WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
The swimming pool at Vale Farm is currently closed. This is because of a local gas leak; which has meant that the supply to the leisure centre has had to be temporarily halted whilst Cadent repair the pipe.
The centre are contacting all who have booked to use the pool and making them aware of alternate local facilities. As soon as Cadent have repaired the leak; the pool will be able to open again. The rest of the centre remains open for use.
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
I’ve already written about the Morland Gardens parts of the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to next week’s (11 December 2023) Cabinet meeting, and Martin has also posted a blog about the temporary accommodation proposals in its South Kilburn section. In this article I will cover some of the other points that caught my eye from that report.
I am not seeking to underestimate the “challenges” which the Council faces over meeting current housing needs, particularly over the shortage of Central Government funding, rising construction costs and higher interest rates since the disastrous mini-budget during the short-lived Truss premiership. Brent has aimed to do more over housing than many other London Councils, and the recommendations in this report include to ‘approve the use of usable Capital reserves to fund’ the New Council Homes Programme (“NCHP”), and to provide extra resources to tackle the current temporary accommodation crisis.
A recent feature of such reports is a “Cabinet Member Foreword” (though whether these are written by the Lead Members, or for them by a Council Officer, is unclear). I was struck by these words from this Foreword’s para. 3.5: ‘this report emphasises the importance of being open and transparent with all ….’ I agree that openness and transparency are very important, but does this report deliver on those words?
In the report, are the Council being honest about what they have achieved so far? The Cabinet Member for Housing says: ‘we are on track to meet our target of 5,000 homes by 2028’. When the NCHP target was first launched five years ago, the aim was 5,000 affordable homes built in the borough between April 2019 and March 2024 inclusive. As part of that aim, the Council set itself ‘a strategic target of delivering 1,000 new council homes at genuinely affordable rent by 31 March 2024.’ So, they’ve missed that target, and replaced it with another!
Table 1 in the report (above), which should be accurate because the “numbers” have been “cleansed”, shows that 3,901 affordable homes will have been finished in the borough in the five years to March 2024 (although the “by tenure” column totals 3,943! - see my corrections in red). 812 of those are shown as delivered by Brent Council. But only 560 (those described as “General Needs”) of the new Council homes will be “genuinely affordable”, and of those 235 were for existing Council tenants being moved from older blocks due to be demolished.
The affordable homes provided by RPs (Registered Providers of social housing, such as Housing Associations) make up 3,089 of the 3,901 total, but only 940 of those homes appear to be “genuinely affordable”. That is just over 30% of the total, with the rest being “intermediate” homes, such as shared ownership. Although most of these will have received planning consent before Brent’s Local Plan came into force in February 2022, that is the opposite of the tenure split for affordable housing which is now supposed to apply: 70% genuinely affordable and no more than 30% “intermediate” affordable housing.
More details about the types of “affordable housing” can be found in an article, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – figuring out Cllr. Butt’s reply, which I wrote after a previous Cabinet update in November 2022.
The report has a section headed “Schemes on site and in main works contract”, and there are two schemes in particular from this that I would draw attention to. The first of these is Watling Gardens, the Council’s positive publicity over the start of work on which was mentioned in another article on Brent’s Council housing in October.
While the report says that this scheme ‘is currently on track’, it would cost more than the £38.5m which Brent’s Cabinet approved as the contract award price in June 2022. Brent’s answer is to issue an instruction that the project must be “value engineered”. What does that mean? It means that it will still have to built as planned, but using some materials which are less expensive than those originally intended. Previous examples of “value engineering” which come to mind are the use of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete (RAAC) in some public buildings during cost saving measures in the 1960s to 1980s, and the £300k “saved” by using cheaper cladding when Grenfell Tower was being refurbished!
The stage and TV drama, where all the words were taken directly from Inquiry transcripts!
I’m not trying to suggest that the cost saving at Watling Gardens would result in anything as life-threatening as Grenfell Tower, but in the interests of transparency the public, and particularly future residents of the development (including those whose homes were demolished with the promise of a replacement there), deserve to be told what cheaper materials will be used as part of this “value engineering”.
