Newland Court application is now on Council Planning Portal - comments open. Some background from residents.

Application 22/3124 | Demolition of all garages on site to provide seven new homes with associated cycle and refuse storage, resurfacing of Newland Court to provide a shared vehicular and pedestrian access surface, provision of on-street car parking along Newland Court, new refuse storage facilities to serve existing residents at Newland Court and all associated landscaping works. | Newland Court Garages, Forty Avenue, Wembley

The redevelopment site at Newland Court outlined in red - note the proximity to the back gardens of Grendon Gardens (image from planning application)

I tweeted at the weekend that the planning application for Newland Court LINK submitted on behalf of Brent Council had appeared on the Council's Planning Portal but that residents of Newland Court, Corringham Road and Grendon Gardens had not received notification letters. I understand that they are now due to be sent out.

Not a great start to what is going to be a controversial application.

I popped down to the estate today to see for myself and talk to residents about the issues.

The garages that will be demolished

Impression of what will replace them and landscape changes (image from planning application)

Residents say that the garages have been deliberately run-down and attempts to rent them have been refused. This is a familiar story from other estates, including Kings Drive, one of the earliest to get infill proposals. Various reports accompanying the application states there are 32 garages of which 5 are occupied but elsewhere says none are used for parking.

Their state can be seen from these photographs. The roofs appear to be asbestos and some are broken.

The artist's impression does not convey the narrowness of the site, or the narrowness of Newland Court.

Newland Court today. Note the artist's impression includes 2m wide  pavement on either side.

The width of two garages on which houses will be built

One concern that the residents had was the proposed loss of trees.  As can be seen they are tall and dense in places. Some are in the back gardens of houses on Grendon Gardens and some are in the space between the retaining wall of Newland Court and the Grendon back fences.  The exact boundary seems unclear. The application states that the retainign wall forms the northern boundary of the site. The gardens are at a higher level than Newland Court so the space between appears to  possibly be 'No Man's Land'.

Although the text of the application says that 9 trees are to be removed, the plan indicates rather more (trees to be lost outlined in red) as does the table below.

It is actually a little more complicated than that as some of the trees in Grendon Gardens are very close to the garden fence and no man's land:

Tree on retaining wall

 The application does not shed much light on the precise location of the trees:

The site is within an Air Quality Management Area. To the east of the site is the Wembley Growth Area and Wembley Park Town Centre. The site is adjacent to Barn Hill Conservation area, on its southern border. A dense row of trees adjoins the northern edge of the site. These trees are located as they are located with the conservation area. (sic)

As well as the loss of trees, residents are concerned about the loss of some of their green space on the northern edge of the estate, adjacent to Newland Court road. A large bit is to be taken out of two existing triangular spaces for car parking.

 

One of the green spaces today

Recessed car parks - note 2 metre wide pavement on both side (image from planning application)

Residents are concerned about parking because the they currently use the length of Newland Court and this will be reduced to 12 spaces. They told me that no mention has been made of disabled spaces but they think the estate had 5 or 6 people who would need such a space. The 7 new homes are supposed to be car free but existing residents doubted that would hold up as some of the accommodation is for larger families.  A Pay and Display system will be brought in on Corringham Road and Newland Court but it is unclear whether that would apply to current residents.

As with many infill estates the proposals bring up some of the neglect residents feel and this is no exception.  Refuse collection is a problem with over-filled bins scattered in various places on the estate, including between the garages. And of course flytipping from vehicles that I am told drive into the estate.

With 60 households on the estate and the evidence of current full bins, the Council is proposing to reduce the overall number (current in brackets):

General Waste 6 x 1280 l (14)

Recycling  6x 1280 l (6)

Foodwaste 6 x 240 l (4)

 But will  provide permanent bin spaces.

Residents' claim that the required 10m gap to prevent overlooking is much less from the corners of the blocks at around 8m.

The nearest part of the flats to the new housing

 One of the houses most affected by the proposal is not in Newland Court at all, but in Corringham Road where it adjoins Newland Court.

