Tuesday, 9 January 2024

Homelessness applications in Brent could reach 8,200 this year - the highest ever as South Kilburn regeneration faces viability risk

The Quarter 3 Financial Report LINK going to Brent Cabinet on Monday repeats the Quarter 2 warning that the seriousness of the Council's financial position cannot be understated.  The £13m overspend if sustained will require a transfer from unallocated reserves. Any overspending not dealt with will transfer to 2024-25 requiring more cuts in spending as the ability to use reserves will be reduced.

The scale of the financial challenge for 2023-24 and 24-25 us sucj that in addition to work currently underway to implement savings in 2023-24 and toidentify new savings proposals for 2024-25 and 2025-26, the Council will need to implement further measures to control expnditure in order to address the underlying issues that the Council's net expenditure is significantyl greater that available sources of in-year funding.

The main financial pressure continues to be on housing where there is an overspend of £13.2m:

The forecast overspend of £13.2m is made up of the following pressures:

  • £4.2m overspend associated with the cost of providing temporary accommodation

  • £8.9m attributable to a loss of housing benefit subsidy from the Department of Work and Pensions as a result of the type of accommodation being used to house those that are homeless

  • £0.6m is a result of additional Council Tax liability on empty properties that are being considered for temporary accommodation use

  • (£0.4m) is a saving attributable to spending controls, mainly staffing related

 Homeless presentations at the Civic Centre  have increased by 38% compared to this time last year, households in temporary accommodation in Brent are up by 13% and people in Bed and Breakast hotels has inreased to 639 (377 families and 262 single people):

This is an increase of 16% when compared to the previous quarter. If demand continues at the same rate, the service will received a total of 8,200 applications this financial year, an average of 158 applications every week, which is the highest it has ever seen.

Adding to the housing financial pressure is housing benefit subsidy loss for payments made. Where a family occupies more than one room in a hotel and the rooms are not connected only one room will be eligible for subsidy.  The loss of subsidy is forecast to rise to £8.9m in 2023-24 (£3.7m in 2022-23). 

As previously reported the Council is consulting on ending the South Kilburn Promise (Landlord Offer) for new temporary accommodation households and the use of void properties on the South Kilburn Estate for temporary accommodation. At present the Council incurs a £0.6m charge on South Kilburn void properties.

The South Kilburn regeneration itself is threatened by a viability crisis:

Viability is a key challenge for the remaining developments within the South Kilburn programme. The Single Delivery Partner approach is being explored to help provide certainty for the programme and provide economies of scale for the delivery partner.

South Kilburn is due to deliver 2,400 homes of which 50% are supposed to be 'affordable'. The reports says the programme is about halfway through with 10 sites delivered or on site and 7 sites remaining to be delivered.

Given what has transpired in the Wembley Housing Zone Cecil Avenue development (see Philip Grant's article) we might expect some tenure changes increasing the proportion of private housing. 

If that becomes the case there will be a big question mark over whether South Kilburn council tenants promised a place in the new housing when their blocks were demolished, or are due to be demolished, will actually get one.

Elsewhere the Council has announced a decision  for the Corporate Director for Comminities and Regeneration to make an offer to Londonnewcastle to acquire the Falcon pub site, previously seen as a key site forming a gateway to South Kilburn.  Its acquisition along with the car park opposite led to the HS2 vent being controversially located within the estate next to a primary school.

There is just one sentence on the Bridge Park Regeneration which was featured recently on Wembley Matters LINK:

The Bridge Park Regeneration project is still in the early stages of developing options for delivery and is forecasting £0.8m of slippage.

That sounds rather like 'back to the drawing board'.

Other 'slippages' where expenditure goes into next financial year or beyond are in the Public Realm and total £7.7m:

The Public Realm is forecasting a variance for the overall programme of £7.7m, the majority of this is being slipped into future years (£7.5m). There are circa 135 Public Realm live Capital projects. Some of the bigger re- profiling includes Highways, where there is a £2.6m budget slippage. The key projects in Highways are Wembley High Street [sic] and Church End, which have experienced delays due to ongoing contractor disputes with FM Conway (£1.5m), the hostile vehicle mitigation has slipped by (£0.4m) as the works are reactive, and Highway Structures (£0.4m) where a new consultant is being appointed to take the programme forward. The parks programme is forecasting slippage of £1.6m which has been pushed out partly due to the pitch improvement project (£0.4m). Delivery is dependent on Thames Water's agreement to increase the drainage system and discussions are ongoing. Healthy Streets has had some scheme delays resulting in a £1.1m slippage, including (£0.5m) slippage on North End Road. Landscaping is forecasting a slippage of £0.7m, primarily due to procurement challenges. The new waste bin trial has been scheduled for 2024/25 resulting in £1.5m being reprofiled into FY24/25. 

