Brent Labour Group back school workers' campaign for fully funded pay increase

 

Kilburn Square – Would you believe it?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Extract from the Affordable Housing Update Report to Brent’s Cabinet, 14 November 2022.

 

In a guest post last week, Kilburn Square – Brent must come clean on affordable housing!, I let “Wembley Matters” readers know about the Council’s failure to update Brent’s Planners about the change from London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) homes to shared ownership in its Kilburn Square planning application, 22/3669.

 

It appeared that they were trying to get their application approved (probably at Planning Committee on 15 March) on the basis that all 99 of the proposed “general needs” homes would be for LAR. A Brent Cabinet decision on 14 November 2022 made it likely that around 40 of those homes would be “converted” to shared ownership. On those “true” figures, the application would be likely to fail Brent’s Local Plan affordable housing policy BH5.

 

In comments below that article, I kept readers up to date with correspondence between myself and Head of Affordable Housing and Brent’s Lead Member for Housing. However, Martin has agreed that the latest exchange of emails is sufficiently important to deserve a guest post of its own.

 

I have previously drawn the attention of Ms Baines and Cllr. Knight to a letter I had published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 19 January, calling on the Council for honesty over its Kilburn Square affordable housing proposals:

 

My letter published in the “Brent & Kilburn Times” on 19 January 2023,

 

On 9 February, after several brief exchanges of emails, I had written to Brent’s Head of Affordable Housing (with copy to the Cabinet Lead Member for Housing) saying:

 

‘Please confirm that you have now instructed JLL to submit a revised Affordable Housing Statement for Kilburn Square (application 22/3669), giving the actual and updated tenure split for the proposed 139 homes, including those you intend to "convert" from LAR to shared ownership. 

 

If you cannot give that confirmation, please explain why, and what you intend to do over the tenure split on this scheme. Thank you.’

 

This is the full text of the reply I received on 10 February:

 

‘Hello Phillip,

 

I have previously confirmed we are still in a live procurement, this means we have not confirmed the market costs of this build and do therefore not know if a change in tenure would even be required. 

 

I can assure you as head of affordable housing and partnerships my role is to deliver as many social homes as possible. 

 

Best wishes

 

Emily-Rae’

 

I have to admit that I found the claim at the end of the first paragraph difficult to believe! If I had replied straight away, I’d probably have used words I might later regret. So I waited several days, and this is the full text of the reply I sent to Brent’s Head of Affordable Housing on 14 February:

 

‘This is an Open Email

 

Dear Ms Baines,

 

 

Thank you for your email of 10 February.

 

 

I was pleased to read of your determination 'to deliver as many social homes as possible.' I hope that by 'social homes' you mean homes at Social Rent level, as strongly recommended by the Brent Poverty Commission report in 2020, or at least the other form of "genuinely affordable" Council homes, at London Affordable Rent ("LAR") level.

 

 

I was surprised to read that you 'do not know if a change in tenure would even be required', for the 99 "general needs" homes proposed for Kilburn Square in your planning application 22/3669.

 

 

That is entirely the opposite of what was set out in the "Update on the supply of New Affordable Homes" report ("the Report") to the 14 November 2022 Cabinet meeting, for which you were the first named Contact Officer.

 

 

At para. 1.1 of the Report it stated:

 

'This report specifically outlines viability gaps across 10 schemes, which are not yet in contract and sets out options for cross subsidisation where possible for the Council’s consideration.'

 

 

Paragraphs 4.17 to 4.30 of the Report dealt with 10 New Council Homes Programme ("NCHP") schemes which were not yet in contract, with para. 4.18 stating:

 

'To better understand the Council’s options, officers have reviewed all 10 of these schemes to explore possible options for making schemes viable. This in real terms means the conversion of some social rented homes to shared ownership or other tenures in order to cross subsidise the scheme.'  

