Brent Cabinet asked to approve a total allocation of over £10m of Strategtic CIL to eight Brent projects, plus unspecified amounts for Morland Gardens and Church End

 

 

Monday's Brent Cabinet will consider a request LINK  to allocate just over £10m of Strategic Infrastructure funds to eight projects. The amounts vary from £102k to £2.6m.  Most were considered by the Infrastructure Officer Working Group. (IOWG). Some money is allocated to community centres, a need for which has been a recent demand post-Covid. Other sums are due to budget shortfalls.

The officers' report provides more detail and a justification for using SCIL for these purposes as below.

However, apart from this direct approval of these sums there is also a request that the:

Cabinet delegates authority to the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance, Resources & Reform to agree any additional SCIL allocations to the Morland Gardens project and any SCIL allocation to the Church End redevelopment project.

 'Any' is a very open-ended commitment to make without further Cabinet approval of the actual amounts involved.

 

· £0.9 million for use towards Wembley Transport Improvements

The North End Road Connector project provides a new access to North End Road from Bridge Road. This benefits residents and businesses by providing an alternative route across Wembley Park to access the North Circular Road, improving the traffic flow in the area. This route will provide an available vehicular route at all times - particularly useful for residents of North End Road who are impacted by the road closures on event days. This project complies with the CIL Regulations because it will help to support the growth in the area and improve traffic flow and connectivity through the area.

 

  · £413,000 for use towards Wembley Hostile Vehicle Measures

 

 

The HVM measures will support the proposed growth and development identified in the Wembley Growth Area. In addition they will provide a safe and secure environment, and enhance the attraction of the Stadium as a safe and secure environment to visit, in line with the Local Plan aspirations. The safe andsecure environment will help to encourage and maintain growth and development within the Wembley area.

 

  · £559,100 for use towards Harlesden Library

 

 

The project will future proof the facilities for an estimated further ten years and enable more flexible use, building in capacity for the service to adapt to changing community needs. These will be primarily community assets, developed to address social and cultural infrastructure challenges, build capacity in the local community and creative sector and develop new partnerships to enhance the service offer to residents.

 

In October 2021, the total cost of the project was £605,600 with a funding application to the ACE Libraries Improvement Fund for £285k already successful. A capital contribution ask of £320,600 from SCIL funds was required to make up this shortfall.

 

  · £1,951,162 for use towards the creation of Carlton Vale Boulevard

 

 

This significant request is the result of a short-fall in funding despite revisions to the scheme:

The total cost of the project is £6,669,900 following £1,166,000 of savings made to the original scheme, which has been reduced in scale and value engineered down. Funding of £305,273 from S106 obligations towards tree planting and £4,413,465 of Housing Infrastructure Funds (HIF) (agreed verbally, confirmation in writing still awaited) have been secured. HIF is to facilitate improvements and unlock housing growth. 

 

If the scheme is solely reliant on the HIF funding a place-making scheme would not be deliverable and it is likely that the HIF offer would be withdrawn. 

 

The total cost of the project includes contingency costs that have been included within the RIBA Stage 4 Cost Plan by the appointed cost consultant. The contingency costs, including inflation and risks, are considered standard considering the nature of the project. 

 

The funding gap at £1,951,162 is being sought from SCIL. This would be split between £1,722,162 to enable the project to go forward and £229,000 to the lifetime maintenance. It is expected that over a 25 year period, 40% of the maintenance spend would occur in the first 12.5 years and 60% of the maintenance spend in the remainder. 

 

Supporting Development & Growth 

 

The population of South Kilburn is set to double through the wider regeneration proposals. The CVB project provides a transformational piece of infrastructure connecting current and proposed developments with improved active travel through the improved cycle lanes and wider and more attractive pavements.

The project will help to increase footfall, providing support to current and future local businesses, public spaces and community facilities.

