Brent party leaders launch rare cross-party appeal on council funding

In a rare cross-party move the leaders of the three political leaders on Brent Council have written to the Chancellor outlining the desperate financial situation of the council, as  the budget crisis facing all local authorities intensifies.

Morland Gardens – Brent Council ‘unable to make any commitments'

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Earlier this month I wrote “Morland Gardens – Report recommends Council does not proceed, but …”. The ‘but’ was because, although Brent cannot go ahead with its proposed redevelopment (as its planning consent has expired), it still has an outstanding “first stage” contract with Hill Group which includes the demolition of the Victorian villa “Altamira” (above).

 

At the end of my previous guest post I included the text of an open email I had sent to Brent’s Chief Executive, and other senior figures at the Civic Centre, seeking an assurance that this locally listed heritage asset would not be demolished, unless or until there was a legal requirement allowing for its demolition (which does not currently exist).

 

There was no mention of this at the Cabinet meeting on 11 December, when the Affordable Housing Supply update report (which recommended a review to come up with ‘an alternative site strategy’ for Morland Gardens) was dealt with. Last Friday afternoon I received this written response to my open email:

 

‘Dear Mr Grant 

 

RE: Morland Gardens and the Affordable Housing Supply (2023) Update Report  

 

Thank you for your open email dated 4th December 2023 addressed to Cllr Knight, the Council’s Chief Executive and the Council’s Corporate Director for Resident Services. Your enquiry has been forwarded to me to respond on their behalf.

 

The Council is unable to make any commitments or assurances either verbally or in writing on whether there will be demolition of the Altamira building or not, until such time the Council has considered its options for the site. As provided in previous correspondence, the Council will be reviewing the site options including the Altamira building, and will present these to Cabinet for consideration in due course.

 

Further information about the Councils procedures can be found on the Council's website: https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council

 

Kind regards

 

Head of Capital Programmes’

 

My concern, and that of other “Friends of Altamira”, is that someone at the Civic Centre will instruct Hill Group to carry out the demolition of the buildings on the site, under their existing contract, while the Council is still considering ‘its options for the site’. That is a risk, which could occur either by mistake, or deliberately out of vindictiveness (against the campaign which took advantage of the Council’s mistakes, in its fight to save this important heritage building).

 

 

There should not be any reason why Brent can’t give the assurance I’d requested. A similar one was given in June 2021, when the then Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment wrote to me (in response to me pointing out that Brent did not have the Stopping-up Order required before its proposed Morland Gardens development could take place): 

 

‘I confirm that the demolition of “Altamira” will not take place until all necessary legal pre-requisites are in place.’

 

The Strategic Director had been made aware that there would be objections to any proposed Order, and the reasons for it. Yet it was not until 28 April 2022 that valid notice of the proposed Stopping-up Order was given. That was just before Brent was finally ready to award a contract for the development. 

 

Given the uncertainty over whether the Council would obtain the legal right to build over the land outside 1 Morland Gardens, a group of Liberal Democrat and Conservative councillors called-in his Key Decision to award the two-stage “Design and Build” contract. The minutes of the 9 June 2022 call-in meeting set out how he answered the reasons given by Cllr. Lorber and two members of the public about why the contract should not be awarded:

 

 

Mr Lunt’s argument was that “only” £1.1m was at risk (the estimated cost of stage one) if the contract was awarded, whereas the Council stood to lose £6.5m in GLA funding if the project did not go ahead. He gave the impression that the Stopping-up Order process would be over by the end of 2022. The minutes record his answer to a question from a Committee member:

 

‘It was confirmed that any objections to the stopping up order which were not withdrawn would be considered by the Mayor of London. Mr Lunt noted that in his experience, all stopping up orders had been confirmed.’

 

In fact, it was February 2023 before Brent supplied the GLA with all the information needed for the Mayor of London’s decision. When that decision came on 20 March, it did not confirm the Stopping-up Order. Instead, it said that the objections would need to be considered by a Public Inquiry, and Brent Council had still not arranged for that Inquiry to be held when its planning consent for the Morland Gardens development expired at the end of October!

 

The June 2022 call-in meeting of Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did agree that the contract should be awarded (although Mr Lunt had failed to tell them that he could not award it, as the “Contractor Framework” under which it was offered had expired at the end of May 2022!). A contract was actually awarded a couple of months later, under a different Framework, after a rushed decision by Brent’s Cabinet.

