Council housing – does Brent know what it is doing?

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

An aerial view of the Newland Court estate. (From Google Maps satellite view)

 

Although much of the attention at the 15 November Planning Committee meeting will be on the deferred Kilburn Square application, there is another Council infill housing application which may well be on the agenda. 

 

Brent New Council Homes Programme’s Newland Court garages proposals (22/3124) were first submitted on 7 September 2022. Many residents, both on the estate and whose homes backed onto the very narrow site, objected to the plans. My own objection was mainly because the established trees along the boundary, protected as part of the Barn Hill Conservation Area, grow both over and under the site, making it impractical for the proposed development.

 

Brent’s April 2023 revised five homes plan for the Newland Court infill scheme.

 

Although Planning Officers should have refused the application, they instead allowed the Council’s architects and planning agent to submit revised plans in April, which reduced the number of homes from seven to five (so extra cost, reduced viability). Surely this scheme could not go ahead? I’m grateful to Marc, and other Newland Court residents, for their permission to quote from correspondence they have received from Brent Council over recent months, which has inspired the title of this guest post.

 

As this threat of a detrimental development had been hanging over her head for a year, one resident wrote to Brent Council’s Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods in September 2023, to ask what was going on. This was the reply she received, from Brent’s Tenancy and Neighbourhoods Service Manager on 18 September:

 

‘Thank you for your e-mail dated 5 September, which is addressed to Kate Dian, Head of Housing and Neighbourhoods.

 

Newland Road is not a Private Road, as the site is own by the Council and based on a public land.

 

Due to current financial pressure the proposed infill will not go ahead. This has now been confirmed by our housing supply and partnership services.

 

Your site is included in the next round of consultation for ‘Off street-controlled parking’. We expect the consultation to take place before the end of this calendar year. As the proposed infill will not go ahead, the associated cost and its implications are now not relevant issues, which requires further clarity.’

 

The reply was shared with her neighbours, to great relief, although there was some puzzlement over the reference that “Newland Road” ‘is not a Private Road’, as the Council’s signs at either end of it say the opposite.

 

Signs at the gated entrance to one end of the Newland Court estate road.
(Courtesy of Michelle Hart)

 

Marc, one of the Newland Court residents who has been leading the battle against the plans, and the way in which he and his neighbours have been treated by the Council over them, was not convinced by this “good news”. He’d been told that Brent’s application would be going to Planning Committee on 18 October. He wrote to the Lead Member for Housing, seeking clarification, and this was the response he received on 4 October:

 

‘Dear Marc,

 

Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your enquiry. I have now had an opportunity to review this matter and liaised with the development team; my findings are as follows.

 

As you will appreciate there is a chronic housing shortage in Brent, which the Council is committed to addressing, by utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.

 

Although building costs have increased due to the current economic climate, the Council are reviewing the pipeline and will continue to pursue planning permission for schemes within the New Council Homes Programme, including the Newland Court development site: should planning approval be secured, then an extensive financial review to assess the financial viability of each development going forward will be undertaken.

 

At this stage, no formal decision about the Newland Court development proposal has been made and on behalf of the Council I would like to sincerely apologise for any confusion caused because of recent communication which has been circulated.

 

I recognise this may not be the response you hoped for and note your comments, but I trust the above clarifies the Council’s position in respect of this matter.

 

Cllr Promise Knight
Stonebridge Ward
Lead Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security’

 

So, Brent Council’s housing team is spending time and money, pressing on with seeking planning consent for schemes (often small ones) which it doesn’t know whether it will ever be able to afford to build.

 

I have to say, yet again, that if they had got on and built the 250 homes on the vacant Council-owned brownfield site at Cecil Avenue (the former Copland School), which they obtained full planning consent for in February 2021, and built them all as Council homes, they would have done much better in ‘utilising available resources to increase the supply of affordable homes.’ Instead, those homes won’t be available until  2026, 152 of them will be sold privately by Brent’s “developer partner”, and only 59 will be for Council tenants at London Affordable Rent.

 

The Rokesby Place car park on 3 October 2023.

