award-winning” building which Brent wants to replace “Altamira” with.

 

Alan Lunt, Brent’s Strategic Director (Regeneration and Environment), won his right to award the two-stage Design & Build Contract for Morland Gardens to Hill Partnerships Ltd on the evening of Thursday 9 June. But when the agenda for the Cabinet meeting on 20 June was published the following day, this was item 12:

 

‘12. Authority to Tender for the Design & Build Contract at 1 Morland Gardens, Stonebridge.

Following on from a call-in relating to the original contract award, this report requests approval to invite tenders by way of a direct award under the Network Homes Contractor Framework and approve the pre tender considerations as required by Contract Standing Orders 88 and 89.’

 

The Report for this item was “to follow”, and that was not published on the Council’s website until the afternoon of Thursday 16 June. What had gone wrong? This is the explanation given at para. 3.3 of the Report:

 

‘The council also sought to procure a contractor for the scheme in May 2021 and May 2022 but both tender opportunities were unsuccessful. The first tender opportunity did not elicit any bids. The second tender opportunity elicited three bids and the council recommended the award of the contract as detailed in the Key Officer Decision report of 20 May 2022. This decision was subject to “call in”, during which period the Framework under which the contract was awarded, expired and so the council is required to procure a contractor again under a further procurement process.’

 

It appears that Mr Lunt may be trying to blame the call-in for the missed opportunity to award a contract for the scheme, and the need for a third attempt ‘to procure a contractor’. In fact, he was given a second chance to find a contractor in August 2021, and the three bids under that procurement process were received in November 2021. The fact that Brent took until 20 May 2022 to decide which of the three contractors they wished to award the contract to is no fault of the councillors who called-in his decision. They did so because of the risk of awarding a contract for a project which involves land that Brent does not have the legal right to build on!

 

Brent’s Cabinet are being asked to make a big decision at short notice. Not only that, they are being asked to approve the finding and appointing of a new contractor in a very rushed process, set out in this table from the Report:

 

Extract from table at para. 3.6 of Cabinet Report.

 

The Report says that ‘the estimated contract value of the procurement is £38m.’ The bid the Strategic Director wanted to accept in May was £37,933,491, but that had been made in November 2021. There was another item on the Cabinet agenda (Watling Gardens) where the Report was also not available, and a Council Officer has explained to me the reason for that:

 

‘Item 16 was not available on that date because the need for the report has arisen unexpectedly because of the escalation in the costs of the project due to the current inflation situation.  You may recall the challenges this situation is causing for the council were mentioned by the Chief Executive at the recent call-in meeting.’

 

That “escalation in costs” will surely affect the amount that any contractor submitting a tender for the Morland Gardens project is willing to offer. And if they offer an amount within the Council’s “budget” for this scheme, what corners will they cut in order to build it and still make a profit? This could easily become another Granville New Homes, where what was on paper an award-winning design was so poorly built, in order to keep “within budget”, that it is now costing more than the original contract to remedy the defects.

 

Brent Council has made so many mistakes and bad decisions over 1 Morland Gardens, which is why they are in the mess they are now over it. Will they plough on, digging a deeper hole for themselves, or will they finally see sense and go “back to the drawing board”?

Philip Grant

 

Barn Hill Conservation Group: We Need Your Help - YOU DECIDE - Vote on 25th June, 2022., from 1:00 pm - 3:30 pm to secure funding for repairs to Roe Green Walled Garden

 

From Barn Hill Conservation Group

The volunteers of the Barn Hill Conservation Group need your vote to secure funding for urgent repairs to the infrastructure at Roe Green Walled Garden.

 

The garden has existed since Victorian times and serves as the headquarters of the conservation group. It was restored by volunteers of the Barn Hill Conservation Group nearly four decades ago and has been maintained by them ever since.

 

The Roe Green Walled Garden is a community garden with fruit trees, a herbaceous border, a wildlife pond, vegetable beds, and a toddlers' play area. It is a welcoming place for young families and older people alike. The Barn Hill Conservation Group volunteers continued to maintain Fryent Country Park and Roe Green Walled Garden throughout the pandemic. The mental health benefits of time spent in a natural environment are well documented and our green spaces have provided our residents much needed respite throughout the pandemic. Last year Fryent Country Park was voted best country park in Brent.

