Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

On 14 November, Martin reported the questions which Cllr. Anton Georgiou had asked at the Cabinet meeting about the number of new Council homes Brent has delivered, and the proposal Cabinet was considering about “converting” some homes the Council was building from London Affordable Rent to Shared Ownership. The Leader, Cllr. Muhammed Butt, said the Council would come back to him with a detailed reply. 

 

Cllr. Georgiou has received that reply. He’s passed a copy to me, saying he would be happy for me to share it, as it should be public knowledge. I’ll ask Martin to attach the answers to the questions (prepared for Cllr. Butt by Brent’s Head of Affordable Housing) at the end of this post. At the Cabinet meeting, Cllr. Butt said that he hoped the Council and its Officers were not being accused of deliberately misleading the public. As the information he has supplied may be slightly confusing, I hope this article will provide a bit more clarity.

 

Brent’s Lead Member for Housing emphasising ‘genuinely affordable housing’.
(From the publicity video for Brent’s Clement Close “infill” scheme)

 

Much is made in Brent’s publicity about ‘Delivering 1,000 New Council Homes’ (“NCH”). What does the Council’s housing policy actually say? Brent is committed to there being 5,000 affordable homes built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council itself has ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’

 

There are two types of “genuinely affordable” rent which can be charged by social housing providers such as Brent. The first is Social Rent (sometimes known as Formula Rent, which is the maximum rent for each size of home, calculated by the Regulator of Social Housing). This is the “rent capped” level which can be charged to existing tenants of social housing provided by local authorities and Housing Associations, or new tenants if the registered provider choses Social Rent as the tenure. These Social Rents can only be increased by a set “formula” each year, so rents paid by existing Council tenants may be less that the maximum “rent cap”.

 

The current maximum weekly Social Rent levels. (Regulator of Social Housing website)

 

The second type of “genuinely affordable” rent, in London, is London Affordable Rent. It was introduced by the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in 2016, as the genuinely affordable rent level at which new homes built using his “affordable homes” grants could be charged. The weekly amounts are slightly higher than the maximum Social Rent level. (Currently, the annual increase “formula” for both rent types, set by the Regulator, is the previous September’s CPI + 1%, although the cap for increases from April 2023 was recently limited by the Chancellor to 7%).

 

London Affordable Rent levels. (From the GLA affordable housing website)

 

I’ve given this information before examining the answers provided to Cllr. Georgiou’s questions, as I think it will make it easier when I try to explain some of the replies. 

 

Paragraph from the 14 November “Update” report on the success of Brent’s NCH Programme.

 

The item being discussed at the Cabinet meeting was an update on the supply of affordable housing (see my guest blog of 11 November for more details). The Report said that the Council had developed and let 684 NCH. Cllr. Georgiou asked how many of the 684 were at each type of rent level and what types of tenure made up this total. This was the response:

 

Extract from the document sent by Cllr. Butt on 21 November.

 

In the first list, there are 235 new Council homes shown as being at Council (which must mean Social) rent level. There is a reason for this, which was first highlighted in a September 2021 “Life in Kilburn” blog about Brent’s “1,000 New Council Homes” Programme. 209 of those 235 were homes into which existing tenants from the Gloucester and Durham blocks in Kilburn, which Brent will demolish to redevelop, had been transferred. Their rents had to stay at their old Council/Social level, and its possible that the other 26 at that level are for a similar reason.

 

The 253 of 684 at LAR are probably new homes that have been supplied to people on the Council’s waiting list, or similar genuinely new Council tenants. But what about those at ‘London housing allowance rent level’? You will notice that the figure of 149 at that level matches the 149 shown for tenants in temporary accommodation, and 92 of those will be at the Council’s Knowles House development for temporary accommodation in Harlesden.

 

LHA is actually Local Housing Allowance level, a series of scales calculated by the Valuation Office Agency as a way of setting housing benefit entitlements for tenants living in the private sector. It is higher than rent levels that the Council could charge as a social housing provider, so Brent’s temporary accommodation is treated as a sort of semi-private Council housing. 

 

Weekly LHA rates for areas covering most of Brent. (From the VOA’s LHA website)

 

The LHA figures applicable in Brent are those calculated for the Inner North London (basically south of the River Brent) and North West London areas. They are the maximum amounts which the tenant can claim Housing Benefit (or the housing part of Universal Credit) for. In that respect, they can be seen as “affordable”, but it is not the “genuinely affordable rent” which the 1,000 new homes are meant to provide.