I have written about Brent’s Wembley Housing Zone project on a number of occasions, including about the extra GLA funding it received, and about the 152 out of 250 homes on the former Copland School site at Cecil Avenue which Brent’s “developer partner” will get for private sale, rather than being Council homes for Brent people in housing need. The report now says there will be less than 250 homes, because of the need for extra staircases, as a result of fire safety changes following the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
I’m pleased to see that Brent appears to have learned one lesson from Morland Gardens (the need to begin work before planning consent expires), but why has it taken nearly three years to get to this stage? However, the report does not say how many of the new figure of 237 homes will be for private sale, and how many of those left for the Council will now be for “genuinely affordable” rent, rather than shared ownership. A lack of openness, which I will try to remedy!
You need to read to the end of the report, on page 21, to find out what it means by ‘the importance of being open and transparent’, which I quoted near the start of this article. It appears that, to Brent Council and its Cabinet, this is more to do with the messages it gives out, rather than a commitment to being genuinely open and transparent about everything:
In other words, it is the usual “spin” that Brent Council puts out, either only sharing “good news” stories (usually with the Leader and/or one of his Cabinet colleagues getting the credit for something positive) or giving the reasons (excuses?) for why they can’t do what they had originally promised to deliver.
Philip Grant
Michaela School in Wembley has made an impact on some neighbouring Brent secondary schools which have taken up the 'strictest school' challenge. There is currently a hot debate on the Next Door website about what constitutes bullying by adults, rather than strict discipline, at Wembley Technology College.
There is a new headteacher at Preston Manor High School whose approach is causing waves amongst students and parents. The current conflict in the Middle East has resulted in complaints that children are being disciplined over their support for the Palestinian cause.
One student said:
We see the bodies of children killed by Israel on the internet and want to speak out. The school is supposed to teach British Values. Isn't 'freedom of speech' supposed to be a British Value? Isn't it our human right? We are being denied our freedom of speech.
Back in the 1970s and 80s teachers developed educational resources to address racism and sexism so that the issues could be discussed in a safe and open environment. A disciplinary approach with detention or exclusion punishments for views expressed was rejected as it tended to harden and polarise attitudes.
Controversial issues are tricky for teachers but surely it is an education establishment's job, whether school, college or university, to address the issue, rather than silence all discussion?
An article in the Guardian LINK describes how students at a Luton 6th College are demanding lessons about the context of the conflict in Gaza.
The National Education Union has produced guidance for its members on the Israel/Gaza conflict LINK.
Meanwhile groups of school students across the country have been striking over Palestine and there is a rally at lunchtime today.
At the end of October the National Education Union issued a statement on the conflict:
Further to our statement on 14 October, the NEU is distressed and alarmed by the rising death toll of Palestinian civilians, particularly children, caused by Israel’s ongoing bombardment of Gaza. Half of Gaza’s two million population are children and 40 per cent of all those killed in Gaza since 7 October are children.
According to Save the Children, child fatalities in the besieged enclave since this date have surpassed the annual number of children killed across the world's conflict zones since 2019.
We call on the UK Government and wider international community to work for an immediate ceasefire and ongoing peace settlement that secures the release of Israeli hostages, ends the bombardment of Gaza, and restores the flow of vital humanitarian aid, including food, fuel and medical supplies into Gaza.
More than 1.4 million people in Gaza have been internally displaced, with some 671,000 sheltering in 150 UNRWA facilities. We decry the attacks on UNWRA schools and hospitals and reiterate the call from the World Health Organisation (WHO) for “all parties to the conflict to take all precautions to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure [including] health workers, patients, health facilities and ambulances, and civilians who are sheltering in these facilities.”
The NEU is committed to challenging racism in all its forms, and we will continue to speak out against the alarming rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia that we are witnessing in the UK and elsewhere. Attacks on, or harassment of, Jewish or Muslim people are abhorrent and inexcusable. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their schools, colleges, places of worship and communities.
We encourage all NEU members to take peaceful action in support of calls for a ceasefire, including joining peaceful protests and contacting their members of parliament.
A group called Teachers for Palestine has been formed and will be holding a solidarity vigil tomorrow:
The strong advice to any parent of a student who has faced expulsion/sanction for advocacy for Palestine is to get in touch with the European Legal Support Center as soon as possible where you will be asked to fill in an incident report. https://elsc.support/
It would be useful to hear about any local schools where a positive educational response has been taken.