 

  · £102,427.26 for use towards the creation of a new community café and external amenity space as part of the Stonebridge redevelopment

 

 

Due to high levels of population growth owing to new development there will be a need for new community and cultural facilities to ensure the provision of social infrastructure to meet the needs of our diverse community. The neighbourhoods experiencing the highest levels of deprivation are largely located in the south around the Harlesden, Neasden, Stonebridge and South Kilburn areas. This commercial space is a key piece of social infrastructure that will help both existing communities and new communities together in the Stonebridge area and will help complement future mixed developments such as the Bridge Park Masterplan.

 

  

 · £1,015,684.77 for use towards the creation of a new community facilityas part of the Preston Community Library redevelopment

 

This community hub will help to support growth and development that is outlined in the Brent Local Plan particularly in the North West part of the borough. It is in proximity to Northwick Park Growth Area. This SCIL funding investment will help deliver a modern, replacement community hub that will strengthen the existing sense of community by celebrating Brent’s diversity, heritage and culture, and creating places where Brent’s communities can meet.

 

  · £2,643,445.04 for use towards the creation of a new community centre as part of Learie Constantine Centre redevelopment

 

 

Due to high levels of population growth owing to new development in both Neasden Stations and Church End Growth Areas there will be a need for new community and cultural facilities to ensure the provision of social infrastructure to meet the needs of our diverse community. The Brent Local Plan emphasises the need to ensure that community facilities are not lost where they meet or could meet a potential need and ideally enhanced to address these needs. This SCIL funding investment will help deliver a modern, replacement community centre that will strengthen the existing sense of community by celebrating Brent’s diversity, heritage and culture, and creating places where Brent’s communities can meet.

  · £2,479,770.31 for use towards the creation of a new community centre as part of the Brent Indian Community Centre redevelopment

 

Due to high levels of population growth owing to new development in both Neasden Stations and Church End Growth Areas there is a need for community facilities that will support development. This SCIL funding investment will help deliver a modern, replacement community centre that will strengthen the existing sense of community by celebrating Brent’s diversity, heritage and culture, and creating places where Brent’s communities can meet.

 

Morland Gardens Unspecified amount

 

Readers will be familiar with the controversy surrounding the Morland Gardens development which involves the demolition of the Altamira Victorian Villa. The delegation to Lead Member and officers appears to anticipate a rise in costs of the education and community facility.  Note that this section of the report does not mention the Lead member for Finance and Resources as part of the decison making, leaving it as a decion for the Coprorate Director of Finance and Resources. There does not seem to be an intention for a reference to the Infrastructure Officer Working Group.

 

In January 2020, Cabinet agreed an investment package of £43m to deliver the Morland Gardens development. The Morland Gardens development secured planning permission in October 2020 to deliver a state of the art adult education centre, 65 new affordable homes, 675 sqm of affordable workspace for start-up businesses from the local community, and a public facing café. A SCIL allocation of £15.2 million towards the education facility was agreed by Cabinet on 14 January 2020.

 

In August 2022, the Council appointed Hill Partnerships Ltd as the main contractor to deliver this scheme. Hill Partnerships Ltd is currently progressing delivery of RIBA Stage 4 – Technical Design in order to finalise the contractor’s proposals and final build cost.

 

Officers are therefore recommending delegated authority for the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources to agree any additional SCIL allocation to deliver the non-residential elements of the Morland Gardens scheme.

 

Support Growth & Development

As outlined above, the neighbourhoods experiencing the highest levels of deprivation are largely located in the south around the Harlesden, Neasden, Stonebridge and South Kilburn areas. A new state of the art centre is required to create an aspirational learning environment for the community, partners, learners and staff. Morland Gardens will be an asset to be utilised with and by the local communities of Stonebridge, which have some of the lowest average income, skills, and highest economic inactivity in Brent

This SCIL funding investment will help deliver a range of modern, replacement community facilities that will strengthen the existing sense of community by celebrating Brent’s diversity, heritage and culture, and creating places where Brent’s communities can meet and will help complement future mixed developments in the Stonebridge area such as the Bridge Park Masterplan.

 

Church End Unspecified amount

 

The Church End development comprises 99 affordable homes, a new market square to replace the existing market and commercial use space. In February 2022, the Council appointed Wates as the main contractor to deliver this scheme.