It is that contract which still poses a risk to the survival of the 150-year old beautiful and historic landmark building at 1 Morland Gardens. The Council has only to look at its own published words to know that it should not allow the unnecessary demolition of this heritage asset: 

 

From Brent’s May 2019 “Historic Environment Place-making Strategy”

 

I believe that Brent can and should make a commitment over “Altamira”, so I sent the following open email in reply to the response I’d received on 15 December:

 

‘Dear Mr Martin and Ms Wright,

 

Thank you for your email this afternoon, in response to my open email of 4 December. I have to say that I am disappointed by it.

 

I realise that the Council is carrying out a review to consider its options for the site at 1 Morland Gardens, and that recommendations will then be made to Brent's Cabinet. 

 

The assurance I requested does not need to wait for the outcome of those considerations, as it does not seek any commitment that there are no circumstances in which Brent Council would demolish the heritage building.

 

The assurance I am seeking is not an unreasonable one (given the Council's heritage assets policies and the fact that the flawed original consent, allowing the demolition of Altamira, has now expired). I will set out its terms again:

 

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.

 

I hope that, having reconsidered my request on a fair reading of the assurance I am seeking, Ms Wright can now give that assurance on behalf of Brent Council. Thank you. Best wishes, 

 

Philip Grant.’

Have a go at this Wembley Christmas Picture Quiz!

 Guest post by Philip Grant

It began during lockdown in 2020, and since then Wembley History Society’s Christmas Picture Quiz has become a bit of tradition, which has been shared with “Wembley Matters” readers. If you fancy testing yourself with this year’s quiz, the “question paper” is attached below.

 

There are ten photographs again this year, each with two questions. All of the pictures come from the area covered by the former Borough of Wembley (which from 1934 included the previous Urban District of Kingsbury), which the Society was set up to promote the history of in 1952. That is the part of the London Borough of Brent north and west of the River Brent.

 

The Borough of Wembley coat of arms.

 

See how many questions you know the answers to. Please feel free to share the quiz with friends and family living locally, if you think they’ll enjoy it too.

 

The quiz is just for fun (no prizes!), and you’ll get the answers on this blog site in a few days’ time. And as before, the more questions you don’t know the answers to, the more you’ll discover then about Wembley. Good luck!

 

Philip Grant

 

 

Brent is NOT ditching the blue bags

There was a flurry of activity and some pretty pithy comments on Next Door earlier today when a resident posted a copy of a letter that seemed to suggest that the blue bag for the collection of cardboard and paper was to be ditched by Brent Council and mixed recycling re-introduced.

Cllr Georgiou checked it out and Brent Council confirmed it just referred to one specific street because of particular practical collection difficulties.

The 3,400 blue bag petition is due to be presented at Brent Cabinet on January 16th 2024.

Brent Cyclists call for public support for Wembley Central - Harlesden cycling route: why and how

Guest post by Brent Cycling Campaign

 

 

TfL and Brent Council are currently consulting on walking, wheeling and cycling improvements between Wembley Central and Harlesden stations. At Brent Cycling Campaign we are really excited about this proposal which represents an important opportunity for Brent and North West http://London.You can read about the proposals here: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/wembley-harlesden

 

New proposals to improve walking and cycling between Wembley Central and Harlesden are an important opportunity for Brent. Brent Cycling Campaign welcomes and supports plans by Transport for London and Brent Council for safer streets, new cycle lanes, and new pedestrian crossings.

 

After more than three years of planning and public engagement TfL published the new plans on 10th November. The plans connect Wembley Central to Harlesden with a cycle route on quiet roads and protected space between Sylvia Gardens and First Drive across the North Circular. The proposals, which do not reduce the number of lanes for drivers, follow an existing route from London Road onto Tokyngton Avenue, after crossing the North Circular people on bikes are diverted through quiet streets around Stonebridge Park to reach Harlesden Station on Acton Lane.

 

The junction of Harrow Road with the North Circular is the most dangerous junction for pedestrians in Brent. Between 2018 and 2022 there were over 90 collisions along Harrow Road, in January 2022 a person was killed crossing the road at the junction with the North Circular, and since 2018 there have been over 100 injuries and deaths on roads along the route. With quicker and safer pedestrian crossings, and a new protected cycle lane, the improvements to the A404 / A406 junction will be an example of how Brent can be transformed into a welcoming borough for active travel.

 

 

Throughout the plans new and improved pedestrian crossings and footpaths will help connect communities. Some side roads will have raised entrances, meaning people using mobility aids or with pushchairs do not need to go up and down steep kerbs. Extended bus lanes will mean faster, more reliable bus journeys. The new route will make it much easier to access Bridge Park Leisure Centre, with two new pedestrian crossings over the main road where people are not left stranded on pedestrian islands. TfL also plan to improve the lighting and CCTV in Tokyngton Recreation Ground and Stonebridge Park making these areas safer for people traveling alone and after dark.