 

Please cast your vote for the Infrastructure Repairs that are urgently required at Roe Green Walled Garden. Carrying out this much needed work will enable us to continue our work maintaining Fryent Country Park and Roe Green Walled Garden so future generations can enjoy these spaces and carry the baton to continue efforts to preserve our green spaces and the natural environment.

 

You can book a place at the event You Decide at Kingsbury High School on Saturday, June 25th, between 1:00 and 3:30 pm, by following the button.

 

Saturday, 25th June, 2022

From 1:00 pm to 3:30 pm

 

Kingsbury High School,

Tyler's Hall,

Bacon Lane, NW9 9AT

This is for residents who live in the Kingsbury and Kenton Brent Connects area.

Click Here to Register to Vote

A tale of 'Towerblock Tatler' and 'Taylor's Towers' as Shama Tatler makes bid to become Labour parliamentary candidate for Watford

 

As mentioned by Wembley Matters on May 1st LINK Shama Tatler has her eyes on becoming Labour's parliamentary candidate for Watford and so did not stand for the deputy leader of Brent Council's Labour Group.

Today she launched her campaign for the nomination  on twitter with links to a pretty slick campaign website LINK and announced backers including David Lammy MP.

She will find herself in the strange situation where she will be standing for a local Labour Party that has campaigned against the Liberal Democrat Watford Mayor on the basis of the building of tower blocks in the area. They even call them 'Taylor's Towers'.  In Brent of course in her role as Lead Member for Regeneration Shama Tatler has strongly supported the building of tower blocks in Alperton, Wembley, Stonebridge and South Kilburn earning herself the nickname  'Towerblock Tatler.' 

These are examples of the Labour campaign in Watford:

 The image is hard to read so this is it says:

• The Liberal Democrats have taken their eyes off the ball here in Watford and have spectacularly failed to reduce the housing targets for our town.
• They shamelessly blame everyone else for their disastrous decisions which are all of their own making. They've allowed these towers
• UNLIKE neighbouring Three Rivers Council, the Lib Dems here have failed to bring in policies that prevent high developments, but we get more and more Taylor's Towers springing up here, there and everywhere.
• The Liberal Democrat's biggest failure yet is a 24 storey tower block. That's just the start if they get in again. They'll be yet more and more ever higher and higher 'Taylor's Towers.

IS THAT WHAT YOU REALLY WANT?

  You can have some fun substituting Labour for Liberal Democrats, and Brent for Watford and Tatler's Towers for Taylor's Towers and see if it makes sense.

 It will be an interesting selection meeting.  Perhaps they should invite Peter Taylor to be a guest panellist?

On her website Cllr Tatler highlights her 6 years' experience as Cabinet member for Regeneration, Property and Planning and includes an image of South Kilburn but not any tower blocks...

 

 

30 Brondesbury Park: 'Incremental intensification' is the name of the game

 

30 Brondesbury Park, NW6

The border wall on Aylestone Avenue

The proposed new building and terraced housing

Brent's Local Plan was formally adopted with barely a murmer of opposition in February and along with other guidelines with influence the work of Brent Council's Planning Committee henceforth.

 

We are familiar with 'intensification corridors', 'town centre density', and 'tall building zones', all destined to change the face of Brent and increase its population.

 

Small residential sites are also ear-marked for development via 'incremental intensification' and the planning proposal for 30 Brondesbury Park, NW6, is an early example of what we are likely to see in the future. 

 

The proposal is to demolish the existing building and construct a three-storey building containing six flats in its place (three x 2-bedroom and three x 3-bedroom), together with a terrace of three x 3-bedroom houses addressing the Aylestone Avenue frontage.

 

Planning officers support the application as contributing to increasing the stock of housing in the borough and especially welcome the family sized accommodation. They accept the viability assessment that says the arithmetic means that the developer cannot make a contribution towards affordable housing.

 

The application has some elements in common with that in Queens Walk, Kingsbury  LINK where a block of flats replaced a family sized house on the corner with Salmon Street. Wembley Matters has since found evidence that rather than residential flats the development operates as holiday lets.

 

30 Brondesbury Park, like Queens Walk, is a corner site with garden space, and similar arguments are marshalled to support the development.

 

Planners state that Brent Policy BH4 supports development within the curtilage of a dwelling and that Policy H2 and the Local Plan recognises that the 'use of  small residential sites can make a valuable contribution to the delivery of new housing and some incremental change to local character could be acceptable on this basis.'