The dispute with FM Conway deserves further investigation.

There is more slippage in the  Housing General Fund:

At Q3, the Housing General Fund is forecast to spend £30.6m below the current year budget. This position is due to slippage, i.e. expenditure originally targeted this financial year now moved to future periods. This quarter is reporting significant slippage at: Church End, £8.0; Clock Cottages, £1.7m; Edgware Road, £6.8m and Fulton Road, £14.1m. The underlying theme for this level of slippage is the viability challenges due to changing regulatory requirements (additional staircases and fire safety measures) and a generally worsening economic environment

In her foreword to the Financial Report Cllr Shama Tatler writes:

It is important to recognise that over a decade of austerity on Local Government has reduced the ability of councils to withstand issues like the increased pressures on Temporary Accommodation. The impact of the disastrous mini-budget last year on interest rates and inflation has significantly impacted the supply of housing and on delivering council services. Brent will continue to take decisions to ensure a sustainable budget can be delivered while safeguarding key services.

It is also worth noting that Brent will receive the second lowest Local Government Finance Settlement in London for 2024/25. Despite the significant challenges Brent faces, the Government has not allocated any support for homelessness pressures. Pressures on Local Government finances are going to continue to be difficult as a result of the decisions of this Government. 

 

The full report lists all the measurea that have been or are being taken to tackle the financial shortfall and includes changes in services, attempts to reduce service costs via procurement measures, restructures and cuts in staffing. LINK


Wembley Housing Zone – Brent’s Cecil Avenue development downsized!

 Guest post by Philip Grant in a personal capacity

 

Revised East and South elevation drawings for Brent’s Cecil Avenue development.

 

It may not look any smaller, but as disclosed in the Affordable Housing Supply Update report to December’s Brent Cabinet meeting, the number of homes to be built on the Council’s Cecil Avenue development has been reduced. The reason is the need for second staircases, because of new fire regulations introduced as a result of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

 

I mentioned this in a guest post last month, Brent’s Affordable Council Housing – open and transparent?, when I wrote: ‘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!’ 

 

I’ve now received a reply to a Freedom of Information request, and can provide the answer. Cecil Avenue is part of a wider Wembley Housing Zone (“WHZ”) project, together with Ujima House, on the opposite side of the High Road. Brent Council’s contract with Wates in March 2023, said each would have half (152 out of 304) of the WHZ homes. However, all of the Wates homes, for private sale, would be on the more desirable Cecil Avenue site. 

 

The revised split of the Cecil Avenue homes, from Brent’s 8 January FoI response.

 

These figures show that although there will now be thirteen fewer homes on the Cecil Avenue development, those going to Wates will only be 2 less, while Brent Council loses 11. This is partly compensated for by the revised proportion of family-sized homes going in Brent’s favour. The Council will now have 71.4% of the family-sized homes, rather than 68.75%, but the total number of family-sized homes at Cecil Avenue has been reduced from 64 to 42, as part of rearranging the unit sizes to fit in the staircases.

 

Surely these changes would need planning permission? They did! An application was submitted on 21 August 2023, but Brent’s planners treated it as “non-material” amendments to the original consent given in February 2021, so that it was not publicised or consulted on. The application was approved by the Delegated Team Manager on 30 October 2023.

 

The heading to the Delegated Planning report, October 2023.

 

The report on this application (23/2774) makes clear that despite the WHZ involving two sites and a combined building contract, for planning purposes the Cecil Avenue application must be looked at on its own. Brent’s planning policies require that large housing schemes, such as this one, should provide 50% affordable housing. These revised proposals only provide 36.7% (and only 48.5% if the whole WHZ scheme is taken together). If it had been 50% at Cecil Avenue, there should have been at least 118 affordable homes on the site, not just 87 out of 237.

 

Brent’s affordable housing planning policies require a tenure split of at least 70% of the affordable housing to be “genuinely affordable”. The 56 homes at London Affordable Rent (“LAR”) out of 87 “affordable” Council homes is only 64.4% (62.4% over the WHZ scheme as a whole). Despite not meeting either of Brent’s planning policy percentages for affordable homes, the amended application was accepted. 

