How will 2nd staircase requirement for 30metre plus buildings impact on Brent's current pipeline?

 I have asked Brent Council Press Office to provide a quote from the Council on how the requirement for a second staircase for buildings over 30m high will impact on developments currently in the pipeline in Brent. The requirement follows recommendations made after the Grenfell fire.

From Fire Protection Association LINK

As reported by Building, property consultants Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) and Connells have analysed that up to 124,000 new London homes could be greatly affected or delayed by new fire safety regulations – schemes that had been previously approved.

Following the government’s recent 12-week consultation on proposed changes to Approved Document B (ADB), in February 2023, London Mayor Sadiq Khan announced, that he would be going ahead with the requirement for two stairwells in new buildings that were over 30 metres in height.

During his announcement, he stipulated that the Greater London Authority would only sign off on high-rise building applications that included two stairwells. As LSH and Connells note, this means that a current pipeline of 243 buildings (accommodating 123,632 new homes) will have to be scrapped as new designs are submitted by developers. The property consultants added that the new requirements could lead to current applications being “under threat of significant delay, or even being completely mothballed”.

The head of planning at LSH, Mary-Jane O’Neill, explained: “Given the tragic circumstances that led to the revision of fire safety regulations, there are few plausible grounds on which to oppose their implementation. But all of us involved in the process of development do need to process their implications and come up with some pragmatic solutions as a priority.”

The decision for a secondary staircase follows calls for better life safety measures for residents of high-rise buildings by giving them another means of escape in the event of a fire. It can also mean that fire crews have more access to take firefighting equipment to higher storeys when alternative routes might not be feasible. The need for a second staircase was one of the recommendations set out by Dame Judith Hackitt in her independent review and has also been backed by RIBA. The London Fire Brigade welcomed Sadiq Khan's decision, with further bodies wondering whether the height threshold should be reduced to 18 metres instead of 30. At the time, Charlie Pugsley, Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety, said:

“Having pushed developers to include at least two staircases in tall residential buildings for some time, we support the government’s plans to bring in this clear limit for new buildings over 30m to further improve safety.

“This introduction of a clear threshold will give clarity to developers, local authorities and communities and prevent the continued practice of increasingly tall buildings being designed and constructed with only a single staircase.”

The new London-wide mandate, however, is expected to impact several London boroughs and their promises for more housing. Indeed, Architects’ Journal reports that construction work has stopped at 10 new residential blocks between three and 16 storeys in the east London borough of Havering. The £450 million residential scheme expected to replace 270 homes with 380 homes has now been halted over the current uncertainty around second staircase requirements. Developer Wates Residential, alongside Havering Council, has stopped construction until the government gives more clarity and reaches a “decision on new building safety legislation regarding taller buildings”.

In a statement, the developer said: “Regulations are likely to change to require two staircases in buildings over 30m, so we have taken the decision to pause the development at this early point in the construction process until we have a better understanding of what the new regulations will mean.”

Mary-Jane added that while legislative updates to fire safety measures are still ongoing, “housebuilders are unlikely to go back to the drawing board on these schemes until there is much more clarity around the required design standards”. In the meantime, developers will have put their existing plans on hold. 

“There is no silver bullet on the horizon that will unlock the uncertainty surrounding tall buildings,” she said.

 

Lyon Park Avenue/London Road Railway Pedestrian Bridge to be inspected 'later this year' and any necessary action taken

 I have received this response from Network Rail about the poor condition of the railway pedestrian bridge  between Lyon Park Avenue and London Road:

Work Request - Bridge Improvement Required - Bridge ID: LEC1/32 - Between London Road & Lyon Park Avenue, HA0 4DX

Thank you for contacting us about the footbridge going over the mainline near Lyon Park Avenue.

 

I have raised this with the structures team and they have let me know that this bridge is due for inspection later in the year, and they will take necessary action following the examination.

 

 

Listening to Brent Labour thinking about tomorrow.

With the Labour Party moving to the right ahead of the next General Election I have met a great number of unhappy local members recently some of whom have left the party and are looking for a new 'home'. Others intend to stay and fight for the policies they believe in, so I was interested in last Saturday's talk by Mike Phipps of Brent Central CLP about his book 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow - the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn'.  The meeting was chaired by Alex Colas, Brent CLP Political Education Officer who posed several questions to Phipps before wider contributions and questions from the small audience. Several ex-Labour councillors were in the audeince but no current councillors.

 

Taken together Phipp's answers produce a narrative:

 

After the 2017 General Election although Labour lost the result was treated by the party as a victory because of its high vote for Corbyn's policies. Instead, the party should have analysed the missing demographics in its vote. Corbyn's rejection of personal attacks on rivals meant that he failed to address Johnson's dishonesty. The left no longer controls Labour Party policy but the right, bereft of policies of their own, are dipping into the left's. 