 

They received planning consent for at least two small infill schemes last year. The August 2022 Planning Committee meeting approved Brent’s application to build two four-bedroom houses on the car park at Rokesby Place. These were supposed to be homes at Social Rent level, for Brent families in housing need, although Planning Officers changed that to London Affordable Rent (which would be £772 a year more, at 2022/23 levels).

 

By November 2022, Brent’s Cabinet were told that Rokesby Place would not be viable as genuinely affordable housing, so that one of the two houses might have to be sold privately. Even then, no action seems to have been taken to build the two houses, as shown by the recent photograph of the car park “site” above.

 

In December 2022, Planning Committee approved another Brent two houses infill application, for the garage site behind homes at Broadview (a late 1950s Wembley Council estate in Kingsbury, now with many houses privately-owned through “right to buy”). They did so despite misleading information from Planning Officers, which had been brought to their attention by objectors!

 

Has any progress been made on building those “much needed Council homes”? None that I can see, and I suspect that they will never be built. The houses on this tiny unsuitable site would cost more than usual to build because they would need extensive soundproofing (because they would be just 20 metres from the Jubilee Line tracks), and will need a special water tank constructed under the front forecourt (as fire engines could not get close enough to them, because of a long access drive only 2 metres wide).

 

Cllrs Butt, Tatler and Knight at the Watling Gardens “groundbreaking” event, October 2023.
(Brent Council publicity photograph)

 

Brent Council does claim that it is having some success in “Delivering New Council Homes”, as shown by this staged photograph taken at Watling Gardens. Their planning application was submitted in 2021, and received full consent in April 2022. Eighteen months later, they are just starting work on the project, and it will be ‘winter 2025’ before the homes are finally “delivered”.

 

That is not all. The Council’s June 2022 press release, headed “Another 125 new council homes for local families”, was rather misleading, as a blog by Martin at the time pointed out. 42 Council homes are being demolished to make way for the redevelopment, and 34 of the new homes will be used to house displaced tenants. 45 will be 1-bedroom “independent living” flats for elderly people (not for families). The Cabinet decided that 24 of the remainder should be “converted” from London Affordable Rent to shared ownership. That leaves only 22 of these “New Council Homes” available for local people waiting for a genuinely affordable home to rent.

 

The Cabinet Member for Housing, Homelessness, and Renters’ Security,
in a July 2022 Brent PR video promoting its Clement Close infill proposals.

 

There is no dispute that Brent needs thousands more genuinely affordable homes to rent, and the borough’s Labour leadership promised to build 1,000 of these in the five years up to March 2024, and a further 700 (part-funded by a promise of over £100m from the GLA) by 2028.

 

I agree with the Council that the steep rise in the cost of building materials, and in interest rates, has made their task more difficult. But poor decision making, and poor advice from some Council Officers, have played a big part in delaying some schemes, and seeing others put on hold.

 

Why has so much time and effort (and money) gone into small infill schemes which common sense should have told them would never work, either practically or financially?

 

Why have they wasted two years trying to push through an unacceptable proposal for Kilburn Square (missing out on the chunk of GLA 2016-2023 Affordable Homes Programme funding which would have been available), when if they had worked with the local community on a smaller scheme, construction could already be underway?

 

And to go back to my original question on Council housing: ‘does Brent know what it is doing?’

Philip Grant

'NEWLAND COURT - POSTSCRIPT:

A number of Newland Court residents have copied me into emails they have sent in the past ten days to Brent's Council Leader, Chief Executive, Planning Committee members and others at the Civic Centre.

These emails have listed what is wrong with the plans for their estate, the lack of any meaningful consultation with them over the proposals, the ignoring of their objections by Planning Officers, the Council's off-hand responses to correspondence over the proposals (one example: email responses 'seem like the respondent is reading of a script like a cold fish. We are not stupid, please get to the facts and stop insulting our intelligence.'), and they have called for the Planning Committee to visit the estate and see for themselves how ridiculous the plans are.

Councillor Muhammed Butt, or his Complaints and Casework Officer on his behalf (it's interesting that the Council Leader needs his own Complaints Officer!), has sent a letter to one of the residents, copied to others who have drawn these important issues to his attention. It says:

'Your enquiry has been forwarded to the respective department, who will look into the issue and make every effort to resolve it.'