 

The only “good news” this time is that 21 of the 28 family-sized homes for Council tenants at LAR (down from 35 family-sized, on the figures supplied to me last July) will be 4-bedroom homes, with private gardens. There is currently a desperate need for these large family homes for affordable rent in the borough. It is unfortunate that, because of more than two years delay by Brent Council, in going down the “developer partner” route, it will be nearly three years before these homes are actually available! And LAR rent figures exclude service charges, which could bring the total bill up to as much as 80% of local open market rent level.

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

35.6% of the “affordable” Council homes at Cecil Avenue will be what is known as Intermediate homes. This is a summary of what these 31 homes comprise:

 

Extract from the approved documents for the amended application 23/2774.

 

As shown in the information provided to me above, 28 of these homes will be for shared ownership (despite there being a surplus of these in the borough, it not being affordable to most people in housing need – a household income of £60k a year required to afford a 1-bedroom flat - and shared ownership being a “scam”!). What about the 3 “other affordable” homes? The planning application documents show that these Brent Council homes are intended to be sold, by Wates, as Discount Market Sale (”DMS”) homes.

 

The DMS homes must be ‘offered to Eligible Purchasers for sale at a price that is no more than 80 (eighty) per cent of Open Market Value, with the Council retaining and holding the remaining equity under an equitable charge’. To be an eligible purchaser for one of these 1 or 2-bedroom flats you would (on current figures) need to have an annual household income of no more than £90k. Affordable?

 

It is not just the number of homes (and affordable homes) which has been downsized in the amended plans for the Cecil Avenue development. In his reply to an email I had sent him about the Council’s Cecil Avenue development in February 2022 (that’s nearly 2 years ago!), Cllr. Muhammed Butt spoke proudly of ‘a new publicly accessible open space during this latest development. A positive outcome for the residents of Brent.’

 

My guest post including his reply did concede that: ‘The approved plans for the Cecil Avenue site include a courtyard garden square. This would mainly be for the benefit of residents, but there would be public access to it, through an archway from Wembley High Road.’ All of the tower block developments, existing and planned, along this stretch of the High Road, will bring thousands of extra residents within a short walk of this ‘publicly accessible open space.’ However, that too has been downsized:

 

Paragraph from the Delegated Planning Report on application 23/2774.

 

The amended external amenity space may just ‘exceed the minimum requirement’ for play space needed by the reduced number of future occupants at Cecil Avenue, but there will be little to spare for the other ‘residents of Brent’. 

 

Delay and downsizing. What more can go wrong for a Brent Council housing scheme, on Council-owned land, which received full planning consent on 5 February 2021? If only Brent had got on and borrowed the funds to build it, at the very low interest rates at then, and hired a contractor straight away, they could have had 250 (or at least 237) affordable Council homes at Cecil Avenue available in 2024, rather than 87 in late 2026.

 


Philip Grant.

Friday, 5 January 2024

Community groups face delay in decisions on Community Grants Fund applications


 Souce LINK

Community organisation who undertook a lot of work in preparing applications to fund their activities face a frustrating delay in hearing whether they have been successful as a result of staffing issues and the volume of applications.

The Community Grants Fund is the new name  for the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy which is derived from payments made be developers.

Councillors were told by Brent Council that they had received 146 applications in total for the Community Grants Fund which is a 100% increase when compared to the last standard NCIL round in 2021.

 

The initial due diligence checks by the grants team have been completed.  However, due to capacity within the Brent Council team and the volume of applications received there will be delays in completing the initial project assessments.  

 

As a result, the Council will not be able to meet the scheduled internal department review dates and the Brent Connect panel dates that were scheduled to be held in February and March. 

 

This means that the team are still at the 12-18 weeks stage of the process shown in the above table.

 

Officers are continuing to work through the initial project assessments and have informed all applicants of the delay.

 

Councillors will be provided with a with a further update on the timeline before the end of January 2024.  In the meantime, all the meetings scheduled will be removed from your calendars.

 


Gas leak and sink hole in West Kilburn - list of streets where occupants can return home

From Brent Council

Emergency services were called to a gas leak on Malvern Road in West Kilburn at around 4.45pm on Thursday 4 January.

A burst water main and a 24-inch gas main rupture has caused a sink hole measuring around 4 metres in diameter and 4 metres deep. Around 190 properties were evacuated, and a 25-metre safety cordon was put in place.

The council worked closely with the gas company, Cadent, Thames Water and the London Fire Brigade to set up a rest centre for those affected.