 

Wates is currently progressing delivery of RIBA Stage 4 – Technical Design in order to finalise the contractor’s proposals and final build cost. 

 

Officers are therefore recommending delegated authority for the Corporate Director of Finance & Resources to agree the appropriate SCIL allocation to deliver the non-residential elements of the Church End scheme such as the new market square for local traders, improvements to the town centre and new community/cultural infrastructure to help small and medium enterprises.

 

 

 

 

 

Many pressures on Brent housing put projects at risk

 A Quarter 2 financial report LINK going to Cabinet on Monday covers a range of areas where inflation and the cost of living and energy crises have impacted on the Council’s budget. Of particular interest is the impact on housing, both the Housing Revenue Account (HRA- council housing) and the capital programme (building of new homes). [My emphasis throughout]

There is a double whammy of homelessness increasing and the affordable private rental sector reducing:

3.6.7  As the cost of living crisis deepens, with energy costs and day-to-day expenditure increasing steeply, there has been a rise in homelessness applications, resulting in an increased use of temporary accommodation (TA).

3.6.8  In addition, the affordable Private Rented Sector (PRS) has contracted, which means there is a lack of supply to move households on from TA, which will put further pressures on the budget. Although, the recent opening of Anansi and Knowles house has alleviated this pressure to some extent, both schemes are now full and silted up due to the lack of move on accommodation available.

The cost-of-living crisis is expected to increase the number of families in rent arrears while the financial impact on the HRA budget could mean an increase in rent and reduced services:

3.6.9  The current economic climate could also have an impact on the rent collection rates and result in increases in rent arrears. Collection rates are being closely monitored and there are ongoing investigations to better understand the drivers for the movements.

3.9.2  The HRA is forecasting a break-even position for 2022/23. This is the net result of overspends on voids and a backlog of repairs being offset by underspends due to staffing vacancies and a reduction of the capital programme. There are also a number of other risks and uncertainties in this fund that could pose financial pressures.

3.9.3  High levels of uncertainty around the inflation and rising interest rates pose a financial risk to the HRA. This has an impact on the cost of materials and repairs, as well as the cost of new build contracts. Rising energy costs are to be passed on to tenants and leaseholders resulting in an increased risk of non- collection. In addition, rising cost of living is likely to impact rent collection rates and consequently result in increased rent arrears. Other pressures involve the capital programme as there is no new government funding having been made available to meet environmental priorities and requirements such as carbon reduction works to homes.

3.9.4  The increased costs experienced by the HRA would have to be met by rent inflation and modifying service delivery. The rents policy is currently under consultation and it is unclear at this stage what restrictions the Council will face.

The delivery of new homes is in jeopardy due to inflationary pressures and the report anticipates further changes in tenure of the kind already reported on Wembley Matters at Watling Gardens where the amount of genuinely affordable housing at social rents is reduced to ensure viability of the project. This could mean the proportion of private housing and controversial shared ownership being increased and London Affordable Rent becoming the norm  and some projects being abandoned or postponed:

Capital Programme

4.1  Rising inflation, a continued shortage of labour and materials and events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have had an adverse effect on costs and therefore the financial viability of schemes. The Government reported an increase of 23% in the costs of materials such as steel, timber and concrete last year alone.

4.2  For those projects in contract and being delivered, the Council is already receiving requests from contractors to re-negotiate pricing due to the cost of raw materials of which the Council are exploring all options to sustain viability including value engineering and tenure mix to allow schemes to continue. This is also impacting viability for schemes that are not yet in contract but within the Capital Programme and those in the forward plan pipeline. Even with the mitigating measures, it is likely there will be schemes that are cancelled, paused or reduced in scope to ensure funding can be prioritised appropriately.

4.3  The Council is in the process of reassessing the viability of our Housing Capital Programme in light of recent inflation figures. The exercise will model the potential impact of expected cost increases for schemes not yet in contract or received a recent tender price. In anticipation of the adverse affect on the scheme’s viability, the Council will assess the scope of the scheme whilst also reviewing the impact of cross subsidy.