 

The new proposals miss some important opportunities for better walking and cycling in Brent, for example by not continuing the improvements along Harrow Road to Wembley Triangle, and by not reducing the number of motor vehicles on residential roads. However, we at Brent Cycling Campaign welcome these plans, and hope they represent the start of significant investment in better active travel in Brent. If you would like to have your say and support the proposals please see the consultation on TfL’s website.

 

This article authored by Brent Cycling Campaign first appeared in the Brent and Kilburn Times.

 

Student accommodation wins narrowly over local housing need at Brent Planning Committee

 The representations made by Cllr Ihtesham Afzal, (Wembley Hilll ward), set the context for consideration of the Wembley High Road  planning application for two student blocks, together housing 639 students,  at Wednesday's Planning Committee. Another student block at Fairgate House, adjacent to the site, of 349 beds, 35% affordable,  has already been consented. The blocks  of 20 and 22 storeys are wedged between Wembley High Road and the Chiltern railway line.

Cllr Afzal questioned why student accommodation when there was a crying need for housing  for the thousands of people on Brent's housing list.  I have embedded the video of the discussion that resulted above as it rehearses many of the arguments on both sides of the debate and important for future applications.

A particularly controversial aspect of the proposal was that unlike Fairgate House, the scheme proposed no affordable student housing at all, based on a viability assessment. 

The developer, Regal London, claimed exceptional reasons for the lack of affordable accommodation and offered £3.95m for affordable housing elsewhere as well as  £70k towards local parks.

Some councillors were perplexed by the developer's claim that there are 5 higher education institutions in the borough with a total of 4,695 students that needed accommodation and 37 higher education institutions within a convenient 45 minute journey with a total of 176,100 students. Why was Brent expected to take more than its fair share of students?

The Committee chair, Cllr Matt Kelcher, suggested that students may want purpose-built accommodation in their first year but later, having made friends, they wanted to move together into shared private rental.  The developer argued the opposite - that building such accommodation would mean that students would move in from privately rented accommodation freeing it up for families.

There was also concern about ther loss of light to neighbouring new developments as well as to the flats above the shops on Wembley High Road. and the loss of trees on what was once (and still is on the other side of the railway) a green corridor along the embankment.

Councillors were told that replacement trees (planting and maintenance) cost an average of £2,500 per tree. 58 trees woudl be lost and 41 new trees planted. The latter were of superior quality councillors were told.

Curiously, some of the councillors who had asked the most incisive questions voted for the scheme, including the Chair, Matt Kelcher, and the Vice Chair, Saqib Butt (the Council leader's brother) LINK. I leave it to readers to watch the video and see if the questions they had raised had been adequately answered.

Four councillors voted in favour of the scheme and three against. 

Those voting against an application are required to give their reasons:

Cllr Chappell - no affordable student application provided and did not agree that there were exceptional reasons for this.

Cllr Dixon - the site allocation as student accommodation was problematic, disagreed that there were exceptional circumstances to justify lack of affordable accommodation. The £3.95m to be provided towards provision of affordable housing elsewhere was not sufficient - should be renegotiated. Doesn't meet some of Brent's standards.

Cllr Maurice - site would be better off as flats as Brent has such a shortage of housing and the site could be better utilised: 'I am not happy with the whole thing'.

 

 

The proposal now has to be considered at Stage 2 by the London Mayor. No comments so far. LINK

The inexorable march of tall towers down Wembley High Road to continue at Planning Committee tonight

 

The view from down Wembley High Road - emerging developments are the thin blue lines in he distance including the former Copland School site

 

Brent planners are recommending that the Planning Committee tonight approve two new towers on Wembley High Road wedged between the Chiltern railway line and the existing buildings at 390-408 High Road (also due to be redeveloped).

 

The two towers are 20 and 22 storeys high (up from a previous application of 13 and 17 storeys in May 2023) and will provide 639  student beds.  None will be available but Brent planners suggest settling for £3.98 million in lieu (c£6,2050 per bed) :

No affordable student accommodation is proposed. Instead, the applicant is proposing a £3.958 million cash payment in lieu towards the borough’s affordable housing programme. Absence of affordable student accommodation is contrary to London Plan Policy H15. However, a payment in lieu would enable the scheme to contribute towards addressing the need for low cost rent affordable housing, for which there is a great need at a local and strategic level. Further clarification and discussion is required to confirm how the payment would be spent to ensure net additional affordable housing as well as the expected delivery timescales. GLA officers are scrutinising the applicant’s Financial Viability Assessment  to ensure that the cash payment represents the maximum viable financial contribution that the scheme can support.