Cadent has confirmed households on the following streets can now safely return home:

  • Stafford Close, Stuart Road
  • McDonald House, Malvern Road
  • John Ratcliffe House, Chippenham Gardens
  • Wiggins House, Malvern Road
  • Doveberry Place, Malvern Road
  • Shirland Road
  • Malvern Road (numbers higher than number 55 only)

A safety cordon remains in place on the following roads and households are not able to return home yet:

  • Malvern Road (numbers 54 and below)
  • Malvern Mews

If your property is within the cordon and you are unable to stay with friends and family, please visit the rest centre at Immaculate Heart of Mary Church, 1 Stafford Road, NW6 5RS.

Cadent engineers will continue to work in the area for the next few days to ensure the security of the gas pipes in and near the hole. A road diversion remains in place.

Sufra Food Kitchen - Monday to Friday in locations across Brent - Just turn up for free 3 course meal - open to the whole community

 


Just turn up for a tasty free meal every Tuesday at Park Lane Methodist Church- no referral needed





Plan a Growing Space in Church End Saturday 20th January

 


Thursday, 4 January 2024

What is happening with the Bridge Park/Unisys redevelopment? Apparently, nothing.

 

Unisys House, Stonebridge

The death of Bridge Park fighter Leonard Johnson in November 2023 made me wonder where we were with redevelopment of the Bridge Park Leisure Centre and Unisys House. Unisys has been empty for decades and Brent Council made a deal with General Mediterranean Holdings to sell off its land as part of a scheme to redevelop the leisure centre and build housing and a hotel.

The community in Stonebridge waged a court battle over ownership of the Bridge Park Centre which had been set up by local black activists. The council won and seemed ready to go ahead. 

Questions were asked by Dan Filson, then chair of the Scrutiny Committee, about the wisom of dealing with GMH in the light of concerns over its owner and the companies Luxembourg registration. There was a concern about the effectivess of due diligence carried out by the Council and even Cllr Mike Pavey, then Deputy Leader of the Council,  had his doubts.

In an email in response to Philip Grant he said:

'I take your point on ethics and I for one am not comfortable dealing with companies registered in tax havens. Realistically though this is a much wider issue than this development. When you have companies like Starbucks, Amazon and Next routinely avoiding tax, it becomes difficult to hold this against any single company. We need national Government to lead a crackdown on legal tax avoidance and to insist on clearer transparency requirements. I don’t like dealing with companies registered in tax havens, but considering the size of the problem, I think the solution must come from the Government.’

 In September 2020 Ian Lunt, then the newly appointed Director of Regneration, signed off a Deed of Variation with Stonebridge Real Estate Development. LINK The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler. Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted

 Agreement to exchange a Deed of Variation to the Bridge Park Conditional Land Sale Agreement with “Stonebridge Real Estate Development” a UK-registered subsidiary company that has General Mediterranean Holdings SA as the parent company and Harborough InvestInc as the second guarantor.

The Decision Form states that Shama Tatler, Cabinet Member for  Property, Planning and Regeneration was consulted. However no details of the variation were released to the public:


Stonebridge Real Estate Development 2021 accounts have an interesting reference to its parent company GMH and its second guarantor Harborough Invest Inc LINK:

So it appears the Brent Council is in partnership with a subsidiary company that has doubts over its relationship with its guarantors: 'there can be no certainty that the support will continue to be available for the forseeable future.

This is GMH's account of the development and the agreement with Brent Council (undated) on its website LINK under the heading 'Land Development - UK':

Bridge Park Development

Known as Bridge Park, the 6.7 acre site area is located in easy walking distance from Stonebridge Park Station, in North West London. The development will have a Gross Development Value of circa £500 Million and will include more than 800 residential units, retail and a 198 room hotel, allied to a new leisure and community complex.

The development’s title ownership is divided between two parties, GMH Group, with the other being the London Borough of Brent (‘Council’). The GMH owned land includes a pair of imposing curvilinear office towers, one of which is ideally suited to conversion into a hotel and the other to residential, perhaps multi-family.

The Council ownership has an existing leisure and community centre and other commercial office buildings that are proposed to be demolished and replaced by a state of the art sports hall, swimming pool and other new community facilities, all of which are to be delivered by the Council at its expense.

GMH has exchanged contracts with the Council, subject to planning, to purchase the majority of the Council Land and develop both its ownership and the balance of the Bridge Park site into a new urban location with a range of much needed housing (including affordable), retail, a prominent hotel, as well a leisure and community facilities complex.

This important regeneration will bring jobs, homes and new community facilities, fully exploiting the great public transport links and general accessibility and prominence of the site.

The development seems a long way away now in 2024.

I asked Brent Council where the development was at present and they responded:

We don't any current planning applications. If that changes there will of course be public consultation.

Also there aren't any reports planned for Cabinet on the Forward Plan.