 

 

Four of the ten schemes were identified from this review as being suitable for "conversion", and Kilburn Square was one of the four. From the information supplied in the Report, it appears that details of the review's evidence and conclusions, from its assessment of the ten schemes, were set out in an "exempt" appendix to the Report, which was made available to Cabinet members and some Officers, but not to the public. 

 

 

Para. 4.19 of the Report gives that information, as follows:

 

'Appendix 2 sets out a summary table of this assessment and overall, there are four schemes which allow for conversion of some homes (50% or under in keeping with planning requirements) and result in a positive net present value which mean they are financially viable.

 

These schemes are: 
· Kilburn Square
· Windmill Court
· Seymour Court
· Rokesby Place '

 

 

Specific details of the number of homes involved in those four schemes, and the total number to be "converted", were stated in para. 4.20:

 

 

'Across these four schemes, there were 204 affordable homes due for delivery either at Social Rent or London Affordable Rent. This conversion would see this number reduce to 145 homes for London Affordable Rent and 59 homes for Shared Ownership.'  

 

 

Paragraphs 4.22 and 4.23 appear to make clear that only two homes from the small schemes at Seymour Court and Rokesby Place could be "converted" from LAR to shared ownership. That would leave 57 of the LAR homes proposed for Kilburn Square and Windmill Court to be converted to shared ownership, according to the November 2022 Report.

 

 

Given that detailed information, from just three months ago, it is difficult to understand how you can now claim that Officers involved in the NCHP 'do not know if a change in tenure would even be required' for Kilburn Square (which has roughly twice the number of proposed LAR homes than those approved for Windmill Court).

 

 

As the Report was signed off by the Corporate Director, Resident Services, and recommended (and received) greater delegated powers for him in respect of the tenure split for NCHP schemes, I am copying this email to him, and to the Council Leader (as well as to the Cabinet Member for Housing).

 

 

Mr Gadsdon may wish to explain to the Council Leader (and Cllr. Muhammed Butt may wish to receive that explanation) what has changed so much in the past three months to make the previously unviable Kilburn Square scheme, where perhaps around 40 LAR homes would need to be "converted" to shared ownership, now potentially viable, so that no such "conversion" might be needed.

 

 

I am sure that a number of other councillors, and interested local residents, would like that explanation to be made public. 

 

 

As things currently stand, the apparent difference in the situation over the affordable housing tenure split at Kilburn Square, between that set out in the Report in November 2022 and that suggested in your email of 10 February, could be seen as an exaggeration of the viability problem last November, in order to mislead elected councillors into transferring some of their powers to Senior Officers. Some clarification is surely needed!

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Philip Grant.’

 

 

Has there genuinely been a massive change in the viability of Brent’s proposed Kilburn Square housing scheme in the past three months? Was the “viability gap” on New Council Homes schemes overstated by Council Officers in their report to Cabinet in November 2022? 

 

Or has the true position over the tenure split of the proposed homes at Kilburn Square not been disclosed in the email sent to me on 10 February, in an attempt to maintain an unfair advantage over affordable housing when the Council’s planning application is considered? You can decide which version you believe!

 

Philip Grant.

 

The Wembley Heron has not been seen since Thurday - please keep a look out

 

Barn Hill pond this afternoon with notice to the public

With many groups and individuals looking out for the grey heron that has material wrapped around its beak, I am sad to report that as far as I can ascertain it has not been seen since Thursday. Checks have been made at the various places it is known to frequent, including Barn Hill Pond and the Welsh Harp Reservoir.

If any readers do see it, please let us know with a comment below or tweet to @WembleyMatters.

If you see it use the rescue numbers below and give time of sighting and the precise place seen.

Many thanks.

Brent Council places Tree Preservation Order on trees at Reservoir Cottage, Welsh Harp

 

Reservoir Cottage after removal of vegetation

 

The cottage and surrounding trees (Google Earth)

 

Wembley Matters drew attention to what looked like possible preparations for development at the Georgian Reservoir Cottage back in December 2022. LINK Some vegetation had already been cleared. There was concern at the possible loss of green space and habitat at the site.