I will ask Martin to add a copy of the "Office of the Leader" letter below my article above, as evidence of his apparent indifference to the views of local residents, who are also Council housing estate tenants and leaseholders.

 

 

 

UPDATE: Eleven Brent Labour councillors have now signed the Muslim councillors' letter to the Labour leadership requesting the Labour Party call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza

Eleven  Brent Labour Councillors have now signed the letter from more than 250 Muslim Labour councillors formally calling on the Labour leadership to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the humanitarian crisis. The signatories include Council leader Muhammed Butt's brother, the deputy mayor and a former whip of the Labour Group.

It was signed by:

Cllr Tariq Dar MBE – Brent Council

Cllr Sandra Kabir – Brent Council

Cllr Saqlain Choudry – Brent Council

Cllr Rita Begum – Brent Council

Cllr Saqib Butt, Vice Chair Planning Committee – Brent Council

Cllr Ishma Moeen – Brent Council

 Cllr Parvez Ahmed (Chair Licensing Committee) - Brent Council

 Cllr Ajmal Akram - Brent Council

 Cllr Amer Agha - Brent Council

Cllr Iman Ahmadi Moghaddam - Brent Council

Cllr Harbi Farah (Cabinet Member for Safer Communities & Public Safety) - Brent Council

Dear Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner,

We the undersigned write to you as Muslim Labour Party councillors, formally calling  on the Labour Party to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the  humanitarian disaster.

5,791 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes on Gaza since 7th October. Of  those killed 2,360 of them have been children. It has also been reported that 704  Palestinians had been killed in the previous 24 hours alone. This is in addition to 1400 Israelis who lost their lives in the shocking terror attacks of October 7th.

Everyday we fail to call on the government and the international community to push  for cessation of hostilities, Gazan children and hundreds of innocent men and women  pay the price. As a party that bases its principles on fairness and justice, we can not sit  idly by as Palestinian’s face collective punishment.

This week five UN agencies, including The World Food Programme (WFP) and the  World Health Organization (WHO) have called for a humanitarian ceasefire as they  described the conditions in Gaza as “catastrophic”. Leaders across all faiths, including  the Archbishop of Canterbury, have also called for a ceasefire and polling shows the  vast majority of Britons and Labour voters support this position (YouGov poll: 76% of  the British public support a ceasefire).

The humanitarian aid that has passed through into Gaza through the Rafah crossing is  a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the humanitarian crisis at large in the region.  Without an immediate ceasefire, UN agencies, NGO’s and charities have made it clear  that much needed aid will not reach pregnant women, children, critically ill patients  and those others that will simply be left to die.

Gaza is home to 2.2 million people, over half of whom are children. Before this crisis  began, over 80% of the population relied on aid, now this crisis has turned to  catastrophe. The innocent civilians in Gaza have had nothing to do with this crisis and  bear no responsibility to its outcome.

As Labour councillors elected to serve our constituents, the message we have been  hearing repeatedly over the past 2 weeks is simple, people just want an end to the  bloodshed and the loss of innocent life. No nation, no people or community should  have to endure collective punishment and the same should be the case for the  Palestinian people. We are also clear that hostages held captive must also be returned  to their families safely.

Therefore, as Labour Party councillors, as members, and as members of the Muslim  community we urge the Labour Party to urgently adopt a position of calling for an  immediate ceasefire, calling on the UK government and the international community  to act upon this proposal to save innocent human lives.

'Flood? What flood? Never heard anything about it,' say Wembley Point developer's agents as Tokyngton Wembley Point towers approved

 

 

Sometimes there is a jaw-dropping moment at Brent Planning Committee. Often it is the sheer audacity of planning officers' justification of developer's failure to meeting the demands of planning guidance. 

Yesterday it was the confession of the Wembley Point developer's agent team that they knew nothing about the August floods at the Argenta House/Tokyngton Avenue site adjacent to the area on which they wish to build. 