The tree at the junction of Newland Court and Corringham Road (T20) will be removed (image from planning application)

 

Despite the loss of trees and green space the application concludes:

The Urban Greening Factor for the proposed development is 0.22, which falls slightly short of the London Plan and Brent target of 0.4. However, the significant planning benefits associated with the delivery of affordable family housing is considered to outweigh non-compliance with this policy and should be considered on balance, alongside significant enhancements to a sustainable, brownfield site

The new houses are actually London Affordable Rent rather than council rent or social rent. This appears to have become the norm for new council housing.

Overall the applicant reckons that the proposal will enhance the nearby Conservation Area:

As noted above, the Site abuts Barn Hill Conservation Area to the north. Having regard to proximity of the site to the conservation area, a Heritage Statement has prepared by Heritage Collective UK (‘HCUK’) Group and is submitted with this application. The report concludes that the ‘the proposed development will not result in harm to the character and appearance of the Barn Hill Conservation Area for the purposes of section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. In fact, the proposals bring about the potential for a material enhancement through the introduction of high- quality buildings and associated landscaping that elevate the appearance of Newland Court within the immediate setting of the conservation area.’ As such, the proposals are considered to significantly improve the setting of the Barn Hill Conservation Area in line with Local Plan Policy BHC1.

If you would like to make a comment on the proposal follow this LINK.

How you can contribute to the Circular Economy - Harlesden 4.30pm today

 

Islamia Chair of Governors tells parents that final approval after consultation on school move 'should be no more than a formality'. Yusuf Islam Foundation is to redevelop the present site.

The proposed site photographed earlier this week

 Sofia Moussaoui, Chair of the Islamia Primary School Govering Board, has written to parents troday following the Brent Cabinet's approval of the report that cleared the way for consultation on the move of the school from Queens Park to the former Roe Green Strathcona site  in Preston, Wembley.

The letter reveals that the Yusuf Islam Foundation plans to redevelop the Queens Park site - a prime site in a well to do area.

In a passage that has annoyed parents, who sense a fait accompli as regards the consultation, Ms Moussaoui states:

...This approval in principle is subject to final approval upon the conclusion of the consultation process, but it should be no more than a formality.

The letter conscludes:

We would encourage you all to provide constructive suggestions as to how we can the transition easier for both teachers and parents.

No mention of children!

The text of the letter to parents and carers:

I am writing to update you on the proposed relocation of the school.

I am pleased to report that the Yusuf Islam Foundation, the GB[Governing Board] and the Local Authority have agreed terms in principle for the relocation of the School. The Yusuf Islam Foundation has agreed to withdraw the eviction notice in return for the GB committing to vacating the Salusbury Road site in July 2024 and in return for the Local Authority committing to provide an alternative site for Islamia by the same date.

The greement is yet to be signed but all 3 parties have committed to signing the document in its current agreed form. Brother Yusuf Islam is due to travel to London to sign and execute the agreement.

The Local Authority has proposed that Islamia relocate to the Strathcona Site which is located at the Roe Green Strathcona School Site, Strathcona Road, Wembley, HA9 8QW. Furthermore, the Local Authority is adamant that they have conducted extensive searches over the last couiple of years and that there are no other suitable sites within the Brent area,

The Yusuf Islam Foundation will be redeveloping its land and therefore ongoing occupation of the curent school site after the agreed July 2024 date is not an option.

The GB is aware of the 500 strong petition to relocate the School to a site in South Kilburn. This  has been raised with the Local Authority who have confirmed that the site has already been earmarked for another school and that  it will in any event not be ready for occupation for 4 years, Therefore, the site in South Kilburn is not a viable option.

The priority for the GB is to avoid the closure of Islamia, who in 2 years' time cannot continue to occupy the Salusbury Road site. Currently our only viable option to avoid closure is the relocation to the now closed Roe Green Strathcona School Site, Strathcona Road, HA9 8QW.

On Monday 12th September 2022, 5 members of the GB attended the Cabinet Meeting at Brent Civic Centre  * where Councillors voted on the proposal to fund the relocation of Islamia to the Strathcona Site. In total the costs of the relocation and rebuild ** are estimated to be circa £12million. The Councillors approved the proposal and have committed in principle to providing the funds. The approval in principle is subject to final approval upon the conclusion of the consultation process, but it should be no more than a formality.