 The applicant claims to have consulted widely but the consultation resulted in only 6 written comments:

A newsletter was sent to c.2, 400 residents and businesses, inviting them to two organised public exhibition events (held nearby at Patidar House on 5th and 8th July). The events were also publicised in theBrent and Kilburn Times, to ensure maximum visibility and a dedicated on-line community hub was launched at wembleygreenway.co.uk, to enable interested parties to view the proposals and leave feedback online. Freepost and project email addresses have also been publicised to facilitate options for further feedback. Six written responses were received from residents and local businesses, with a summary of their comments contained within the Statement of Community Involvement. (SCI)

 

The Brent Planning Portal does a little better with 8 objections, including this one:

I strongly object to proposed 2 storey block of Student Housing on Wembley High Road.


The proposed development will bring no additional benefit to local residents. There is already an extreme lack of affordable housing and this proposed development will do nothing to alleviate the problem. Instead this will exacerbate it, as well as put a significant strain on already over stretched local services, traffic and primary health care, council services as well the water & sewage network.


Wembley High Road is in the 91st percentile for High Air pollution with the WHO limited exceeded on PM 2.5, PM 10 and NO2 (source: https://addresspollution.org/results/66e0177a-b70b-4179-8e76-8b78463618e2). This proposed development will only increase the levels with no mitigations in place to reduce the traffic, air, dust and noise pollution for local residents whilst these works are due to take place.


This development does not address:


1. Affordable and secure housing for residents of Brent.


2. Traffic management and impact to clean air. Action to reduce air, dust and noise pollution. When construction is taking place there are no mitigations in place to actively reduce the affect on air pollution.


3. Mitigations to overstretched local services such as schools, GPs, Dentists, Youth services and sports clubs, Council services etc.


4. Ensuring that disruption is kept to a minimum. Maintaining footpaths, roads, bus stops so that local residents can go about their daily business safely and without it being impeded by works.

Building works in such a tight spot, off a very busy road,  are likely to be a nightmare and over a considerable amount of time as building commences on that site and the buildings fronting the street. The developer intends that most deliveries to the students units from a High Road bay rather than to the building itself.

 

There is a gesture towards greening in the provision of a Green Way from the Uncle Building to the site:

 

How long will the trees to the right of the site survive?

Planning officers are keen to prove the necessity of student accommodation to meet growing needs and their report is full of detailed statistics.  LINK. Together with the other site there will be 988 student bedrooms in this small area.

Concerns over tall buildings and densification are dismissed as this is a designated tall building zone (Local Plan) in an urban environment. Reduction in daylight is to be expected in such circumstances and sufficient separation between the buildings is claimed.

Planning officers conclude (my highlinghting):

The proposed development would make efficient use of the land in a sustainable location, in line with the NPPF, and is an appropriate form of development within Wembley Town Centre and Wembley Growth Area, consistent with the aims of the site allocation policy. This is identified as an appropriate location in the Borough where tall buildings can be located, and the proposed scale, massing and appearance of the buildings would relate well to the existing and emerging context. As the report acknowledges, owing to the constrained nature of the site and dense urban pattern of development in the locality, both existing and emerging, there is expected to be some adverse impacts on daylight and sunlight conditions to some existing residential properties, as well as others coming forward in the immediate vicinity. 

 

As the report acknowledges these adverse effects would be noticeable in some cases, but commensurate with development of this form within the high density urban environment that is both existing and emerging in the locality, and such impacts which are to be expected, as well as other planning harm identified (i.e. net loss of trees) must be balanced against the overall planning benefits of the proposal. Whilst the proposal is not in accordance with London Plan policy H15, due to the absence of affordable student accommodation on site, the payment in lieu that will be secured (£3.958m) which is agreed as the maximum viable, and which is to be utilised for the delivery of additional C3 affordable homes in the Borough, for which there is the greatest need at a local and strategic level, offers greater public benefit to the Borough.

 

Overall, and on balance, the impacts identified that are to be associated with the proposed development would it is considered be clearly outweighed by the overall planning benefits that would follow, including the provision of student accommodation to meet identified demand and this contributing positively towards the housing targets within the Borough, wider economic benefits, provision of the new east to west pedestrian route (as per the site allocation policy), new public realm, urban greening measures, sustainable drainage, sustainable transport contributions and biodiversity net gain (including off-site contribution)

 

Latest on Vale Farm Swimming Pool repair

There is a resolution date for repair of the gas pipe for the 14^th December.

 

Once the repair has been completed and gas connection restored, it will take a while for the swimming pool to be slowly brought back up to the correct operating temperature.

 

 

Customers of the leisure centre are being kept informed by Everyone Active.