 

 

 Heavy pumping equipment at the site

 

They seemed pretty nonchalant about their ignorance but this leads to a second thought. Why did Brent planning officers not inform them about the incident which led to TV and newspaper headlines, with one person having to be rescued from their van and families evacuated.  Muhammed Butt, leader of Brent Council, had even visited the site to reassure residents and tweeted about it. LINK

 

 

Even more troubling, the matter was smoothly passed over and the Committee went on to approve the application, with even the most sceptical coucncillor, Tory Cllr Jayanti Patel (substituting for Cllr Maurice), voting for approval.

This is the modelling of the water flow in the event of a flood - it goes into the Wembley Brook which residents of Tokyngton Avenue should be alert to.

 

"In the event of a flood, floodwater from the River Brent which surfaces on the Site flows around the north and south of the existing Wembley Point building, discharging into Wembley Brook, which is within the demise of Argentina House(sic)"  [Design and Access Statement]

Cllr Dixon abstained on the basis that there was insufficient affordable housing in the scheme (24.8%) against a target of 35% if the Local Plan target of 50% could not be met. She was also concerned about the discrepancy between two independent viability ssessments that led to the reduction in affordable housing. She wanted developers to be more ambitious, even if that meant adding a few storeys to the proposals, and for officesr to be more demanding.

Despite many objections on the planning portal and 29 properties being affected by restricted access to light and overlooking, there  was no speaker against the 550 unit (only 116 'affordable') homes. This is in marked contrast to the number of public representations at the Mumbai Junction application at the last meeting.

 

 From the Design and Access Statement

 

Although Stonebridge Boxing Club was named as the occupant of the proposed community building in the Design and Access statement, the developer's agent hastily clarified on questioning that it could be another community organisation.

 

The application now goes to the GLA where you can register to be kept informed of progress. LINK

 

Call-in on Thursday to hold Brent Council accountable for alleged errors in the Barham Park Trust accounts

The saga of the Barham Park Trust accounts continues on Thursday when the Public Realm and Resources Scrutiny Committee considers a call-in of the Council decision to approve the accounts because of alleged inaccuracies which could lead to reputational damage.

The call-in follows attempts by councillors to query and correct the accounts at meetings of the Trust Committee which is headed by Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt and composed solely of members of his Cabinet. LINK

 

The call-in has been made by opposition members. 

 

Stonebridge Park tower blocks at Brent Planning tomorrow as flood issues highlighted by current events

 The proposed developments at the corner of Harrow Road/North Circular (Wembley side)

 

Videos of the weekend floods included one of partially submerged uncompleted new homes on a flood site. As readers know there was flooding at Stonebridge Park and Tokyngton Avenue earlier this year when the Wembley Brook was blocked by preparation work on the new Argenta House site. This week an application goes to Planning Committee for two more tower blocks to sit alongside Argenta 26 storeys and Wem Tower (aka Wembley Point, The Wem)  21 storeys. These will be 32 storeys and 20 storeys on a relative small site where the Wembley Brook joins the River Brent, close to the North Circular Road.

The application will be considreed by Brent Planning Committee tomorrow. Watch live from 6pm HERE,

 

 

The Flood Risk Assessment for the site includes illustrations that indicate the level of possible flooding from fluvial (rivers) and surface water.

As the amount of flooding and extreme weather events is accelerating faster than expected it is possible that at some point in the future all these buildings will be surrounded by water for a time.  The buidlings will be designed to be 'floodable' and plans will have to be put in place for evacuation of residents and workers (my highlighting):

 

Flood warning/evacuation plan

 

207. The EA have advised that ideally, applicants should demonstrate a new development

has a safe, dry access/egress route during a 1% annual probability flood event, including an

allowance for climate change, or else a route with a 'very low' hazard rating in accordance with FD2320: Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development. In situations where it's not possible to ensure dry access/egress routes, consideration may be given if it can be demonstrated that proposed 'wet' routes still remain safe for site users.

 

208. The development at Wembley Point does not have a means of dry access/egress during the design flood event. The applicant has submitted a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan (Pell Frischmann, Ref. 102139-PF-ZZ-ZZ-RP-D-0003, dated 24/04/2023). This highlights that as noted in the SFRA Level 2, under the 1% (1 in 100) AEP plus 35% climate the whole site is submerged. The latest modelling shows that during a 1% AEP flood event plus climate change the depth of flooding across the site is circa 600 mm and the expected velocity is circa 0.98 m/s. The deep, fast flowing water means the post development flood hazard rating for the site is shown to be predominantly "Danger to Most". This means that safe access/egress route cannot be guaranteed during a flood event.