The next step for the GB is to conduct a informal consultation process which we hope to begin within the next 1-2 weeks. The informal consultation will run for 4 weeks. Thereafter, there will also need to be a formal consultation process.

We would encourage you all to provide constructive suggestions as to how we can make the transition easier for both teachers and parents.

* Around 15 parents opposed to the plans also attended the Cabinet meeting and one made a speech presenting the 500+ signature petition.

** The plans are for the refurbishment of the existing buildings and the building of a new block. From the Cabinet Report: 

4. Retain and refurbish all buildings on the Strathcona site and build a new block to meet 2FE accommodation requirements

Brent Council to spend £22m on refurbishment of Granville New Homes that they purchased for £17.1m

 

A section of the Granville New Homes development, South Kilburn

 

Brent Council's November 14th Cabinet will be asked to rubber stamp approval for the expenditure of £22m on the refurbishment of Granville New Homes that were purchased by the Council for £17.1m.

The original remediation costs were put at £18.5m.

The homes were built by Higgins Partnerships but Brent Council has not sought compensation on behalf of council tax payers for the poor quality of the build. Indeed Higgins have been awarded further work by the council:

 

 

 

The Forward Plan Item reads: 

1.    Approve the procurement of a suitably experienced Technical Consultancy that will manage the design, procurement and delivery of the refurbishment works to the properties.

2.     Approve the procurement of a suitably experienced Contractor that will undertake the refurbishment works to the properties.

3.    Approve the allocation of £22M from the existing capital budget to fund the Technical Consultancy services and the Works.

 

  Granville New Homes Scandal

 

Scrutiny Committee Considers the Issue 

 

 

Brent Cabinet members put on the spot by residents' questions. Detailed Q & A's here.

 Asking written questions of Brent Cabinet meetings is a chance for residents to air issues that directly concern them. Next week's Council Meeting has eight written questions and answers. The people who asked the questions have the opportunity to attend in person and ask a supplementary question, following up the answers received. The Cabinet member has two minutes to respond. You may like to suggest supplementary questions (one minute remember!) in the comments.

Next week's question cover:

1. The Council's upkeep of their estates

2. Collection of food waste & parking on North End Road, Wembley.

3. Lack of progress on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

4. Problematic Event Day traffic management.

5. Network Homes increasing service charges beyond what had been agreed with the Council.

6. Brent Council's actions on the requurements of the Building Safety Act.

7. Residents' opposition to Newland Court infill proposals.

 8. Brent Council action on Wealdstone Brook sewage & the finding of the polio virus in Brent's waterways.

 

The questions and answers can be found in the document below. Click bottom right corner for full page view.

The journey from Islamia Primary to Strathcona - what are the options?

 

 Strathcona Road - off Carlton Avenue East

Discussion around the potential move of Islamia Primary School from its Queens Park site to one in Preston, Wembley, (not Kingsbury) has centred around the difficulty of the journey for parents who live near the current site.

Here are some journey options I researched today as well as a video (above) of a site visit I made this afternoon.

By Tube (note the long walk that is along Carlton Avenue East) 44 minutes

 

A reader suggested this (could also be Bakerloo line) 

 

By bus even longer walk at the end (1 hr 14 mins)
 

Car journey (may be longer at peak school run time) 23 or 29 minutes

Cycling routes - pretty unlikely given lack of safe cycle paths  (37 or 39 minutes)
 

Practicalities regarding cycling or buses as a mode of travel leaves driving a car during school peak times or the tube journey.  The video shows Strathcona Road and the parking on it as well as the double yellow lines near the school so car travel, discouraged anyway on environmental grounds, is problematic.

Of course parents don't all live near the present school site but it would be essential to have some kind of travel assessment as part of the consultation. There is clearly a danger that some families will be excluded from attendance at the new site by the difficulties outlined and the cost.

Sofia Moussaoui, Islamia Chair of Governors, told the Cabinet meeting that approved consultation on the move, that they would look into ways of 'how the get them (parents and children) there.'

There will need to be an Equalities Impact Assessment as part of the consultation as the danger is that less well-off families will be excluded from the school because of the cost and difficulty of the journey. This could amount to discrimination.