 

It will be seen that the 47 “Assisted Living” homes are not included in the rent level breakdown answer, so they are not provided at “genuinely affordable rent” either. And the claim that 488 of the 684 are ‘social rent homes’ is also incorrect. As shown above, only 235 are at Social Rent level. This is yet another example of the misleading descriptions of housing often used by councillors and Council Officers. It would be correct to call the 488 “genuinely affordable” homes “social housing”, or Brent Council social housing, but they are NOT all for ‘social rent’.

 

Another clarification that Cllr. Georgiou asked for at the 14 November Cabinet meeting was the difference between the 684 figure, and that given to the Scrutiny Committees when they were jointly considering Brent’s Draft Borough Plan the previous week. When asked how many NCH had been built, the Chief Executive, Carolyn Downs, said around 800. Cllr. Butt cut in to say 768. 

 

From the reply now received it’s clear that those figures included new homes completed in 2018/19, before the start of the five years covered by the “1,000 New Council Homes” pledge. Of the 103 from that year, only 30 were “general needs” homes at LAR. It may just have been a misunderstanding that a higher figure was given at Scrutiny, but the councillors hearing it may have mistakenly believed that was the current progress towards the Council’s target, so the record needs to be put straight.

 

The final part of Cllr. Georgiou’s questions was on the thorny subject of Shared Ownership. In a guest post on 12 October, I made clear that this is actually an “assured tenancy”, which would only become “ownership” if or when the tenant succeeded in purchasing 100% of the home. The information provided by Cllr. Butt showed “0” shared ownership in the rent or tenure details, but then admitted that there were 39 ‘shared ownership homes within the HRA account’.

 

At the Scrutiny meeting on 8 November, Cllr. Georgiou had requested ‘complete clarity for the committee’ on Brent’s Council housing (see transcript at the end of my 11 November “Affordable Council Homes” guest post). When he put to the Chief Executive that Brent appeared to be including shared ownership as part of its Council housing, Ms Downs replied: ‘We have not ever built a single Shared Ownership. Developers might, we the Council haven’t.’ 

 

That reply seems to have been playing with words. The shared ownership homes in Brent’s Housing Revenue Account must include 23 built for Brent Council, by a developer, under a Section 106 planning agreement, as part of the Grand Union development (the other 16 may well have been acquired under similar agreements). But under that same S.106 agreement, 92 of the 253 LAR homes included in the 1,000 NCH count were built, for Brent but not by Brent. This “double standards” treatment could be considered misleading!

 

You will see from the reply attached below that the proposed “conversion” of “genuinely affordable” LAR homes to shared ownership, which Cabinet approved on 14 November, and the commissioning of a report into shared ownership demand in Brent, is explained like this:

 

‘The proposal was therefore to identify new examples of best practice so Brent can be a leading example in any shared ownership homes that it provides ….’

 

Along with the reply to the questions, Cllr. Butt sent two other documents. These were a December 2017 Report by the Cambridge Centre for Housing & Planning Research on “Affordable housing products in Brent and their affordability to target client groups” and some “Shared Ownership data sets” extracted from that report. 

 

Shared ownership affordability for a couple with two children in Brent, from the data sets.

 

The report seems to be the source of much of the data supplied to the later Brent Poverty Commission, which led to this extract from a report to Cabinet in October 2020:

 

Brent Council’s policy on Shared Ownership, as set out in a Cabinet Report, October 2020.

 

That assessment does see the need for some shared ownership homes in the borough. However, an “Update” report to Cabinet a few months earlier, on progress towards meeting the strategic target of 5,000 new affordable homes by March 2024, showed that other shared ownership providers had more than enough such homes “in the pipeline” to meet that need.

 

Table from the July 2020 Update Report on progress towards the new affordable homes target.

 

On the data currently available, it seems likely that there will already be more shared ownership homes in Brent than existing Brent residents, who might be thinking of this “housing product” in order to “get on the housing ladder”, can afford. They are mainly suitable for young professionals, who would like to eventually own their own home and who foresee their income level rising significantly as they gain experience. But they are also the ones most likely to have read about the pitfalls of shared ownership on social media (see this 2020 guest post from a shared ownership tenant in Kilburn)!