 

209. The Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has set out that when it is possible to evacuate the site, the evacuation procedure would be signalised via an alarm system for the shared and public areas, and the Flood Warnings Direct service for those in individual properties. The preferred evacuation procedure all residents, workers and visitors would be to leave the site and seek refuge outside on higher ground. The evacuation route would be to exit the site via the north-western access on Point Place and then head north-eastly towards Harrow Road. Higher ground to the north can then be accessed via Harrow Road.

 

210. If the site cannot be fully evacuated or in the case of sudden inundation associated with catastrophic failure of the Brent Reservoir, refuge should be provided on site, The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge. Following this, they should then wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise. The development deploys a water entry strategy, allowing water to enter the majority of the ground floor of the proposed buildings, therefore safe refuge must be sought on the upper floors.

 

211. The proposed evacuation route from the ground floor, through internal stairwells, to the first floor.  Following the instruction to evacuate, there are various locations of refuge that all residents, workers and pedestrians could use in the event of a flood. The site comprises of multi-story floor levels, where the upper floor levels of the building will count as primary areas of refuge, these can be accessed through the internal stairwell. If people are seeking refuge in the upper floors, they should wait for the flood waters to recede or until emergency services direct otherwise.

It does make you wonder about the wisdom of building here at all despite assurances that measures will be put in place. Perhaps the development should be renamed 'Stonebridge-on-Brent'.

Aside from all this the developer has returned with a lower amount of 'affordable' housing than in the initial application. The percentage now with the previous application in brackets:

Of the 515 units:

Private 77.5% (65.8%)

London Shared Ownership 8.3%  (11.1%)

London Affordable Rent 14.2% (23.1%)

Officers support the developer's viability assessment provided for the change.

There are many objections to the scheme on the Brent Planning Portal. many of them coming from occupants of the Wem Tower who claim that they have no prior warning of the massive development that will take place on their doorstep - although it has to be noted that there is one occupant who has submitted a long statement in support of the scheme.

Other objections come from the nearby two storey housing that will by overshadowed to the north of the development in Derek Avenue and Tokyngton Avenue.   

The application includes landscaping and minor play provision on the site opening up the site to the public.

The report considers concerns that the new development will spoil the views of the Brent Railway Stonebridge Viaduct:

The [Heritage] assessment notes that the development will be visible in the background when viewing [The Brent Railway Viaduct], but also noting that the existing Wembley Point building is also within that view. The heritage assessment sets out that while there would be some visual intrusion into the extended setting of the viaduct, that this is considered to cause a low, minor level of harm which would be "less than substantial" to the setting and significance of this heritage asset. Officers agree that the degree of change and harm would be limited, and consider that this would be "less than substantial". It is considered that this harm is significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme which include the provision of homes (including Affordable Homes), new publicly accessible space and routes and significant improvements to the local streetscape and environment

One interesting aspect of the proposal is the provision of a 3 storey building to be occupied by Stonebridge Boxing Club, who have popped up in several planning applications.

 

 

 

The application is deficient in several respects as planning officers acknowledge in making their recommendation to councillors that it should nonetheless be approved. The familiar mantra that the 'benefits outweigh the harm' is used again:

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan when read as a whole. There are some divergences from policy (such as the amount of external amenity and play space), and some impacts that go beyond guidance levels (such as the light received by some properties) and the proposal will result in "less than substantial" harm to one designated heritage asset. However, the benefits of the scheme are considered to significantly outweigh the harm. It is recommended that the planning committee resolve to grant permission subject to the stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, the completion of a legal agreement as set out above and subject to the conditions listed.

KIlburn Square campaigners: 'We are mildly relieved - and hugely frustrated'

Despite being the largest develeopment application tabled, Kilburn Square was the last item on the Agenda at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday and discussion was abandoned when a leaking roof led to audio problems.  Wembley Matters contacted  campaigners for an update on how things stand now.