Earlier this month Brent Trees Officer, Julie Hughes, made a Tree Protection Order (TPO) on a number of trees on the site. The Order said:

• We have made this order because the trees are of significant amenity value and:
• Contribute to the attractiveness of the area adjacent to Welsh Harp Open Space and car park.
• Are important for their contribution to biodiversity directly adjacent to Welsh Harp SSSI.
• These trees should be retained in any future redevelopment of the site.
• Enhance the value of the street scene of Birchen Grove, views from the Sailing Club and the Welsh Harp car park. 

The temporary order remains in force for 6 months during which the Council will decide whether it should be given permanent status.

The Order means that no one is allowed to cut down, top or lop without Brent's permission any of the trees described in the 1st schedule of the order and include a willow, yew tree and 9 oak trees.

 

 

'All abour trees' for children 3-8, Saturday 18th Feb. Cricklewood Library. Limited space - must book.

 

Sufra launch Community Wellbeing Project with a facility at Bridge Park Leisure Centre, Stonebridge

 

The enterprising Sufra Foodbank and Kitchen has opened a new facility at Bridge Park Leisure Centre with partners.

Full details can be found in the presentation below:

Click bottom right for full page.

High Court grants hearing for landmark case on sewage dumping backed by Good Law Project

 The High Court has given permission for a hearing against the Government’s Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan, which allows water companies to continue dumping sewage into rivers and coastal waters for another three decades. Good Law Project is supporting the legal action, being brought by the Marine Conservation Society, Richard Haward’s Oysters, and Hugo Tagholm, a surfer and activist.

The hearing at the High Court will challenge the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Thérèse Coffey, over her department’s plan.

The Storm Overflows Discharges Reduction Plan was published in August last year and gives water companies a deadline of 2035 to reduce the amount of sewage flowing into bathing water and areas of ecological importance, but until 2050 to stop dumping sewage elsewhere.

The claimants want the Government to improve its plan and bring forward the deadlines for water companies to act and include stronger protections for coastal waters across the country.  

England has around 14,500 storm overflows in operation to stop sewers becoming overwhelmed. They allow a mixture of surface water and raw sewage to be discharged into rivers and coastal waters - but should only be used occasionally following exceptionally heavy rainfall.

The latest Environment Agency data shows that storm overflows are being used with alarming regularity. In 2021, storm overflows discharged untreated sewage 372,533 times over a period of 2.7 million hours.

The date for the hearing at the High Court has yet to be decided. 

Jo Maugham, Director of Good Law Project, said: 

"This could be the most consequential environmental law case in recent history. We contend - and the High Court now agrees the point is arguable - that the English common law contains a principle that the natural environment must be protected, must be held in trust, for future generations."

Sandy Luk, Chief Executive of Marine Conservation Society, said:

“We’re now one step closer to compelling the Government to re-write its Storm Overflows Reduction Plan, so that the ocean and its inhabitants really are protected from untreated sewage dumping. Raw sewage will continue polluting our seas until action is taken. Being granted permission to proceed with this case is an important milestone in achieving our vision for a cleaner, better protected and healthier ocean.”

Tom Haward, Operations Manager of Richard Haward’s Oysters and 8th generation oysterman, said:

“Having clean and safe waterways is something we shouldn't have to fight for or even ask the courts to consider. 

“But, in 2023, we are in that position. I'm happy the High Court has given permission for the case to be heard and  I hope it will be another step toward making water companies accountable - truly accountable - for their actions”. 

Surfer and activist, Hugo Tagholm, said:

“The sewage scandal is now headline news. The writing is on the wall for water companies. Their pollution that was for so long hidden in our rivers and streams now flows in full view of the public. A sign of decades of neglect and complacency. The blue spaces so important for wildlife, people and communities should not be treated as dumping grounds for these corporations. We should be free to swim, surf and enjoy our rivers and coastline without fear of sewage pollution.”