 

If you wanted to get on the shared ownership ladder in Brent now, there are plenty of opportunities to chose from. But you can only qualify for this supposedly “affordable” housing option if your annual household income is less than £90k! Then, if you managed to get a mortgage to buy a 25% share of a home, you’d probably have to pay service charges of at least £250 a month, on top of your mortgage payments and rent for the other 75%.

 

A small representative selection of the shared ownership homes in Brent
currently advertised on the internet.

 

At the end of his presentation on 14 November, Cllr. Georgiou urged Brent’s Cabinet to reject the Officer’s recommendation to “convert” LAR homes in the NCH Programme to shared ownership. His plea, and the evidence he’d given to support it, was ignored. He tried to get the Full Council meeting on 21 November to consider a motion calling for Brent to concentrate on delivering genuinely affordable rented homes, and not to make some of the homes it plans to build shared ownership or open market sale. 

 

The attempt at a proper debate on the issue was ambushed by Cllr. Shama Tatler, with a Labour Group amendment, which backbench Labour councillors were “whipped” to support. But I still believe that ordinary residents should have their say, so if you would like to, please add a comment to my guest blog “SHARED OWNERSHIP – Let’s have a debate!”

 

Have I figured out Cllr. Butt’s reply for you? If I’ve done my sums correctly, more than 3½ years into the five year Strategic Target, Brent’s New Council Homes Programme has only delivered 253 genuinely affordable new homes for people on its long waiting list. It has also built 235 genuinely affordable new homes for existing tenants, “decanted” from homes it plans to demolish in order to redevelop the sites for housing in future. That’s 488 in total, out of 1,000.

Philip Grant

 

Councillor Muhammed Butt's reply to Cllr. Georgiou's questions.

 

Top licensing KC wins new hearing for Review of Aura Bar and Restaurant's licence. 3,681 sign petition to close The Aura. Premises have 'safety concerns' over threats made against them.

 

The Licensing and Entertainment Sub-Committee of Brent Council is not a committee that usually attracts attention, but today's hearing was an exception. The agenda was an application by the police for a 'Fully Expedited Review' of the Premises Licence for the Aura lounge and bar in Harrow Road, Sudbury.

This followed serious crime and disorder involving fighting on the 30th of October 2022 when a male lost his life. There was a report from the Metropolitan Police and Brent Licensing Officer. Residents and local ward councillors supplied evidence with a 259-signature petition opposing the licence and letters in support of the premises had also been received.

In fact, Sudbury ward councillor and Sudbury resident Paul Lorber said in his introductory remarks that this petition had been started by the family and there was also an on-line petition with more than 2,000 signatures (actually 3,681 today Nov 29th LINK).

It became clear when. in the introductions we heard that a KC, Philip Colvin, was representing the premises, that this was no ordinary hearing.  The website 11KBW describes Colvin:

Philip is one of the country’s most eminent licensing KCs. His practice spans all fields of licensing, including alcohol and entertainment, gambling, sexual entertainment, taxis, sport, and the security industry. He acts across the board for national and independent operators, national regulators, local authorities and local residents and community groups.

He has been ranked in the top tier for licensing in the Legal 500 and Chambers directories for many years.  As one client put it, “There isn’t anyone who comes close to his stature” (Legal 500 2020)

He is Patron of the Institute of Licensing, the professional body for licensing practitioners, a board member of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and an Associate Fellow of Westminster University’s Centre for Law, Society and Popular Culture. He is also a Recorder of the Crown Court, sitting as a Judge in jury trials in the Crown Court on a part-time basis.

Dickon Edwards, Legal Adviser to Brent Council made a statement before any evidence was presented.  He said that the Sub-Committee had received representations both from the police and the premises that the review hearing should be held in private. He said, the police are understandably concerned that there is a risk that an ongoing serious investigation might be compromised, or all their evidence be disclosed in a public forum. The premises have safety concerns in the context of a number of threats that have been made recently against them.'

He continued:

Clearly the Sub-Committee is mindful of the need for justice and the huge concern and public interest in the hearing but balancing the interest and mindful of the powers under Regulation 14 of the Licensing Act 2003 the Sub-Committee has determined that the hearing shall be conducted in private. The Sub-Committee did consider whether a mixed hearing could be conducted and considered this to be impracticable.