Keith Anderson, Chair of Kilburn Village Residents’ Association, which includes Kilburn Square estate and six surrounding streets,  has been coordinating a dialogue with Brent for two and a half years. He says in the aftermath of Wednesday’s unexpected outcome:

 

We are mildly relieved – and hugely frustrated:

 

·         Frustrated that Brent has pressed ahead to Committee with this non-viable, all-Council-rent version of the scheme – refusing, despite our Official Complaint, to amend the Tenure Mix to reflect the seemingly inevitable switch of over a quarter of the flats to outright sale, to make the sums work 

 

·         Relieved that the Chair’s attempt to restart the meeting at approaching 9pm – normally the target finish time – was thwarted by the continuing AV problems; we felt the Committee would be too tired to do our scheme justice after intense debates on the two previous Agenda items. But…

 

·         Frustrated that we were even listed last on the Agenda; one of the Officers acknowledged privately that this large and controversial scheme deserves at least an hour and a half, if not longer 

 

·         Frustrated that the Affordable Housing team, in their remote offices and without even engaging with the Board of the Housing Co-op (who manage the estate for the Council) concocted the original wildly over-ambitious “Mini Master Plan”, proposing 179 extra flats - 80% more households vs 2019 - on a reduced physical space

 

·         That scheme was announced three years ago; had the team stayed with what is in the Local Plan’s Kilburn Square Site Allocation (100 new flats - by 2037!)… and the 80-100 units outlined in a March 2020 Cabinet report, they could have had construction almost finished by now

 

·         Frustrated that, when comprehensive rejection from estate residents and neighbours pushed the Policy Coordination Group into agreeing a smaller scheme was needed… the reduction offered was only around 20% 

 

·         Frustrated that in that second phase the project team tried a Divide and Rule approach, with a tokenistic and controlling approach to seeking estate residents’ consent and a message to close neighbours that they should withhold their thoughts until the Planning Application arrived

 

In January 2021, Brent’s Housing Director told the Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee: “We will not force homes on anyone…we have developed only with the support and encouragement of local residents” so, how did that play out for our scheme..?

 

The PA was filed a year ago (!), with a long list of tick-box pre-engagement activities; but NO evidence of resulting community support for the scheme…

 

… whereas the Application has attracted: 

·         Around 120 individual Objections

·         A suite of 20 detailed submissions from KVRA on specific topics 

·         Supporting emails from our MP, the Green Party at City Hall, CPRE, Brent Parks Forum

·         Three Collective Objections (petitions in Council-speak) from surrounding streets, with 300 signatures

·         Three COs from Blocks on the estate, including the two most affected by the problematic Blocks C and E (the Committee Report curiously acknowledged only one…)…

·         …and a mere three supporting comments

 

So, one might have expected that, combining that with key policy breaches in areas like Climate Strategy, Amenity Space and Overshadowing, the Officers’ Committee Report would have recommended sending the scheme back to the drawing board (a smaller scheme could gain community support)?

 

But no: KVRA, working with three neighbouring RAs and the Kilburn Neighbourhood Forum as the Kilburn Square Stakeholder Group, were airbrushed out of the picture, and the outcome of the ineffective engagement process was largely dismissed

 

Martin already published the Supplementary Agenda report issued on Tuesday. Here it is, with our Riposte in red LINK. I’ll  update readers in another post on our detailed Response to the full Committee Report

 

Expect a lively discussion when our scheme comes back to Committee – now planned for first up on the November 15 Agenda!

 

Harlesden Gambling Centre refused, Mumbai Junction approved, and Kilburn Square abandoned at last night's Planning Committee

 

 Speakers against the Mumbai Junction planning application

 

Last night's Planning Committee was a funny old meeting. The Chair had to send for a bucket because water was leaking through the roof of the Civic Centre (c£100m) and evetually the meeting was abandoned when the water got into the audio system and made participants sound like fish.  Cllr Maurice raised a concern about noise coming from the floor below - it turned out not to be a riot but Navratri celebrations.  Eventually the meeting had to be abandoned because of the water seepage and the Kilburn Square application hearing was not completed.