The above video was posted on Twitter yesterday revealing the state of Blake Court on the South Kilburn Estate. @DCustodians said:
Welcome to #BlakeCourtThis the airy 4th floor. Recently redecorated to a high standard by squatters. Just needs a do not disturb sign. Tenants are a bit inconvenienced, work/school and all but who are we to complain?
A picture of an an attempted break-in and soiled lift were also posted:
I thought it was appropriate to publish these images in the light of the Housing Report going to Brent Cabinet on Monday. The report includes a section on South Kilburn where it is proposed that some voids (empty properties) on the estate are brought into use as temporary accommodation.
The fact that only 52 of 534 properties are considered suitable is in itself telling and clearly it is not just the flats themselves that need to be suitable - safe, clean - but the surrounding 'unsuitable flats', staircases, lifts and security that needs to be considered.
Wembley Matters has revealed the £13m deficit in the housing budget caused by the rising number of homeless people in temporary hotel accommodation or expensive private rented placements. LINK The council hopes to save on the average £3,000 a night for the 52 households:
There are currently 534 void properties across the South Kilburn regeneration site as households have either been moved into new or alternative homes, or leasehold properties have been bought back. Due to the increased demand for temporary accommodation and rising hotel costs, an exercise has been carried out to assess the suitability of South Kilburn voids for use as temporary accommodation.
However, there is a fly in the ointment. Brent Council want to avoid the 'Landlord Promise' made at the time of the South Kilburn Regeneation Ballot, applying to these households (my highlighting):
Of the 534 voids, 52 have been identified as suitable for potential use. This is based on their condition and the impact of using them on the regeneration programme. These are based in John Ratcliffe, William Dunbar, William Saville, and Zangwill. Historically, those living in temporary accommodation on the regeneration site were included in the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer), which commits to re-housing temporary accommodation residents within South Kilburn, with the option to move outside of the estate (with the household’s agreement) along with other commitments. This was specifically for those impacted at the time of the ballot. If these voids are used for temporary accommodation, this report recommends that the South Kilburn Promise does not apply going forward. This implications of this proposal on the 2019 ballot outcome have been discussed with the Greater London Authority and no implications were identified.
The rational[e] for the promise not applying going forward to temporary households, is largely based on these households bypassing the choice-based lettings scheme, where other households have waited for years for family sized accommodation. Additionally, these households will not have been impacted by the regeneration scheme in the way those involved with the ballot.
This proposal does create a risk that temporary households will need to be decanted elsewhere, most likely away from the estate, when blocks are due to be demolished. Plus, there will be two tiers of temporary accommodation on the site, those who are eligible for the South Kilburn Promise and those who are not. This risk however is balanced by the immediate reduction in pressure for the Council as moving 52 households out of their current temporary accommodation and into South Kilburn would save the Council approximately £3,017 a night based on the average nightly rate paid and subsidy loss currently being covered by the Council. The use of these void properties has wider benefits to the overall wellbeing of households currently facing homelessness, many of whom are having to be placed outside of the borough which ultimately affects schooling and work.
There is another pitfall in that the council is required to consult on any change in its Lettings Policy in order to amend the Landlord Offer.:
To amend the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation tenants, the Council is required to amend the Local Lettings Policy (allocations scheme) which requires consultation. The Council is currently seeking legal advice on how to consult and once obtained, this will guide officers to carry out the relevant consultation ahead of any decision being finalised.
The council had to open up bidding for council properties to homeless people after a legal judgement in 2021-22 when a teenager took them to court. LINK That was the last change in the lettings policy. It is likely that South Kilburn residents, especially those waiting for accommodation on the estate, presently in accommodation outside the area, in temporary accommodation or decanted temporarily while waiting to be permanently housed in new build will be very wary of any change in the South Kilburn Promise. If it can be done once for one group, could it be withdrawn later for another group?
This will depend to some extent on residents perception of progress on the whole South Kilburn Regeneration. A letter to Wembley Matters in November outlined the problems in terms of delivery and impact on those waiting to be rehoused. LINK
There are ongoing problems with defects to properties with L&Q one of the most notable and the ongoing Granville New Homes debacle where the cost of remediation is now put at £25m (against that budget gap of £13m) having been purchased for £17.1m by the council. Still no news on any council move for compensation from the builder. LINK
A veteran observer of the South Kilburn scene was asked for their view by Wembley Matters in the light of the latest news:
If the council were were to hold another ballot, would all those in temporary accommodation still vote yes if they were told they would not be getting a new home in South Kilburn for at least 10 years and that some of them would have to move into old blocks waiting to be demolished while they wait.