 

Starmer has developed an unpleasant, imposed regime but Labour can win the next election. The scale of the crisis means that you can't have a 'steady as you go' strategy - the crisis needs something more radical. In the recent local elections, the areas where Labour was most radical were the ones where Labour did proportionally better.  The move to the right means that Labour is losing graduate voters and the core vote is in danger.

 

Policies on housing, green transition and the NHS are important, but the real battle will be overfinancing them. The problem is that Labour is not committing to any more money. Will Starmer hit the rich or change the commitment?

 

The left needs to go on the attack over the money.

 

Differences between Welsh and Scottish Labour and UK Labour are widening with separate approaches. I don't support an alliance with the Liberal Democrats because of past history and thinks a trick was missed with the Greens in 2019. 

 

The Corbyn leadership was a once in a lifetime moment. More than 20,000 came into the party and about the same number have gone out. Some have stayed and got involved in local government, others have stepped back, and some have got involved in other parties. If Starmer fails to win a majority at the General Election, it is likely that the party will become factional.

 

The issue of the anti-semitism label should have been killed off immediately but Corbyn was poorly advised by his Comms people. After 2017 he should have brought in top-notch staff with a Chief of Staff committed to his agenda.  Instead, the staff had too many agendas of their own.

 

 Contributions from the audience were varied. Phipp's responses in brackets:

 

The fake allegations of anti-semitism were a step too far for me and I have kind of given up on parliamentary politics. Starmer is not challenging the establishment. I am despondent beyond measure. [Starmer is to the left of Blair on many issues. Labour began to lose votes under Miliband because of pro-Palestine policies. They should have been more aware of losing those votes. Surveys showed Labour voters queasy about Starmer.]

 

You said that you thought Labour would win the General Election. It is not likely to be an overall majority, and this strengthens the case for PR. What is the position of the local party on PR?  [Brent Central CLP narrowly passed a motion in support of PR. Personally in favour. Labour for PR doesn't punch its full weight and trade union support for PR has been more important. Unfortunately, after the last experience I don't think a Referendum on PR would be won.]

 

I am opposed to Starmer because he is not a good lawyer.  His record shows (e.g., Menezes shooting) that he has no moral sense regarding the big issues.

 

The reason for decline is the decline of trade unions. Need to build them up through developing single union across the sectors - multiple unions as in NHS means government/employers can divide and rule. Class politics should override identity politics.   I know others won’t agree but immigration should be opposed for class reasons as was initially the case with trade unions - it lowers wages and employers are therefore in favour. [Research evidence is that immigration does not depress wage levels.]

 

 John McDonnell gave a well-received talk here at the Learie Constantine Centre across parties. What is his role now and could the left coalesce around his leadership, particularly on economics. [Since Corbyn and McDonnell are following their separate interest of international issues and economic policy now. McDonnell is part of the old generation and there is a new generation from the Miliband era such as Richard Burgon. Such a person is more likely to come from the centre, rather than the centre-left.]

 

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow - Mike Phipps, OR Books

 

Not much time left to reply to TfL consultation on extension of 223 route along Harrow View and Kodak site - ends June 4th

 From TFL website LINK

The affected section of the 223 route

Route 223 extension to Eastman Village

We are proposing to extend route 223, so that it terminates at the new Eastman Village Kodak housing development on Harrow View in the London Borough of Harrow. We want to hear your views on our proposals. Our public consultation is open, and you have from 24 April to 4 June 2023 to have your say on the suggested extension.

Your views are important to us. On this page you can find out more about our proposals, how these may impact you, and how you can have your say.

 

 

Overview

London’s bus network is our most affordable, accessible and available form of public transport and offers the main sustainable alternative to cars for those journeys that can’t easily be walked or cycled. It is also London’s most flexible mode of public transport, and we continuously review and adapt the bus network to ensure that services reflect changing customer needs.

Following the Mayor’s announcement that the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) will be expanded London-wide in August, we are undertaking a number of bus consultations across outer London to strengthen alternatives to private cars and maximise the benefits of expanding the ULEZ.

This includes proposing adjustments to existing bus routes to ensure services are operating in areas where our customers need them most and considering where else the network should serve, and in areas where emerging redevelopment is bringing new homes and building new communities.

These proposals relate to route 223 in the Harrow and Wealdstone Opportunity Area.

What is proposed

Route 223 currently operates between Wembley Central and Harrow Bus Station. We are proposing to extend the route, so that it no longer terminates at Harrow Bus Station, but instead continues its route along Harrow View, terminating next to the new Eastman Village development on the former Kodak factory site.

The proposed extension would serve over 3,200 new homes, as well as homes and businesses along Harrow View. The extended route would create new journey opportunities to locations such as Pinner and Hatch End and would create new interchange opportunities. We believe that the proposals will help to make the Eastman Village development, employment, health care and the wider community more accessible, as well as improving journey times. You can find our Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) in the Documents Library, which explains the potential impacts in more detail.