4.4  The impacts of inflation are not reflected to the full extent in the budget variances reported as above due to:

·  The variances analysed in this report are for the financial year 2022/23 only;

·  Some impacted projects have had additional budgets secured by Cabinet for example Watling Gardens which now includes 23 shared ownership homes which protected the Council’s ability to deliver 45 Extra Care homes and 56 homes at London affordable rent;

·  Many projects have the initial phases of the budget approved which is forecast above, however the further build phases of the scheme are yet to have been approved.

A further pressure is over-spend on Housing General Fund project.

4.6  Housing General Fund

The General Fund Housing Programme is projecting a variance of £2.8m (overspend of £3.3m and slippage of £0.5m). An overspend of £2.5m is forecast on the Learie Constantine Centre as a result of amendments to the cost plan and contract arising from changes in building safety regulations. A £0.4m overspend is forecast for Empty Property Works Programme based on the project team’s assessment of the need. There is an £0.2m overspend forecast on Church End development due to the need to redesign RIBA Stage 3 to comply with the new Building Safety Act. There is a £0.2m overspend forecast on Peel Road to account for the contractor’s claims which they have assigned to variations instructed by the Council. There is a slippage of £0.1m on Clock Cottage and £0.4m on Nail Acquisition & Refurbishment resulting from the ongoing assessment of scheme progress and spend timing estimates.

 

4.9 St Raphael’s

The two St Raphael’s schemes, Estate Regeneration and Phase 1 of the Infill Development, are forecast to spend to budget for the professional fees and works to support the planning applications associated with the scheme of £1.4m and £0.5m respectively.

Risk and Uncertainties

For the Infill housing development, the project team are working on the planning application for Phase 1 as per the Masterplan. The viability of the development is under regular review and work is ongoing to understand the implications of the current market environment for delivery on the site.

 

A further risk not covered by the report is that slippage of some schemes will mean that Brent Council is not complying with the timetable demanded by the GLA as a condition of their grants and the funding could be lost:

 

 

 

 

Access to green space among 4 key issues affecting Londoners' recovery from long-term impacts of Covid-19

 

This detailed map by research participant James shows a time-line and changes from pre-pandemic ‘life B.C. 2020,’ through ‘Stay at Home’ in lockdown to the ‘Stay Alert’ phase. These changes include the changing levels of air pollution and air quality through the three phases of the pandemic, noting the cleansing effect of lockdown and high levels of pollution in the ‘Stay Alert’ phase that exceed pre-pandemic levels. Images of a skull and cross bones in the far right and bottom left of the map point to the perceptions of danger.

 

Major policy changes are needed for London to recover from the long-term impacts of Covid-19, according to new research on how the pandemic affected communities across the capital.

 

As the UK Covid public inquiry starts to explore national planning and political decision-making, a Queen Mary University of London report published today calls for urgent action to tackle issues and inequalities in the capital made worse by the pandemic.

 

This follows a recent study in the Lancet finding “massive global failures” in government responses to Covid-19, with researchers urging investment and planning to reduce future threats, such as the looming “twindemic” of Covid and flu reported in the British Medical Journal.

 

The new ‘Stay Home Stories’ research draws on 67 in-depth interviews with Londoners spanning a wide range of ages, ethnicities, faiths and migration backgrounds*, using their personal experiences to understand the pandemic’s long-term impacts and recommend policies that will help the city recover.

 

The study also details the devastating impact of Covid-19 on the capital, with over three million recorded cases (more than 15% of England’s total cases) and almost 24,000 deaths from the virus (the highest regional mortality rate after adjusting for age differences) since March 2020 – and an even heavier toll on some communities and neighbourhoods, with higher mortality rates among Black and minority ethnic Londoners as well as those living in areas with higher social deprivation scores**.

 

Principal investigator Professor Alison Blunt from Queen Mary University of London’s Centre for Studies of Home commented: “Our study highlights many lessons from life in lockdown for local and national leaders and policy-makers. Covid-19 hit London particularly hard, and its impact deepened existing issues and inequalities across the city, so long-term change is needed if we are to truly recover from the pandemic.”