Although there are 730 households in temporary accommodation, we do not know how many of them have a South Kilburn connection but at the last consultation the ones that had it were promised a new home soon if they voted yes.There are 370 secure council tenants waiting for a new home today and we will find out soon the exact numbers in each of the 7 blocks left and when they might be decanted.But the next batch of new homes are for secure council tenants from both Craic and Crone Court and there are none for those in temporary accomodation. Of course the council could change their allocation policy to favour those in temporary accommodation but this is most unlikely.There should be some more new homes available in 2029 which were for those in phases 7 and 8 but now they might go to those currently in temporary accommodation. I am not sure how many new homes will be available but there will be fewer than 100 and by then because of possible financial issues, many of the homes could be sold, or become shared ownership homes.But with only 70 new homes available in 2029 and around a 1000 households expecting to get one of them, most of them are going to be disappointed.
From Amnesty International
Opinion poll to mark International Human Rights Day shows 60 per cent of people from London said UK should stay part of ECHR
‘The Government should listen to the views of people in London who clearly want to keep their European Convention rights intact’ - Sacha Deshmukh
To mark International Human Rights Day (10 December), Amnesty International has released new polling data showing a clear majority of people from London say they want the UK to remain part of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Respondents to the survey from across London showed strong support for human rights protections with the vast majority saying they thought it was important to be able to challenge the Government and that they felt the right to peacefully protest was valuable and that children should be educated about their rights.
The Amnesty poll, carried out by Savanta, shows that any UK withdrawal from the European Convention would not be supported by Londoners with more than half of London adults (60%) polled saying the UK should stay part of the European Convention, with only one in five (18%) saying that the UK should withdraw (22% said they didn’t know).
More than four out of five Londoners adults (87%) said they felt it was important to be able to challenge the Government if it violates people’s rights - a key protection that the European Convention helps underpin. An overwhelming majority of people from London (83%) felt that it was important to be able to peacefully protest about something they cared about, and 87% people in London thought it was important for children and young people to be taught about their rights in school and college.
The opinion poll also showed - overwhelmingly - that most people in London thought the next UK government should focus on other issues rather than any proposal to withdraw from the human rights treaty. When asked to rank the top five issues that they wanted the next government to prioritise, respondents to the poll chose tackling the cost of living crisis as and resourcing the NHS properly as their top-priority issues (50%). Fewer than one in ten (6%) people put European Convention withdrawal as a top five priority.
Amnesty’s poll comes after a year of publicised threats from high-profile politicians about the possibility of the UK leaving the Europe-wide human rights treaty, most recently following a legal defeat for the Government’s controversial Rwanda plan.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s Chief Executive, said:
The Government should listen to the views of people in London who clearly want to keep their European Convention rights intact.
The European Convention protects cherished freedoms like the right to be able to peacefully protest, the right to equal marriage and the right to a fair trial.
As we’ve seen with campaigns like Hillsborough and the Stafford Hospital scandal, the European Convention allows ordinary people to challenge public bodies or the Government when things go very badly wrong.
The Government of the day should not be able to pick and choose which rights apply, and who is entitled to them. Human rights have at their heart a principle of equality and they must apply to all people in order to be of value to any of us.
Repeated threats from politicians to withdraw from the European Convention are undermining the UK’s reputation on the world stage.
On top of everything else, withdrawal from the European Convention would also threaten the fragile peace in Northern Ireland which has the convention as a key element of the Good Friday Agreement.
Constant talk of leaving the convention is damaging, dangerous and unpopular.
Polling methodology
Between 31 August and 8 September, more than 3,600 adults across the UK were asked by polling firm Savanta what they wanted the next government to prioritise, about their main political concerns, as well as questions related to the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights. Data were weighted to be representative of the UK by age, sex, region, and social grade. For a link to the full polling data, go here.
Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity
When I wrote last month about the review which Brent Council was undertaking into its plans for 1 Morland Gardens, and shared a copy of the document I’d submitted on “getting it right this time”, one anonymous comment asked ‘will Brent Council ever admit to getting it wrong?’