How you can find out more

We have provided more information to help you respond, and we want this consultation to be accessible for everyone. Visit the Document Library for:

• A map of the proposed extension section only
• An overview map of route 223 with proposed extension
• Our initial Equalities Impact Assessment document
• A copy of our consultation survey in case you would prefer to respond in writing
• An Easy Read version of our proposals
• An Easy Read version of our survey
• A copy of our bus stop poster with QR code
• A copy of our consultation flyer

We also have a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) section which we will keep updated throughout the consultation.

If you need to translate this page into another language, please use the ‘select language’ button in the bottom-left hand corner of this page.

Connecting with London’s deaf community on our consultations

To enhance how we engage and consult with London’s deaf community, we are trialling a British Sign Language (BSL) consultation conversation service for this consultation. This service will allow the TfL consultation lead to have a two-way BSL translated discussion on any aspect of this consultation with a BSL speaker.

To request a BSL consultation conversation, please contact us at haveyoursay@tfl.gov.uk and we will be in contact to arrange this at a convenient time. Following this trial we will evaluate the service to determine if this is something we are able to offer on other consultations in the future.

What happens next

The proposals are subject to the outcome of our consultation. Once the consultation ends on Sunday 4 June 2023, we will spend time considering all the responses we received and will prepare a consultation report.

The consultation report will help us reach a decision about whether we extend route 223 to the Eastman Village. A copy of the report will be published later this year. It will be available to everyone that takes part in the consultation and a copy will be published on our website.

 LINK TO SURVEY

Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt accused of having Scrutiny chairs 'in his pocket'

The Annual Meeting of Brent Council which had proceeded with its ceremonies as expected burst into life this week when it considered a Liberal Democrat amendment to the Council Constitution based on their interpretation of the 2017 recommendations of the  House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee on 'Effectiveness of local authority overview and scrutiny committees '(Extract above) Link to full report.

 

Cllr Georgiou moving the amendment said that that there needed be a real and visible indpendent role for scrutiny and proposed that Scrutiny Committe recommendations should be discussed at Full Council, rather just Cabinet. Further, the Liberal Democrats felt that just having two scrutiny committees, unlike some other councils, meant that their agenda were too packed for effective scrutiny. They proposed a further 3 scrutiny committes to spread the load and make scrutiny more effective. Given the political makeup of the council 3 should be chaired by Labour councillors and the other 2 by a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative  councillor. The leader of the Conservative group backed the call.

 

 

 

Responding, Brent Council leader Cllr Muhammed Butt said that this was a Labour Council chosen by the people of Brent. Gesturing to his Labour colleagues he said that on his side of the chamber 'we have the people's choice', and went on:

I have two great Scrutiny Chairs who are doing a superb job...we have no need to make any changes.

The Liberal Democrats had not taken account of the expense and officer time need for 3 more committees when there were financial constraints. The Labour Group would oppose the amendment.

 

 

 

Exercising the Lib Dem's right of reply Cllr Paul Lorber said:

Thank you for the advert for democracy in the borough.

He then jumped on the possessive ' I ' that Butt had used and asked, 'Are they [scrutiny chairs] excellent because they are independent or because they are in your pocket? Which is it Cllr Butt?'

Addressing all the councillors he said that non-executive councillors all had a responsibility to ensure there was effective scrutiny:

If the leader of this council has 'my' chairs of scrutiny in his pocket there can be no confidence that the scrutiny process is independent and fair because of the words he used. Because of the words of the leader we now know that scrutiny is a rubber stamping of everything, a 'yes' to everything and no effective scrutiny.

 

Cllr Miller raised a point of order asking that the Mayor (chairing her first council meeting)  should make Cllr Lorber apologise for his 'unparliamentary' language but this was ruled out on a technicality by the council's legal advisor.

 

Cllr Kelcher, chair of the planning committee, raising another point of order/information said that the chairs of scrutiny were elected  within the Labour Group on a vote that excluded members of the executive. Therefore a misleading picture had been painted about their independence.

 

The motion was put to the meeting and lost with as far as I could see only Lib Dem and Conservative councillors voting for it.

 

A  futher Lib Dem amendment on  the 6 Brent Connects area suggested that Wembley being much larger that the two others should be split into 2.  In addition, reflecting the  political representation in the areas that one of the Wembley areas should be chaired by a Lib Dem councillor and the kingsbury and Kenton by a Conservative councillor.

That amendment was also lost so the 5 Brent Connect areas remain chaired by Labour councillors.