Brent Lib Dems: 'Impossible to justify £1.96m spend' on Brent Civic Centre that 'could bring Council into disrepute'

 'Reach for the book' - the 'concept' plan to replace the spiral straircase

 

The Liberal Democrat Group on Brent Council have expressed doubts about the Council’s decision to spend £2m on the £100m 10 years old Brent Civic Centre.

 

They said:

 

The Cabinet decision to spend an excessive sum of £1.96 million on upgrades to Brent Civic Centre, at a time when services provided by the local authority continue to be reduced, is wrong and unjustified.

 

As a service-based organisation, Brent Council should always be putting the needs of residents first and we do not believe that committing this large amount of money on ‘Improving the Customer Experience’ at the Civic Centre is a priority for our residents. Most residents are concerned about crumbling and dangerous local roads and pavements, increased rubbish being dumped in our area, and most significantly the huge financial pressures faced due to the Cost-of-Living crisis, compounded by upcoming additional pressures like the increase in Council Tax and other charges.

 

It is difficult to justify spending £1.96 on the Civic Centre building, when there are so many other areas the Council should be prioritising at this time. 

 

The Report makes no mention of the number of visitors to the Civic Centre, what the numbers the current arrangements can cope with and what the numbers the redesign will be able to accommodate, after spending £1.96 million. Why?

 

The Report also makes claims about savings without specifying what these savings will be.

 

Brent Civic Centre is barely 10 years old. We find it incredible that the Cabinet have been able to identify such a large amount of money for a redesign, whilst simultaneously claiming shortfalls in the budget exist, which impact the delivery of services and upkeep of our wards.

 

It is accepted by many that, particularly post pandemic, the Civic Centre is not being used to full capacity. Much of the vast space available for use is not being utilised as intended, as many Council Officers are able to do their work remotely and from home. Whilst the Report refers mostly to the customer areas of the Civic Centre, we believe that a discussion now needs to also begin about the continued use of the Civic Centre as a whole, given the costs involved for its upkeep, and the potential for considerable revenue to be generated if it is used in different ways.

 

The Report focuses on the face-to-face public spaces in the Civic Centre as being in need of a redesign. We do not believe that enough effort has been made to adapt, at much lesser cost, the existing spaces for ‘customers’ who come to the building seeking support.

 

We believe that further work needs to take place to understand alternative, less costly action to ensure a better ‘Customer Experience’ at Brent Civic Centre. We acknowledge that some consultation has been done that has led to the decision to produce this Report, however we are sceptical that enough people’s views were taken into account and that a wide range of views were considered in preparation for this Report.

 

As Councillors often in the Civic Centre, we recognise the waste of space in the mezzanine area. This space should be used more efficiently, as noted in the Report, however, we see no need for expansive works to improve it.

 

The Report refers to the need to create private more secluded areas for ‘customers’ (residents) to have meetings and discussions with Council Officers. There is a great deal of empty space on the ground floor and the first floor that could quite easily be turned into private spaces, as is required.

 

There is also an opportunity to create a secondary reception area on the left side of the ground floor, where currently ‘Registrations’ take place. We see no problem in dual purpose use of that side of the ground floor.

 

As to the issues with heating in the building, the current plan seems extravagant and unnecessary. We want to see officers explore alternative options to regulate the heat in the Civic Centre, possibly by installation of additional artificial walls.

 

Our view is that better use can be made of existing Hub centres across the borough, in order to provide a service to our residents out in the community. The money agreed by Cabinet to spend on redesign of the Civic Centre, can be better used to improve existing services that are more likely to directly assist residents with their needs.

 

Fundamentally, we believe it is impossible to justify the £1.96 million spend as agreed by Cabinet. It is the wrong time, the wrong look and could bring this Council into disrepute if this goes ahead.

 

Our residents want to see their Council focus on the issues that matter to them and for the vast majority that will never step foot in the Civic Centre, this decision will have no positive impact.