Neither Yusuf Islam/Cat Steven, nor the Yusuf Islam Foundation, have responded to requests for a statement giving the reason for the eveiction order on the school. 

Note: Tube and Bus rotes from the TfL Plan a Journey website

Brent Council's Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme: Scrutiny - What Scrutiny?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

The purpose of the committee, from Brent Council’s website.

 

In a guest post last May, I set out the efforts I’d made to get a proper explanation from the Council about why 152 of the 250 homes at the Council’s housing development on the former Copland School site in Wembley would be built for a “developer partner” to sell at a profit. And why only 37 of the remaining 98 homes (less than 15% of the site total) would be for “genuinely affordable” rent to Council tenants (with the other 61 being for shared ownership). 

 

I asked ‘Where is the Scrutiny?’ Proper scrutiny was needed, because all that Cabinet members and Officers would tell me was that it would not be viable to offer more affordable homes at Cecil Avenue. That answer did not appear to make sense! 

 

Illustration from Brent’s April 2021 Wembley Housing Zone “Soft Market Testing” exercise.

 

The Council already owned the site (so none of the high land costs they use to justify the “infill” schemes on existing Council estates). They already had millions in funding from the GLA for their “Wembley Housing Zone”, as well as £5.5m extra for this scheme. And they could borrow money for the construction from the Public Works Loans Board at historically low interest rates.

 

Of course, the Council would not let me (or any other citizen of the borough) see their “Viability” report, not even under the Freedom of Information Act, because it was “confidential”. But councillors on a Scrutiny Committee would be allowed to see it, and question the relevant Cabinet members and Council Officers about the figures; and about why Brent could not offer more affordable homes on this development for the families in housing need that they claim to be so keen to build “New Council Homes” for!

 

My old parody Brent publicity photo for its Cecil Avenue Council Housing scheme.

 

I’d been trying since a guest blog in January 2022 (“It looks bad. It looks wrong!”) to get one of Brent’s Scrutiny Committees to take a close look at the Cecil Avenue project. And I did manage to include this as part of in a deputation to the 9 March meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee about the Poverty Commission Update report.

 

It took two months for the Council to provide a written (partial) reply to my deputation, by which time there had been local elections, and a new committee with a new Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely. I wrote to her on 12 June, recommending that she include “Brent Council’s Cecil Avenue Housing Scheme” on her committee’s agenda for 19 July. I explained why, and said: 

 

‘Senior Council Officers and the Lead Member(s) involved do need to be put on the spot, to explain how they arrived at this apparent "giveaway" of much needed genuinely affordable Council homes, and if they can't give a satisfactory explanation, to come up with something better.’

 

Extract from minutes of the 9 March 2022 meeting of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee.

 

I received no reply, but after the minutes of the 9 March meeting had been published with the agenda for the committee’s 19 July meeting, I wrote to Cllr. Conneely again. I pointed out that the written response to my deputation totally ignored my points on Cecil Avenue. The claims made at the 9 March meeting about moving forward on the Poverty Commission recommendations, and ‘all homes being ring-fenced as being at affordable levels of rent’ were also false. The 2020 Poverty Commission had recommended Social Rent level, and no New Council Homes were yet being built for Social Rent!

 

The Social Rent recommendation from the Brent Poverty Commission Report.

 

On 18 July, Rita Conneely replied to me, saying: ‘Many thanks for your follow up on this. I am looking into this & seeking relevant additional information for the committee & its members.’ She referred to this, under “Matters Arising”, when those minutes were considered at the 19 July meeting, and indicated that this would be dealt with when the committee met in September. 

 

I was looking out for the agenda for the 6 September meeting, and when it was published there was no mention of the Council’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme on it. Worse than that, this is what the minutes of the 19 July meeting showed:

 

Extract from the minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 19 July.

 

“None”! I wrote to Cllr. Conneely on 30 August, including a transcript of what she had said at the 19 July meeting (from the webcast, beginning at 3.35 minutes into the recording):

 

‘And then we’re going to do “Matters Arising”. After our paper (?), so we have received …. Prior to this meeting we received a deputation from one of our residents, Mr Philip Grant, in regards to a presentation which was made to this committee in our previous municipal year, on the Poverty Commission. We’ve received some further information from our, from the Housing Department, in regards to that which the committee will be looking at in future, and we’ll be commenting on any of our further recommendations at our September meeting.’