 

 

 Extracts from the House of Commons Report (LINK)

We have found that the most significant factor in determining whether or not scrutiny committees are effective is the organisational culture of a particular council. Having a positive culture where it is universally recognised that scrutiny can play a productive part in the decision-making process is vital and such an approach is common in all of the examples of effective scrutiny that we identified. Senior councillors from both the administration and the opposition, and senior council officers, have a responsibility to set the tone and create an environment that welcomes constructive challenge and democratic accountability. When this does not happen and individuals seek to marginalise scrutiny, there is a risk of damaging the council’s reputation, and missing opportunities to use scrutiny to improve service outcomes. In extreme cases, ineffective scrutiny can contribute to severe service failures.

Our inquiry has identified a number of ways that establishing a positive culture can be made easier. For example, in many authorities, there is no parity of esteem between the executive and scrutiny functions, with a common perception among both members and officers being that the former is more important than the latter. We argue that this relationship should be more balanced and that in order to do so, scrutiny should have a greater independence from the executive. One way that this can be achieved is to change the lines of accountability, with scrutiny committees reporting to Full Council meetings, rather than the executive. We also consider how scrutiny committee chairs might have greater independence in order to dispel any suggestion that they are influenced by partisan motivations. Whilst we believe that there are many effective and impartial scrutiny chairs working across the country, we are concerned that how chairs are appointed can have the potential to contribute to lessening the independence and legitimacy of the scrutiny process.

 

The Centre for Public Scrutiny states that:

Legally, the Chairing and membership of overview and scrutiny committees is a matter for a council’s Annual General Meeting in May. Practically, Chairing in particular is entirely at the discretion of the majority party.

Majority parties can, if they wish, reserve all committee chairships (and vicechairships) to themselves ... the practice of reserving all positions of responsibility to the majority party is something which usually happens by default, and can harm perceptions of scrutiny’s credibility and impartiality.

 

Chairs from a majority party that are effectively appointed by their executive are just as capable at delivering impartial and effective scrutiny as an opposition councillor, but we have concerns that sometimes chairs can be chosen so as to cause as little disruption as possible for their Leaders. It is vital that the role of scrutiny chair is respected and viewed by all as being a key part of the decision-making process, rather than as a form of political patronage.

 

Newcastle City Council where all scrutiny chairs are opposition party members, states that:

This has taken place under administrations of different parties and we believe that it adds to the clout, effectiveness and independence of the scrutiny process; it gives opposition parties a formally-recognised role in the decision-making process of the authority as a whole, more effective access to officers, and arguably better uses their skills and expertise for the
benefit of the council.

 

A venture to build on? Brent Cabinet set to approve the borough's first Community Land Trust homes project

This is a welcome venture challenging the usual developer led nature of design, planning and management of homes in Brent. A small step but important.  The link of 'affordable rent' to the average income of local residents is key. The project will be carefully watched by all those interested in truly affordable housing based on the needs of local residents rather than maximising market prices.

Brent Council press release on the proposal to be discussed at Brent Cabinet on Monday:

A group of local residents are leading on a venture to develop the first Community Land Trust homes in Brent.

The cabinet is set to approve plans to look at Brentfield Road in Stonebridge as the site for new homes.

Plans were brought forward by the Brent Community Land Trust (BCLT), a group of local residents who came together, supported by Community Led Housing London, in their ambitions to provide affordable housing across the whole of the borough.

If the project secures planning permission, it would transform a small parking lot and eight disused garages into much-needed homes for Brent residents. All of the homes would be priced at an affordable rent in line with the average local income for people already living in the area.

Atara Fridler, Chair of Brent CLT, said:

We’re so pleased to be working with Brent Council and the local community to realise our vision of delivering much-needed homes in Brent.  We can’t wait to see how a community led approach to the design, planning and management of homes at this site can help us deliver more affordable housing for local people controlled by local people.

BCLT is exploring designs that would maximise use of the site, recognising how difficult it for people on low incomes to be able to secure affordable housing in the private rented sector.

Cllr Promise Knight, Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness and Renters’ Security, said:

This is the first, exciting step in BCLT’s journey towards providing genuinely affordable homes for Brent residents.

I am looking forward to seeing how this project progresses in its engagement with the local community who will be invited to share their ideas throughout the design, planning and construction stages.

Notes:

Brent CLT was established in 2020 and is an independent, not for profit, membership organisation. You can find out more about Brent CLT and register for updates on how to get involved on www.brentclt.org.uk

Community Led Housing London supports people to create their own homes together. They work with community groups, councils, developers, and housing associations to provide advice, mentoring, and project management. They were established by the Mayor of London, and are hosted by CDS Co-operatives, a small specialist housing association. www.communityledhousing.london

BSL Chat & Relax, fun activities and games with Brent Deaf and CODA Youth Club - Chalkhill Community Centre Monday 5pm-7pm Free Entry

 

'Green and Fit Day' Chalkhill Park Saturday 27th May - 'Cultivating Health and Nature'