 

Professor Blunt and the wider research team are calling for national and local policy interventions on four key issues, which their study found to have significant impact on Londoners’ wellbeing:

 

1.    Housing inequality and precarity in the capital is infamous - and these problems deepened in lockdown when many people had to live in unsafe conditions, some struggling in overcrowded households while others faced the isolation of living alone.

2.    Green space is vital for mental health and social connection, but inequalities in the city leave many people without easy or safe access to gardens or parks.

3.    Tensions around race and immigration can feed mistrust of the police, NHS and other authorities in some communities - making them less likely to engage with important public health messages and support services.

4.    Community and faith organisations were lifelines in lockdown, and are key to pandemic recovery, but many providing this support are under unbearable strain.

 

The research outlines the policies needed at local authority, Greater London and national scales to start addressing these issues and building a stronger city in the wake of the pandemic.

 

Recommendations include:

• Making adequate space for home-working and access to green spaces (personal and/or communal) a priority in future housing policies and developments
• Providing extra support to meet the specific needs of single-person households, LGBTQ+ families, dual-household families and vulnerable households
• Including access to green spaces in policies on physical and mental health, neighbourhood cohesion and children’s welfare
• Making parks and other green spaces safe, welcoming and accessible for all
• Co-ordinating state care and support systems with those provided in the community, communicating and consulting with organisations on-the-ground
• Funding those on-the-ground to improve digital tools, translation services and accessibility
• Supporting the leaders of community and faith groups, particularly those who work alone
• Establishing a working group including all faith groups and people without religious beliefs to support the UK Commission on Bereavement, and funding work as needed to address the impact of being unable to grieve those lost in lockdown with traditional mourning rituals.

 

Professor Blunt explained: “The newly launched UK Covid public inquiry is due to look first at planning, preparedness and political decision-making – areas where our research, and wider evidence from the pandemic so far, suggests the government really fell short. Learning from those mistakes is vital, and now is the time to put protective policies in place that will support long-term pandemic recovery.”

 

To read the newly published report, and find out more about the wider research project, go to www.stayhomestories.co.uk.

 

* ‘At Home in London during Covid-19’ Page 4

 

 ** ‘At Home in London during Covid-19’ Page 9 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3)

Hidden Heritage - An-Nisa Society in Conversation with author Fatima Manji on Britain's long-standing connection with the Muslim world. November 24th at The Yellow, Wembley Park

 

 

Learn more about Britain’s long-term links with the Muslim world. Fatima talks about her groundbreaking book, ‘Hidden Heritage’

 

Thu, 24 November 2022, 6-8pm The Yellow 1 Humphry Repton Lane Wembley Park HA9 0JL

 

To mark this year’s Islamophobia Month, Fatima Manji will be joining us to discuss her book, ‘Hidden Heritage’. 

 

 

Channel 4 News Presenter, Fatima Manji explores Britain’s longstanding connection with the Muslim world in her groundbreaking book.

 

"This is such an important, brave book that sheds a calm, bright light on the complexity of history at a time when simplistic assumptions have become the norm. It is truly brilliant" Elif Shafak

 

"A timely, brilliant and very brave book" Jerry Brotton, author of This Orient Isle: Elizabethan England and the Islamic World

 

"A compelling read about a history of Britain rarely cited and one that enriches an understanding of our complex, intriguing and wonderful past" Daljit Nagra

 

TICKETS £5.98 BOOKHERE

Yusuf Islam breaks silence on Islamia Primary School move and appeals to parents to be grateful. Salusbury Road site to be developed for high school improvements.

 In a letter to parents Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) appeals to parents concerned about Islamia's move to a site in Wembley and reminds them of his personal contribution to the founding of the school. He states that 'gratitude is considered part of good Muslim character'.

The letter appears to indicate that the redevelopment of the Salusbury Road site is for educational use and the improvement of Islamia high school facilities.  Unlike Islamia Primary School. Islamia Girls School and Brondesbury College are fee paying schools, currently £7,500 per annum LINK.

Yusuf Islam does not respond to any of the parents' specific concerns over the new site including travel difficulties and the potential inability of current less well-off parents to to deliver and collect their children from the site on a daily basis.