 

In my email I asked that the minutes should be corrected, and also wrote:

 

‘An opportunity to put the decision makers "on the spot" at the 19 July meeting was missed, but I was led to believe that this would be done at your September meeting. Please let me know how, and where on the agenda, you will be doing that, so that I can request to speak on that item, if appropriate.’

 

I heard nothing back from the Chair of the committee, but did receive a promise from its Governance Officer (who my email had been copied to) that the minutes would be corrected. The day before the 6 September meeting, the agenda was republished. There was still no mention on it of the Cecil Avenue housing scheme, but revised minutes showed:

 

Extract from the revised minutes of Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee’s 19 July meeting.

 

So what did happen on 6 September about the outstanding matters from my 9 March deputation, and especially the answers to the points I’d raised about the lack of genuinely affordable housing proposed for the Council’s Cecil Avenue development? There was no consideration by the committee, and no recommendations. This is a transcript (from the webcast, beginning at 1hour 8minutes and 25seconds into the recording) of the monologue from the Chair:

 

‘Next on my list – Minutes of the previous meeting. Does anybody have any challenges to the minutes of the previous meeting? [Pause – nothing heard] Lovely.

 

Matters Arising. I need to confirm that following a deputation that was received by this committee, historically, in the last municipal year as well actually. The deputation came from one of our residents, Mr Grant, and it was primarily regarding issues of affordability.

 

And I just want to flag in regard to that, as the Chair has received information which, er I’m sorry I’ve lost my …, I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.

 

However, I do want to flag, a bit like my comment about acronyms earlier, affordability has a lot of different phrases now, and I think clarity in our meetings is important, both from us as councillors when we’re asking, that we’re clear what we are asking about, and that we try as best as possible to use the up-to-date and accurate terms when that information is being shared from officers.

 

So, we’d really, really appreciate an effort from all of us to keep meetings as clear and transparent as possible, so residents continue to be really as confident as possible in the information that is being shared. 

 

And again, just to reiterate that the issues of affordability in our housing stock is of serious concern to this committee, and the Community and Wellbeing Committee, and I know a lot of our residents as well. And I know the Cabinet of this Council as well. So, thank you all.’

 

Tucked away in that statement is the key sentence, which slammed the door shut on any consideration of the outstanding Cecil Avenue points (although that scheme is not mentioned by name):

 

‘I’ve received information which reassures us about the accuracy and the quality of the information that was presented to the Scrutiny Committee.’

 

What information was received? And what ‘information that was presented’ did it reassure “us” about? Did other committee members even see any of that information, or is “us” just the committee Chair? I think it’s fair to point out a lack of transparency here! 

 

And did you notice the hesitation before that sentence was read out? It certainly sounded as if Cllr. Conneely had to find the piece of paper that sentence was written down on – a carefully constructed form of words that prohibited any further discussion of this “matter arising” by committee members, without giving away any details of why that was the case. Did the Chair write those words herself (and if so who advised her on the best words to use), or was she just given the piece of paper by someone else, and told what she must say?

 

In my blog about this back in May, I said: ‘Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Council Officers do not want their Wembley Housing Zone proposals to be scrutinised.’ Well, they’ve got what they wanted, and Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee have allowed them to get away with it.

 

It’s not just on this issue that Brent’s Cabinet and Senior Officers seem to control what the committee scrutinises. A report to the Full Council meeting on 11 July, headed “Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee Chair’s Report”, but actually written by Council Officers and signed off by the then Assistant Chief Executive, included this section on the committee’s work plan for the year ahead:

 

Extract from item 11 on the Full Council meeting agenda, 11 July 2022.’

 

‘Scrutiny is the mechanism by which the Cabinet is held publicly to account.’ But if Brent’s Cabinet is telling the Resources & Public Realm Scrutiny Committee what subjects it can look at, those words are meaningless. 

 

Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?

 

Philip Grant.