The live feed was suspended while the Sub-Committee met privately and when it resumed it was clear that Philip Colvin had done his work.

In a carefully worded statement Dickon Edwards said:

The Sub-Committee has considered an application made by Mr Colvin, KC, on behalf of the premises to adjourn this review hearing and it to be heard before a reconstructed Sub-Committee, on the basis that Sub-Committee has demonstrated an apparent bias in their conduct of the hearing. They were reminded of the test for establishing bias within the case of Porter-Mcgill LINK [The Westminster Council, Shirley Porter council house sales case], that is to say whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

Without accepting that there is, or was, any bias within the Sub-Committee or any individual members, for or against any of the parties, the Sub-Committee has determined that it is in the public interest for the hearing to be adjourned to be reheard before a differently constituted panel to ensure that any decision that is reached in due course cannot be subject to any such doubts or concerns.

 

LETTER: Are Brent Council’s Planning Committee Meetings Really Fair????

Dear Editor,

The Purpose of the committee

This Committee deals with certain types of planning applications and related matters.

Membership

·       Councillor Matt Kelcher  (Chair) LABOUR

·       Councillor Saqib Butt  (Vice-Chair) LABOUR

·       Councillor Ajmal Akram   LABOUR

·       Councillor Rita Begum   LABOUR

·       Councillor Liz Dixon   LABOUR

·       Councillor Arshad Mahmood   LABOUR

·       Councillor Michael Maurice   CONSERVATIVE

·       Councillor Rajan-Seelan   LABOUR

Anton Georgiou   LIBERAL

 

Dear Editor,

Below is a response I received from the Governance Manager at the Assistant Chief Executive’s Department at Brent Council after I raised my concerns  about what I experienced at the November 16^th planning committee meeting and how  I thought this was a one sided biased system which would always result in one outcome.

 

‘Just a quick follow up to the email you sent earlier this week regarding the query you’ve raised about membership of the Planning Committee.

 

In terms of the balance of membership on the Committee, this is actually determined by applying the “political balance rules” prescribed by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and supplemented by the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990.  These rules are designed to ensure that the political composition of the Council’s decision-making committees including Planning, as far as possible, replicates the political composition and balance of the Full Council.

 

The Council is actually required to review the representation of political groups on relevant committees at the Annual Council meeting each year, with the last such review undertaken following the local elections in May 2022. As a result of the overall membership of the Council standing at 57 members, the breakdown by political groups as a percentage is as follows:

 

·     49 Labour Councillors (representing 85.97% of total council membership);

·     5 Conservative Councillors (representing 8.77% of total council membership);

·     3 Liberal Democrats (representing 5.26% of total council membership).

 

The total number of committee seats to be allocated across all relevant bodies and also according to the number of seats on each individual committee therefore has to reflect this overall breakdown in Council membership.

 

Given there are a total of 8 seats on the Planning Committee, applying the above calculation means we are required to provide 7 of those seats to the Labour Group and 1 to an Opposition Group member, which it was agreed at the Annual Council meeting would be allocated to the Conservative Group’.

Having attended Wednesday 16^th November planning committee meeting as a neutral, I sat in the gallery right through the whole proceedings. I wanted to get a feel for how these meetings work as my neighbours and I are fighting yet another ‘infill’ proposal in Newland Court where we reside. There were 2 cases that I was interested in finding out what the outcome would result in.

 

 

1.    Planning application 22/1282, located at 7A Sidmouth Road, London, NW2 5HH.

2.    Planning application 22/1386, located at Minterne Road, Harrow, HA3 9TA 

 

 

The Planning Committee in session

 

From what I saw it seemed like this was a one sided biased system which would always result in one outcome. The Labour councillors on the committee seemed to be all voting together and of course a majority outcome always in their favour. The planning application for both were approved. I also watched the full council meeting on Monday 21^st November at 6pm where I discovered even more about Labour run Brent.  

 

 

Even Cllr Michael Maurice who is a planning committee member and the only Conservative on the planning panel said at Monday’s full Council meeting, ‘Time and time again the planning committee approve private developments which fall short of social housing, unaffordable housing and don’t comply in regards to amenity space. And if Labour cabinet members don’t vote in favour with their other members, then they get thrown out’.