The “Affordable Housing Supply (2023) – Update” report to next week’s Cabinet meeting shows the answer to that question is “No”. It says their original project has faced “challenges”, and Officers recommend it should be abandoned, but there is no reference to any of the many mistakes the Council made, and some attempts to shift the blame.
The first of these comes in the Cabinet Member Foreword to the report:
‘Several schemes in this report have faced significant challenges, examples include delays, objections, and new requirements like a second staircase. These factors are in some cases the reason why a scheme is unable to progress.’
It should come as no surprise to the Council, and other prospective developers, when residents object to schemes that breach Brent’s planning policies, and would adversely affect their lives! And there is no acknowledgement that many of the delays over the Morland Gardens project were the Council’s own fault:
The notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was issued in April 2022, when the Council could have done that eighteen months earlier. They delayed submitting some of the information to the GLA which was needed before the Mayor of London’s decision could be given on 20 March 2023, after which it was Brent’s responsibility to arrange for a public inquiry, which they failed to do. My Brent’s Halloween Nightmare article includes details of their dithering.
Para. 5.10 from the Morland Gardens section of the report (shown above) refers to the position over Brent Start. But it makes no mention of the loss of housing provision at Twybridge Way, caused by moving the college to a ‘temporary location’ there (at a cost of £1.6m). I had warned Brent Council in 2021 what would happen if they went ahead with decanting Brent Start there, and you can read the details in “1 Morland Gardens and Twybridge Way – Brent’s response challenged”, which Martin published in October 2021.
And as for the “excuse” about needing approval from the Secretary of State for Education, Brent was aware of that before they applied for planning permission for a 67 home housing scheme at Twybridge Way, that they got consent for in May 2020, and which has now expired!
The report talks of an ‘alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens, but there is no mention of the locally listed Victorian villa (above). The Pre-Construction Services Agreement (“PCSA”), which Brent entered into with Hill Group in July 2022, appears to have included ‘demolition’ as one of the “Services”. There is some concern among the “Friends of Altamira” (a diverse group that has been active since 2020 in trying to save this heritage building) that certain people at the Council, out of vindictiveness, might still try to have it demolished, even while the review into the future of 1 Morland Gardens is being carried out.
In order to try and rule out that possibility, I sent an open email to Brent’s Chief Executive and others at the Civic Centre on 4 December, and I will end this update post with the text of that email:
‘Dear Ms Wright, Mr Gadsdon and Councillor Knight,
I have read the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) - Update Report for the 11 December 2023 Cabinet Meeting, which was published with the agenda on the Council's website last Friday, and I have shared the relevant sections of it in respect of Morland Gardens with the "Friends of Altamira".
We welcome the Report's recommendation, at 2.2, 'for officers to develop an alternative site strategy' for Morland Gardens, but there is one doubt which we would like you to clear up, please.
The Report talks about 'the future of the site', but makes no reference to the future of the locally listed Victorian villa. Para. 5.3 refers to the contract of July 2022 and the PCSA (Pre-Construction Services Agreement), which it describes as 'specifically an agreed technical design, enabling works and demolition.'
Please let me have Brent Council's assurance that there will be no demolition of the locally listed Victorian villa at 1 Morland Gardens, unless or until there are new plans in place for the site which would require the demolition of this heritage asset, and those plans have been properly consulted on, considered and given planning consent, and there are no outstanding legal requirements which need to be met before those new proposed development plans can go ahead.
As I, and others, have made clear to you, we sincerely hope that the new proposals for 1 Morland Gardens, emerging from the current review, will not involve the demolition of the Victorian villa on that site.
Any such demolition, of the restored Victorian facade and belvedere tower, would be an act of vandalism which goes against Brent Council's clearly stated promises on valuing heritage assets:
'Once a heritage asset is demolished it cannot be replaced. Its historic value is lost forever to the community and future generations and it cannot be used for regeneration and place-making purposes. The effective preservation of historic buildings, places and landscapes and their stewardship is therefore fundamental to the Council's role.'
I look forward to receiving that assurance in writing from you, as Brent's Chief Executive, and to hearing either Mr Gadsdon (or whichever Officer is presenting the Report to Cabinet) or Councillor Knight make clear at the meeting on 11 December that Brent Council will not allow the demolition of the heritage Victorian villa to take place while the future of the Morland Gardens site is not legally settled. Thank you.
Best wishes,
Philip Grant.’