He claims that Brent Council has agreed to contribute 'upwards of £10m' for facilities at the new site.

 

 

Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – the promises and the reality

Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity.

This image is a screenshot from a video featuring Cllr. Promise Knight, Brent’s Cabinet Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters’ Security, which was produced by a PR company to promote the Council’s “infill” housing scheme for Clement Close. The video was shared in Martin’s blog about residents’ opposition to Brent’s plans, in July 2022.

 

My use of images from that video in this guest post is not intended as a personal attack on Cllr. Knight. Her words in the video are official Brent Council housing policy, which she may have been reading from an autocue, and I don’t doubt that she believes them to be true.

 

I’m writing this blog as a follow-up to one last month, “Scrutiny – What Scrutiny?”, after my expectation that concerns over Brent’s Cecil Avenue housing scheme (raised in a deputation on 9 March 2022) would be considered at the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee meeting on 6 September were dashed in a single sentence from the Chair, Cllr. Rita Conneely:

 

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

 

The only information I was aware of which had been presented to the Committee was a written response, sent from a Council Officer two months after my deputation, which made no reference to the Cecil Avenue housing scheme part of it. Cllr. Conneely’s sentence referred to two lots of ‘information’, so I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for both of those, and have now received two documents in response to it.

 

I will ask Martin to attach these. The first includes the “Housing” section of the original “Poverty Commission Update” report, my deputation and the Council’s response to it, and then refers to information about the Cecil Avenue scheme which the Council had sent to me, and had not previously provided to the Committee. There is no indication of when this was supplied to them, and whether this was to all members, or just to the Chair.

 

  

Information reassuring the Committee that Brent had provide information to me!

 

After that brief “note”, it sets out the text of an email which Cllr. Promise Knight sent to me on 13 July 2022. I must apologise to Cllr. Knight, and to “Wembley Matters” readers, as I’d said I would share her reply with you. I thought I had done, but I’ve now found my “possible guest blog” document, unfinished and never submitted to Martin! Here is what she wrote:

 

‘Thank you for your email regarding the proposed development of the Cecil Avenue site. It is my understanding that you asked similar questions at Full Council of November 2021 and received a written response.

 

In summary, the Cabinet report of August 2021 that considered proposed developments in Wembley Housing Zone set out the position. 

 

Brent Council signed funding agreements with the GLA in 2016 and 2018, securing £8m grant to deliver 215 affordable homes across six sites within the WHZ by 2025, through a rolling programme of acquisition and development, and used £4.8m grant to acquire Ujima House. 

 

Heads of terms were subsequently agreed with the GLA to amend the existing WHZ funding agreement to refocus the £8m grant to deliver 152 affordable homes solely on the two council-owned Cecil Avenue and Ujima House sites. 50% affordable housing is proposed across the two sites, with London Affordable Rent homes, increasing the amount and affordability of affordable housing above minimum levels secured at planning. The development will also include workspace to support job creation and economic growth, community space, highway and public realm improvements and new publicly accessible open space. Reviewing the WHZ financial viability, the GLA also agreed in principle an additional £5.5m grant to deliver the scheme.

 

The council can also use its own capital, secured via ‘prudential borrowing’ in order to deliver additional affordable housing. Each opportunity to deliver housing is considered on its individual merits via development appraisals that assess a number of variables per site that ultimately evaluate viability. The intention of the council is to maximise the availability of affordable housing across the borough while ensuring that the proposals represent good value for the council and that borrowing is sustainable. The Council needs to ensure the entire programme is financially viable within the GLA grant available hence the requirement for a mixed tenure development in order to subsidise the delivery of the affordable elements.’

 

Although Cllr. Knight’s email gave more financial details than had previously been supplied to me, it does contain errors. The 50% affordable housing (which is what private developers are meant to provide) is not proposed to be all at London Affordable Rent. Sixty-one of the 98 “affordable” homes the Council intends to retain at Cecil Avenue (after transferring 152 other homes to a developer, for private sale) are to be for shared ownership or “Intermediate Rent”.