 

 

And then even Cllr Matt Kelcher, who is the chair of the planning committee, reiterates about the shortage of social housing and Brent Council’s target of building 2,500 council homes a year. So my question is whether as the leader of Brent Council.  Muhammed Butt said in defence of his Labour planning committee members, ‘Every Labour planning committee member will have read all the paperwork and make their decisions on the facts and evidence put forward to them’ ?

 

 

Well, I’m not too sure about that because from what I have already seen and experienced with those Councillors involved in all these new development proposals, Brent seem to have made up their minds about fast tracking all these ‘infills’ at any cost. At the detriment of their own existing residents who voted them in, including me. 

 

 

 Marc Etukudo

 

 

 

LETTER: The Minterne Road development will be an eyesore and infringe our privacy

 

Dear Editor,

 

I hope you are keeping well.

 

I wish to raise the granting of planning permission by Brent Council for a 4 bed house at Minterne Road, Harrow, HA3 9TA  in your publication Wembley Matters.

 

Planning Reference: 22/1386

 

All the neighbours of adjoining properties have raised objections on two occasions with Brent Council and in total there are 8 objections. In spite of this Brent Council has made a one-sided decision to proceed with this development as it suits their interests and without giving any consideration to the objections of residents in the area.

 

I had also participated in the Brent Planning Committee meeting in person on 16th November 2022 plus this objection was also raised in March 2022 with MP Barry Gardiner and Cllr Eleanor Southood but unfortunately there was no response.

 

This development is an eyesore and will affect the neighbour’s privacy, overlooking into their garden, kitchen, dining and bedrooms. None of the houses on Dorchester way have such a development overshadowing more than half of the immediate neighbours’ gardens so it is naturally out of character for the area.

 

DK (address provided)

Hopeful signs for survival of the much valued Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre

 

Back in August I wrote an article on Wembley Matters with the headline :

We need to firm up proposals for the future of the Welsh Harp Environmental Education Centre or it will be our children's loss  LINK

Yesterday the above tweet indicated that local groups have risen to the challenge with a positive meeting of various groups interested in using the Centre, perhaps as a consortium LINK , or as sub-leasers under  present lease-holders Thames 21.

The road to survival?

There is a long way to go before the future of the Centre is secured with work to be done on the financial side as well on the collaboration agreements between the groups. The initiative shows that the Centre is valued and its survival, when nature itself is under threat from climate change, is recognised as vital to bring children and adults closer to their environment and engaged in its protection.

Brent Council is the owner of the site and will need to be convinced of the long-term viability of any proposals put forward.

 

 

Dawn Butler: 'We need to keep Harlesden whole' opposes new Boundary Commission proposals as undermining Harlesden's representation as a community

 The boundary that splits Harlesden (Source)

 Dawn Butler MP (Brent Central) has reacted to the latest proposals from the Boundary Commission for new Wembley, Willesden and Queens Park & Little Venice constituencies, with an email to constituents opposing the changes wil will split Harlesden between two constituencies.

I have received, from the Boundary Commission, their latest proposals to change the borders of the constituency boundaries in Brent, and indeed across the entire country.

The Boundary Commission has now publicly released its plans and has outlined that it wants to cut Harlesden down the middle. This means that the Church End half of Harlesden would be in one constituency, and the High Street would be in another. It just makes no sense.

I am opposing these plans and I have called on the Boundary Commission to think again about splitting one of Brent’s most vibrant communities into two. Do the people in Harlesden identify as living in two distinct areas? No. Harlesden is one community and it should remain as such. That has been the case for about as far back as historical records can go.

But I am not just opposing these changes because of history but because representation matters. When I stand up in Parliament and speak, I am speaking up for all of Harlesden. So, when I call on the Government to end the scourge of betting shops, or demand extra police on our streets, I am making representations on behalf of the entire Harlesden community, that will benefit the entire Harlesden community. Harlesden deserves to be represented within Parliament in a comprehensive, not patchwork manner.

We need to keep Harlesden whole.

If you agree with me, then make sure you have your say by completing a simple online form on the Boundary Commission website at https://www.bcereviews.org.uk/. The deadline for submission is 5th December.