Matt Kelcher vacated the chair for the first item because he had, prior to becoming chair spoken out against the application, (not because his Cabinet member wife Mili Patel was one of the main speakers against the Adult Gaming Centre in Harlesden).

A strong squad of ward councillors opposed the application and quoted police evidence on the damaging impact of yet another gambling joint in Harlesden. Acting Chair Cllr Saqib Butt (whose brother is leader of the council) did his best to sway the committee but four members voted against and only Butt and two others for the application. A senior officer intervened to suggest deferment but that was a gamble too far and the refusal decision stood.

The long-running Mumbai Junction application was another matter.  This had been first refused and then deferred at the August Planning Committee (after an officer intervention) so that defensible reasons for rejection could be compiled. These were included in the officers' report but despite representations by three ex-councillors (Mitchell-Murry, Lloyd and Perrin) and one current councillor (Lorber) the Committee, rather unconvincingly, over-turned their previous decision.  I couldn't possibly comment on post-meeting suggestions that they had been got at.

In answer to a question in comments, the final vote on Mumbai Junction was 5 for, 1 against (Cllr Maurice) and 1 abstention (Cllr Mahmood).

Do you have views on the provision of student accommodation in Wembley/Brent? Contribute to the London Mayor's consultation.

 

 At a recent Planning Committee meeting where an application for new student accommodation in Wembley Park was made, existing residents spoke against on the grounds that it created would imbalance and undermine community cohesion because students were short-term residents not committed to the area. There were also concerns about anti-social behaviour. Countering this officers argued that students contributed to the local financial and cultural economy.

Now the London Mayor is undertaking a consultation on provision of student accommodation to which residents might want to conribute. Details below:

The Mayor of London is consulting on new London Plan Guidance (LPG) relating to student housing, otherwise known as purpose-built student accommodation or PBSA.

The guidance supports London Plan policy H15 to best meet student housing needs as part of a wider approach to housing delivery and regeneration. It aims to unlock PBSA delivery and also address imbalances to help achieve a more mixed and inclusive London.

This event is a Q&A session for stakeholders to bring any queries they have about the document or the consultation. It assumes that attendees have watched the two minute introductory video or read the draft document, both available on our consultation site.

Questions can be submitted in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk or you are welcome to just turn up on the day and ask them and listen to our responses to other people's questions.

[Images courtesy of Unite and Affordable Accommodation for Students Ltd]

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the event free? Yes.

Who is this event for? The event is open to all and is suitable for interest groups, public campaign groups, developers, landowners, agents and Londoners to ask questions and find out more.

How will the session take place and how can I join? The session will take place online. Once you have registered via Eventbrite, you will be emailed a link to join the event 24 hours before the event takes place.

Will I be able to ask questions during the event? Yes the whole event is structured around Q&As.

Do I have to submit questions in advance? You are welcome to send questions through in advance by email to studenthousingLPG@london.gov.uk which will help us prepare, but you can also just turn up and ask them and we will do our best to answer them on the spot.

Is this a repeat of the event on the 3rd November? Yes, there is no need to attend both events.

What if I have accessibility requirements? Please let us know when booking your ticket on Eventbrite. Please let us know as soon as possible. We will endeavour to meet any requests made within two weeks of the event, however these cannot be guaranteed.

Where can I find out more and share my views? To watch the introductory video, read the guidance and share your views, visit the consultation page. Consultation on the LPG closes on 11 January 2024

How can I find out more about this event? Please contact studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk if you have any further questions about the event.

We hope you can join us. RESERVE PLACE HERE

 

The consultation, including the survey (below) will be open until 11th January 2024.

We have 2 open-to-all Q&A events in October and November, and further engagement events are also planned with specific stakeholder groups, notably the cross-sectoral Mayor’s Academic Forum and boroughs. More information on the public events can be found on the 'events' section on this page.

All feedback will be reviewed and a consultation summary document will be published alongside the final guidance.

Register to be notified of planning policy consultations(External link) or sign up for GLA Planning News(External link).

You can email the team on: studenthousinglpg@london.gov.uk(External link)(External link).

 

SURVEY