 

And my 9 March deputation to R&PR Scrutiny Committee (and follow-up emails to the Chair) urged the Committee to challenge the viability (they could get the details of this, while I’m not allowed to see them because of “confidentiality”), and to question Cabinet Members and Senior Officers as to why they cannot provide more genuinely affordable homes on the former Copland School site.

 

 

I’ll go back to what Cllr. Knight said in her Clement Close video, using images from it (with several lines of text edited into a single picture, for ease of reading). One of the main arguments used by the Council for why it needs to build so many new homes is:-

 

 

They make much of their “Brent Labour” promise of 1,000 new Council homes by 2024 (although a September 2021 “Life in Kilburn” blog showed that many of these would not be for households in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list):-

 

 

And now the key point, used to justify the many “infill” schemes on existing Council estates:-

 

 

The former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue is a large piece of vacant Brent Council-owned, brownfield land in Wembley. The Council has had planning permission to build 250 homes there since February 2021. What an opportunity to make the most of that, and deliver a quarter of the entire 1,000 new Council homes target, in just one project! 

 

Work could already be underway (they currently don’t expect to “start on site” until next year) to deliver those homes, yet the Cabinet and Council Officers seem fixated on pushing through lots of smaller “infill” projects, against the wishes of many existing residents.

 

The second document which the Chair of R&PR Scrutiny Committee had received, headed ‘Mr Grant Clarification’, is unsigned and undated. It sets out ‘the current position’, and there has been a significant change from the written response sent to me last May. My deputation pointed out that the Report on progress in meeting the Poverty Commission recommendations (which Cabinet had accepted in September 2020) made no mention of social rented homes.

 

The Brent Poverty Commission recommendation for ‘more social rented homes’.

 

In May I was told:

 

‘In 2021, following discussions with the GLA the council received £111m of GLA grant, this falls within the 2021 – 2028 programme and will allow the council to build 701 Social rented homes, which are currently in development and feasibility stages. Delivering social rented homes remains a major priority of the council.’

 

This is in line with what both Brent and the GLA were saying last year:

 

 

The “Clarification” document now says:

 

‘The Poverty Commission report stated that the council is on track to deliver more than 1000 council homes by 2024 and a further 701 council homes by 2028. These are intended to be provided at London Affordable Rent levels.’

 

Although both Social Rent and London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) are classed as “genuinely affordable”, they are different, as I pointed out in a guest post in July. Even if Brent Council were to charge the maximum “rent capped” amount for Social Rent (which it does not have to), this is still cheaper than LAR. My ongoing dispute with the Council over the rents for two new Council homes at Rokesby Place, which were wrongly changed from Social Rent to LAR (by Planning Officers!), showed that the tenant of each four-bedroom home would have to pay £772.20 a year more (on 2022/23 figures) if the tenure was LAR.

 

The second document also suggests that Brent is likely to include more ‘intermediate housing (for example shared ownership)’ as part of the so-called “affordable” housing that it builds. It is already going down that road, both at Watling Gardens, where Cabinet approved a change of 24 homes from LAR to shared ownership in June, and in its Cecil Avenue proposals.

 

A placard from a demonstration against Shared Ownership.

 

But the Advertising Standards Authority has recently ruled that shared ownership cannot be described as “part rent, part buy”. Legally it is just an “assured tenancy”, which has been dressed-up as home ownership for political purposes. The rent rises each year are not “capped” (as Social Rent and LAR levels are). If the “owner” of a “share” defaults on their rent (or service charges) their home could be repossessed, and they would lose all the money they have paid for their “share” of the property.

 

And, shared ownership is NOT affordable to most Brent households living in temporary accommodation, or on the Council’s housing waiting list!

 

The direction that Brent Council is travelling over its provision of New Council Homes is moving away from what the 2020 Brent Poverty Commission Report showed was needed. It found:

 

‘More than 90% of couples or lone parents with two children cannot afford LB Brent social rents, and no family with two children (whether couple or lone parent) can afford any rent that is more expensive than LB Brent social rents.’

 

If that is true, then why is Brent not building affordable homes for Social Rent?

 

Philip Grant.