Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
From JLL’s Affordable Housing Statement for Kilburn Square, published 28
November 2022.
There are many reasons for objecting to Brent’s
“infill” housing application (22/3669) for the Kilburn Square estate, but when I submitted my objection at the weekend, it was just about
affordable housing.
Why would I
object, when an updated and “Final” Affordable Housing Statement submitted by
the Council’s planning agent, JLL, in late November clearly promised that for
the 99 proposed “general needs” units ‘all proposed homes will be let at
London Affordable Rent by Brent Council’? My reasons are set out in detail
in an illustrated objection comments document, which I hope can be attached at
the end of this post, for anyone to read if they wish to.
Two weeks before
that Affordable Housing Statement was published, Brent’s Cabinet had approved a Report which proposed the conversion of homes, originally promised to be for
rent at the genuinely affordable London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) level, to
shared ownership (or even open market sale). Kilburn Square and Windmill Court
were among the schemes where this would happen, but the actual numbers of LAR
homes to be converted at each site were hidden away in an “exempt” Appendix.
Paragraphs about Kilburn Square from the Report to the 14 November 2022
Cabinet meeting.
Despite Brent’s
New Council Homes team having known for at least three months now that they
would not be delivering all 99 of their proposed “general needs” homes at
Kilburn Square at LAR, no updated information on this has been supplied to
Brent’s Planning Department. That information could make a difference between
the application meeting Brent’s Local Plan affordable housing policy, BH5, or
not meeting it.
The policy
states that the “tenure split” for affordable housing should be 70% Social Rent
or LAR and 30% ‘intermediate products’. Forty of the proposed 139 homes at
Kilburn Square are for extra care accommodation, charged at Local Housing
Allowance rent level, which is an ‘intermediate product’. This means that the
split shown by the application (by unit) is 71.2% LAR and 28.8% intermediate,
which would comply with Brent’s planning policy.
However, if the homes converted from LAR to shared ownership (which is
also an ‘intermediate product’) were to be split proportionately between
Kilburn Square and Windmill Court (the other two schemes would only involve two
“conversions”), the split by unit for Kilburn Square would become 43.9% LAR and
56.1% intermediate. This would fail the BH5 policy test, and make it difficult
for Planning Officers to recommend the Kilburn Square application for approval
on the basis of its “public benefits”.
Conclusions from the Officer Report to Planning Committee on Windmill
Court, March 2022.
When Brent’s
Windmill Court planning application (21/4690) went to Planning Committee in
March 2022, the fact that all of the proposed new homes would be for Social
Rent (for existing tenants re-housed) or LAR was cited as a ‘substantial
benefit’. This was used to justify several failures to comply with planning
policy, which were 'considered acceptable' after taking into account that
benefit.
Now some of
those LAR homes will be converted to shared ownership (as has already happened
at Watling Gardens). But that was because problems with viability only arose
(or so it was claimed) after planning consent had been given. The situation over
the proposed conversion of LAR homes to shared ownership at Kilburn Square is
very different!
I will end this
“introduction” to my objection comments with two paragraphs from them, setting
out my views on the Kilburn Square position to Brent’s Planning Officers:
4.4 It currently
appears that the applicant is knowingly withholding important information from
the Local Planning Authority, in the hope that it can get its application
approved on the basis that all of the 99 “general needs” homes proposed will be
for rent at LAR level. It would then submit an application to vary the
affordable housing condition in the consent given on that basis.
It would undermine the integrity of Brent’s
Planning System, and reflect badly on the integrity of Brent’s Planning
Officers and Planning Committee members, if such a blatant abuse of that system
were allowed to occur.
4.5 I would argue
strongly that, having been made fully aware of this situation, Brent’s Planning
Case Officer should advise JLL that its client, the applicant, must submit its
revised proposals for the tenure split of the proposed 139 homes at Kilburn
Square, and that no decision on application 22/3669 can be made until that
has been done.
We will have to wait and see whether any notice is taken of my
affordable housing objection comments!
Philip Grant.