 

In short building a larger development utilising garden space is acceptable and sits alongside the 'fill-in' housing that is taking place on Brent's council estates.

 

Furthermore, 'the intensification of smaller sites is expected to form an important part of the delivery of housing to meet Brent's housing need during the [Local] plan period' and this is supported by the NPPF that expects the planning system, to meet the need for homes.

 

As we know corner houses such as 30 Brondesbury Park with a garden often has a long garden wall or fence along the adjacent road. Brent planners seemingly see that as dead space:

 

Neighbours have also raised concerns that the proposal would result in development of garden land, or ‘garden grabbing’. However, corner sites are considered to offer some scope for infilling in this way, in comparison to development of rear gardens that are enclosed by other rear gardens. In this case the extent of 2m high boundary wall along Aylestone Avenue creates an extensive dead frontage that adds nothing positive to the street scene. The proposal would break up this frontage by providing a building which would have a clear visual relationship to the main building but would remain clearly subservient to it. This would activate the street scene more effectively than the existing blank wall.

 

The London Plan is quoted by officers in support of the application: 

London Plan Policy D3 sets out a design-led approach to new development that responds positively to local context and optimises the site’s capacity for growth by seeking development of the most appropriate form and land use. It encourages incremental densification in areas that are not considered suitable for higher density development.

 

We have become familiar with claims that what neighbours often see as out of character developments are justified by Brent planners as 'landmark' or 'destination' buildings; in this case:

 

The site layout and building lines are considered appropriate for this prominent corner site, and to act as a gateway signalling the transition to the more domestic scale of the side street. [Aylestone Avenue]

 

There is little comfort for those concerned about the environmental impact of building on gardens, already suffering from the paving over of front, and increasingly, back gardens:

 

Residential gardens are generally considered to have low ecological value due to their small size, the nature of the use and, in this case in particular, proximity to disturbance from road traffic.

 

Officers note the 21 objections 'raising concerns regarding over-development and the impact on the character of the area, including the overall scale and mass of the proposal, front building line on Aylestone Avenue and loss of trees and green space, impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of daylight and privacy, increased pressure on on-street parking' and these are dealt with in the officers' report LINK with the Planning Committee recommended to approve the application. 

 

 

Person in police custody after hammer attack on ground floor windows of Brent Civic Centre. No injuries reported. Glass declared safe pending repair.

 

Front window panes of Brent Civic Centre were damaged on Friday morning after being hit with a hammer.

A Brent Council spokesperson told Wembley Matters:

An individual was taken into Police custody on Friday morning after breaking the front window panes of Brent Civic Centre with a hammer. We can confirm no one was hurt, however any further detail would be a matter for the Police.

We are working to book in repairs to the front of the Civic Centre and expect to be able to claim costs back through our insurer. The glass has been surveyed and is safe to remain in the meantime.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership MoU to be investigated by Lords committee

 The House of Lords International Agreements Committee has today launched an inquiry into the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the UK and Rwanda on an Asylum Partnership and is issuing a call for evidence.  

The committee is particularly interested in the implications of using an MoU as a vehicle for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and whether the MoU is consistent with the UK’s obligations under both domestic and international law.  

Questions the committee is seeking evidence on include:  

• Is an MoU the appropriate vehicle for this Agreement?

• What are the implications of an agreement that asserts that it is not binding on either Party in international law?  

• Is the MoU consistent with current UK domestic law, or does UK legislation require any amendment to implement the MoU? 

• Is the MoU consistent with the UK’s obligations under international law, including  the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings?  

The deadline to submit evidence is Wednesday 20 July 2022, with the full call for evidence available on the committee’s website.  

Baroness Hayter, Chair of the International Agreements Committee said:  

The UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership was agreed as an MoU, rather than as a treaty, and is therefore not covered by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, meaning it doesn’t have to be laid in Parliament for scrutiny or debate. While it is not classed as a treaty and may not be legally binding on the Parties, it has significant human rights implications, and there are questions over its compatibility with the UK's obligations, particularly under international law. 

Although the MoU has not been formally presented to Parliament for scrutiny, it is nevertheless my committee’s duty to scrutinise such an important international agreement. We are therefore launching our inquiry today, calling on witnesses to submit written evidence.